A Palestinian man, arrested for being undocumented, is seeking to have criminal charges dropped in South Africa after being granted temporary asylum. An urgent application was brought in the Durban High Court by his legal representative, attorney Yolanda Akram, who argues that ongoing conflict in Gaza left him with no safe options for return. Ms. Akram stated, "However, due to the ongoing war, the destruction in Gaza, and the practical impossibility of safely re-entering and living there, this was not a realistic option." She added that the man "was entirely alone in South Africa. He had no family, no support structures, and no knowledge of how to access the asylum system." This challenging personal circumstance shows the urgency of his legal fight to regularize his status and avoid criminal prosecution.
According to Ms. Akram, the man was "extremely fortunate as he had no funds and the bail money was provided by fellow detainee/s." This act of solidarity notes the precarious situation he found himself in upon arrest. Subsequently, he received assistance from Gift of the Givers, a humanitarian organization known for its extensive work in providing aid and support to vulnerable individuals. Ms. Akram noted that the state prosecutor maintained, "even if he were granted asylum, ‘nothing would change’ and that the State could not withdraw the matter merely because he had now obtained legal status in the country.’" This stance from the prosecution indicates a firm position against the withdrawal of charges, setting the stage for the current legal battle. She contends that with a Section 22 Refugee Visa, "he is protected by Section 21(4)(a) of the Refugees Act and it is unlawful to continue criminal proceedings against him." This legal argument forms the crux of the asylum seeker's defense, aiming to leverage the protections afforded by refugee law against the criminal charges.
Journey to South Africa and Arrest
The Palestinian asylum seeker was outside Gaza on October 7, 2023, having obtained temporary employment in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). He resided lawfully in the UAE based on a work permit, indicating he had a legitimate reason for being outside his home territory at that time. His work permit subsequently expired, which meant he was no longer legally permitted to remain in the UAE. This situation led to him facing potential detention and deportation consequences for overstaying his immigration status in the UAE, forcing him to seek alternatives for his safety and legal residency.
He arrived in South Africa at the OR Tambo International Airport on June 7, 2025, where he was issued a visitor’s visa. This initial entry was lawful, allowing him a temporary stay in the country. However, this visitor’s visa expired on September 5, 2025, rendering him undocumented in the country. This expiration marked the beginning of his irregular immigration status in South Africa. On December 29, 2025, authorities arrested him near the Durban beachfront on grounds of being an illegal foreigner. He was subsequently charged with being an illegal foreigner and taken into detention, initiating the criminal proceedings he is now fighting. This arrest and subsequent charge are central to the ongoing legal dispute regarding his right to asylum and protection from prosecution. On February 9, 2026, the court granted him bail, allowing him temporary release from detention while his legal matters proceeded.
During this period, Gift of the Givers provided assistance to him, including offering translators and practical support. This support was key for the man, who, as Ms. Akram noted, was "entirely alone in South Africa" and had "no knowledge of how to access the asylum system." On March 3, 2026, he formally completed his Declaration of Intention to Apply for Asylum, a critical step in initiating his asylum claim and seeking legal protection under South African law.
Legal Battle for Asylum and Case Withdrawal
On March 23, 2026, the asylum seeker attended the Durban Refugee Reception Office (DRRO) but was initially refused assistance in processing his application. This refusal added a layer of complexity and frustration to his efforts to secure legal status. He was informed that he had to undergo a ‘good cause’ interview, as stipulated by Regulation 8(3) of the Regulations to the Refugees Act, 2020. This requirement added a procedural hurdle to his asylum process, demanding that he provide a compelling reason for applying for asylum outside the standard timeframe. On April 14, 2026, he visited the home affairs department offices in Pretoria, seeking to advance his application, but was again refused assistance, further noting the bureaucratic challenges he faced.
Later, on May 7, 2026, representations were formally submitted to the National Prosecuting Authority respondents, requesting the withdrawal of the criminal charges against him. This formal request was a direct attempt by his legal team to halt the criminal proceedings based on his ongoing asylum application. The court subsequently adjourned the matter to allow for consideration of these representations, indicating that the legal system was at least willing to review the new information. Despite the ongoing legal efforts, on May 6, 2026, the man attended the DRRO to lodge his asylum application, only to be informed that the office was not accepting new applications at that time. This incident occurred just one day before the formal representations were submitted, illustrating the disjointed nature of his interactions with different government departments.
A positive development occurred on May 18, 2026, when he attended an interview at the home affairs department offices in Pretoria. During this interview, he was found to have successfully demonstrated the necessary good cause required for his asylum claim. This determination was a significant breakthrough, addressing one of the key procedural obstacles he had encountered. Following this, he was issued with a ‘Form 20’, which officially authorized him to remain in South Africa while his asylum application was pending. This document provided him with temporary legal status and protection from immediate deportation, a key step in his journey.
However, the criminal proceedings continued. On May 25, 2026, his criminal matter resumed in court, and the representations for withdrawal were declined. The court did not provide specific reasons for this decision, leaving the asylum seeker and his legal team to contend with the ongoing charges despite his progress in the asylum process. Subsequently, on June 9, 2026, he was issued a Section 22 Asylum Seeker Temporary Visa. This visa granted him temporary legal status in South Africa and was valid until June 23, 2026, providing a clear, albeit temporary, acknowledgement of his status as an asylum seeker.
Two days later, on June 11, 2026, the prosecution responded to the previous representations, stating that the senior public prosecutor had made a decision. The prosecution further indicated that a review of this decision could be requested from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)’s Office. In response to this, a formal request for review has since been lodged by the asylum seeker’s legal team, signaling their intent to exhaust all available legal avenues to challenge the continuation of the criminal charges.
Arguments for Dropping Charges
Section 21(4)(a) of the Refugees Act specifies that no legal proceedings may be initiated or continued against an individual who has formally applied for asylum until a decision on their application has been reached. This provision aims to protect asylum seekers from prosecution while their status is being determined, ensuring that they are not penalized for seeking refuge. The legal team argues that the continued criminal prosecution directly violates this statutory protection, as their client has formally applied for asylum and is awaiting a final decision. This core argument forms the foundation of their urgent application to the Durban High Court.
The Criminal Procedure Act, specifically Section 6(a), grants the prosecution the authority to withdraw a charge at any point before a plea is entered. This allows for discretion in continuing criminal matters, particularly when new circumstances, such as an asylum application and temporary legal status, arise. The asylum seeker's legal representatives are urging the prosecution to exercise this discretion, given the humanitarian context and the protections afforded by the Refugees Act. They contend that pursuing criminal charges against an individual who is seeking asylum, and who has been granted temporary legal status, runs contrary to the spirit and letter of South African and international refugee law.
The respondents in the legal matter include several key government officials and departments, reflecting the multi-faceted nature of the case, touching upon immigration, asylum law, and criminal justice. These respondents are the manager of the Durban Refugee Reception Office (DRRO), the Minister of Home Affairs, the director-general of the Department of Home Affairs, and the National Director of Public Prosecutions. Their involvement shows the systemic implications of the case, as it requires coordination and decision-making across various governmental bodies to resolve the asylum seeker's situation. The legal team for the asylum seeker is challenging the continuation of criminal charges, citing the protections afforded by the Refugees Act and the humanitarian considerations of his situation. The ongoing engagement with these various state entities shows the complexity of the asylum seeker's legal situation in South Africa, noting the intricate interplay between criminal justice and immigration policy.
Ongoing Proceedings and Future Outlook
The criminal trial for the Palestinian asylum seeker is expected to commence on June 25, 2026. This upcoming court date will mark a significant stage in the legal battle, as the asylum seeker's legal team continues to push for the withdrawal of criminal charges. The ongoing court proceedings follow the formal request for a review of the senior public prosecutor's decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)’s Office. The outcome of this review and the subsequent trial will determine the immediate future of the asylum seeker, who currently holds a Section 22 Asylum Seeker Temporary Visa, valid until June 23, 2026. This short validity period adds another layer of urgency to the legal proceedings, as his legal status could become precarious again shortly after his trial commences. The case notes the complexities faced by asylum seekers in South Africa navigating both immigration and criminal justice systems, particularly when their home countries are embroiled in conflict. The judgment in this matter could set an important precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, impacting other individuals seeking refuge in South Africa under challenging circumstances.
