A petition demanding the dissolution of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has reached approximately 20,000 signatures, fueling a contentious national conversation about the constitutional body’s effectiveness and perceived impartiality.
The SAHRC, established as a Chapter 9 institution under South Africa’s Constitution, is tasked with promoting and protecting human rights for all individuals within the country’s borders. While the Commission affirms its dedication to upholding constitutional mandates and ensuring accountability, petition organizers argue the body has drifted from representing the interests of South African citizens.
Lwazi Gwijane, the activist and entrepreneur who launched the petition, articulated the core concerns driving the campaign. According to Gwijane, the SAHRC’s constitutional mandate includes protecting the rights of South Africans and legal residents, advocating for those rights, investigating public grievances, and holding government institutions accountable. However, Gwijane contends the Commission has not fulfilled these obligations in critical areas affecting citizens.
On housing, Gwijane pointed to alleged corruption within the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), claiming that undocumented migrants have accessed housing subsidies intended for South African nationals. Gwijane further noted that informal settlements continue to expand despite the RDP’s original goal of reducing such communities.
Regarding education access, Gwijane raised concerns that South African children are being denied school placements, attributing part of this pressure to undocumented migration. During the discussion, Gwijane referenced an estimate of approximately 15 million undocumented individuals in South Africa—a figure that was challenged due to the inherent difficulties in verifying statistics on undocumented populations. Gwijane initially mentioned higher figures before settling on the 15 million estimate.
The petition also addresses tensions surrounding informal retail, commonly known as spaza shops. Gwijane alleges that when community activists raise concerns about businesses allegedly operated by undocumented immigrants, the SAHRC has pursued legal action against the activists rather than investigating the underlying socioeconomic complaints. Reference was made to tragic incidents in Soweto where children died after consuming products from informal retailers, with Gwijane questioning why the Commission did not produce reports holding relevant authorities accountable for food safety and regulatory oversight.
The constitutional framework governing the SAHRC was central to the discussion. Section 184(3) of the Constitution requires the Commission to submit annual reports on the realization of specific socioeconomic rights: housing, healthcare, food, water, social security, education, and the environment. A report released in September 2025 was noted during the exchange. It was also clarified that enforcement of immigration legislation falls under the Department of Home Affairs, while business compliance matters involve the Department of Labour—distinct from the SAHRC’s monitoring and advocacy function.
South Africa’s Constitution recognizes the rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and all children within the country—including those without documentation—to access basic education. The SAHRC’s position, as described in the discussion, is that its mandate is strictly bound by these constitutional provisions.
Gwijane emphasized that the petition does not target immigrants who enter and reside in South Africa through legal channels. Rather, the concern centers on the perception that the Commission prioritizes the interests of undocumented individuals over those of citizens, potentially intensifying social tensions around access to housing, education, and healthcare services.
The SAHRC was invited to participate in discussions regarding these allegations but was unavailable to provide comment at the time. The Commission has previously stated its commitment to protecting constitutional rights for all people within South Africa’s jurisdiction, in accordance with its founding mandate.
As the petition continues to gain traction, the debate reflects broader societal questions about institutional accountability, equitable resource distribution, and the practical application of constitutional obligations within a complex migration landscape.
