Cape Town - A Ugandan woman’s appeal against being listed on the Visa Entry and Stop List (V-list) has been successful in the Western Cape High Court to be reviewed by the Department of Home Affairs.
This comes after Florence Najjemba’s workers and relative visa was allegedly fraudulent after it expired. She had only found out about this when she tried to travel to Botswana.
Najjemba had approached the court to review and set aside the decision of the Minister of Home Affairs who had deemed her a prohibited person in terms of the Immigration Act.
Najjemba initially visited South Africa in 2009, accompanying her sister on a short-term visitor’s visa.
She subsequently successfully applied for a relative’s visa which was valid for two years.
In 2011, she applied for an extension of her relative’s visa which was refused and she accordingly left South Africa for Uganda. In 2013, Najjemba returned to South Africa on a visitor’s visa to attend a church conference.
While in the country, she applied for a work visa with the assistance of a pastor.
“The Department alleges that the applicant was issued with a relative’s visa on May 31, 2013 but did not produce a copy of this visa. The (department’s director-general) who overturned the answering affidavit on behalf of the respondents, alleges that it is due to the fact that this visa could not have been extended which motivated Najjemba to commit fraud by obtaining a fraudulent visa.
“Najjemba, on the other hand, contends that she remained in South Africa after the expiry of her visitor’s visa by virtue of an Immigration Directive 43 of 2010 (‘the directive’) which was issued as a result of the department’s inability to decide applications timeously.
“Najjemba declared that she feared returning to Uganda due to statements she made in favour of sexual minorities and LGBTQI persons (which is criminalised in Uganda). She therefore submitted an application for asylum on May 30, 2014 and was subsequently granted a visa in terms of section 22 of the Refugees Act. She periodically renewed the section 22 visa and sojourned in South Africa on the basis of this visa ever since,” the judgment read.
Najjemba had then taken various further steps to verify her visa, including attending the department’s head office but she did not receive any further outcome in response to her queries, the judgment detailed.
Judge Selwyn Hockey said: “Counsel for the appellant contends that the minister disregarded the applicant’s constitutional right to be with her family, as well as the best interests of the applicant’s minor child. It appears from the papers before me, however, that at the time when the minister considered the applicant’s appeal, she was in a life partnership arrangement, but had no children.
“By the time that this application was launched, she was pregnant. The minister could therefore, at the time, not have considered the best interests of a minor child. If the applicant did in fact give birth to a minor child, this is certainly a factor that the minister should consider in his re-consideration of this matter.
The applicant should be allowed to supplement her application with such information, such as the birth of a child, as may be relevant for a proper consideration of her appeal,” Judge Hockey said.
Cape Times