READER LETTER | Motsoaledi right in challenging ZEP

Home Affairs Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi is correct to appeal the judgment by the Gauteng High Court, which found his prerogative to terminate the Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP) invalid, unlawful and unconstitutional.

The judgment is problematic in many ways to irk some in society and spoil the social cohesion project. Methinks it has no relation to reality. Surely, an appeal would contain a rapidly developing consternation for sanity to prevail.

The court presupposes that there’s a need for consultation whenever the government elects to control an influx of undesirable persons. In this case, the government proactively regularised undocumented Zimbabweans and offered them a temporary stay with a dispensation to explore other immigration options available to them.

Put simply, the ZEP provides its holder a status to sojourn the country for a stipulated period only. That is why a holder will be guilty of an offence if the validity of the permit has expired. So, the question of consultation does not arise. 

Likewise, any expectation of citizenship or an equivalent option by a holder is mischievous and illegitimate. Nowhere in the world would a competent court have entertained such a defective petition. How can people who fled their own country entitle themselves rights to demand conditions of stay from a host country outside an existing act of goodwill extended to them?

It is an entitlement mentality of an ungrateful bunch. The reality is that there are a few ZEP holders against a multitude of illegal migrant workers and hawkers suffocating the local economy and public healthcare by extension.

The status quo would have long-term consequences for citizens. Yet an aloof judiciary arrogated to itself some power to govern the country through unintelligible judgments. That is a recipe for state paralysis.

Morgan Phaahla, Vosloorus, Ekurhuleni