A ruling for ruling better
South Africa’s ruling African National Congress has posted a spotty record during its three decades in power. Yesterday it received sharp notice from the country’s highest bench that the challenges of governing are no excuse for suspending individual rights and the rule of law.
In a unanimous decision, the Constitutional Court struck down recent amendments to the nation’s refugee law that revoke legal protections for asylum-seekers if they failed to renew their visas before they expire. The government argued it needed the measures to process more asylum applications efficiently and clear a long backlog. The justices disagreed.
“Bureaucratic circumstances” that “infringe the right to dignity [or] unjustifiably limit the rights of children” violate international laws embedded in South Africa’s Constitution, they argued.
Ordinary South Africans are likely to find that message reassuring. They are weary of corruption, joblessness, constant electricity cuts, and crime. On the eve of an election year, three recent polls showed the African National Congress heading toward defeat for the first time since 1994.
But the court’s decision has a broader resonance, too, at a time when some of the world’s most established democracies are grappling with similar issues of immigration and international law. The Geneva Conventions require nations to uphold the dignity of individuals fleeing danger in their own countries. They prohibit discrimination or forced return. All signatory nations are required to uphold them.
The rising tide of migrants globally, however, is straining that commitment. In Britain, the Supreme Court ruled last month that a proposal to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda violates international law because the government would not be able to guarantee the safety of those expelled. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak narrowly averted a revolt within his own party yesterday over revisions he proposed to satisfy the justices.
Simultaneously, the French Parliament yesterday rejected immigration reforms sought by President Emmanuel Macron. Among its provisions, the bill would lift a ban on expelling migrants who arrived in France as children and make it easier to deport foreigners suspected of being criminals. In the United States, meanwhile, House Republicans have tied further military aid for Ukraine to tighter asylum rules and security measures along the southern border.
Amid these challenges, the court rulings in South Africa and Britain have challenged the notion that abiding by international law is a burden. And Claire Hédon, France’s defender of rights, argues that protecting rights for refugees is in fact vital to public stability.
“A balance must be struck between, on the one hand, the sovereign right of states to decide on rules governing entry and residence on their territory, taking into account the imperative of safeguarding public order, and, on the other hand, the necessary protection of fundamental rights,” she wrote today in Le Monde. That balance rests on “essential legal principles, particularly the principles of dignity and equality.”
In South Africa, acting Judge Ashton Schippers wrote, the Constitution “asserts dignity ‘to invest in our democracy respect for the intrinsic worth of all human beings.’” The court’s ruling has set defense of innocent life as a starting point for renewing confidence in government.
