Here’s the email to copy & send (1/2) Complete your details on nr. 7 To: [email protected]
Subject: Complaint against SABC News: inaccurate statement of law on deportation of rejected asylum seekers (broadcast of 10 October 2026)   Dear Registrar,   Formal complaint: SABC News, "Immigration Crisis | Why rejected asylum seekers can't be deported"   I lodge this complaint under the BCCSA Free-to-Air Code of Conduct for Broadcasting Service Licensees (and, for the online version, the Online Content Services Code). It concerns a broadcast by the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). I confirm that I personally watched the programme (Segment was posted on YouTube).   1. Broadcast details Broadcaster: South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) Channel: SABC News (DStv Channel 404) Programme / segment title: Immigration Crisis | Why rejected asylum seekers can't be deported Guest: Mr Moeketsi Seboko, Founder and Director, MS Immigration Advisory Date and time of broadcast: 10/10/2026, at approximately 15:10 p.m. Online publication: SABC News YouTube channel, first available on 10/10/2026 Evidence link: youtube.com/watch?v=6uCHu1CJ… Timestamp of statement: 02:05 – 02:33   2. The statement complained of During the segment, the guest stated:
"Home Affairs has no right or cannot deport anyone whose application has been rejected because there are international conventions we signed that we will not do such when a person's application has not been approved."
The presenter did not challenge, qualify or correct the statement. The broadcaster's own title for the segment,"Why rejected asylum seekers can't be deported", repeats the claim and presents it to viewers as established fact.   3. Why the statement is factually and legally incorrect The statement misrepresents South African law: 1Refugees Act 130 of 1998, section 24(5): an asylum seeker whose application is rejected as manifestly unfounded, abusive or fraudulent, and confirmed by the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs, must be dealt with as an illegal foreigner under section 32 of the Immigration Act. An applicant rejected as unfounded must be dealt with under the Immigration Act unless he or she lodges an appeal. 2Refugees Regulations, 2018, regulation 16(4): an asylum seeker who fails to lodge an appeal, or whose appeal is rejected, must be referred to an immigration officer to be dealt with as an illegal foreigner under the Immigration Act. 3Immigration Act 13 of 2002, section 34: an immigration officer may arrest an illegal foreigner and must deport him or her, subject to procedural safeguards. 4Director-General, Department of Home Affairs v Irankunda [2026] ZACC 18 (12 May 2026): the Constitutional Court confirmed that a person whose asylum application has been finally rejected is to be dealt with under the Immigration Act. It also held that the Refugees Act gives no general right to submit later applications. 5Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town v Minister of Home Affairs [2026] ZACC 30 (7 July 2026): the Constitutional Court held that non-refoulement protection applies as long as the claim to refugee status has not been finally rejected after a proper procedure on the merits. The judgment protects access to the asylum process. It does not prevent the deportation of applicants whose claims have been finally rejected. 
South Africa's obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1967 Protocol and the 1969 OAU Convention, incorporated through section 2 of the Refugees Act, prohibit returning a person to a country where he or she faces persecution or serious harm. They do not prohibit deporting a person whose claim has been fairly and finally rejected. The guest's statement turns a protection that applies while a claim is pending into a blanket ban on deportation after rejection. That is materially incorrect.