This week’s post explores the concept of citizenship within the South African context, drawing upon the principle of Ubuntu. Through an analysis of the legal framework and current significant cases, the author highlights the disconnect between Constitutional ideals and their real-world application, especially concerning the acquisition of citizenship by non-citizens. In light of this, the author proposes a revaluation of citizenship through the lens of Ubuntu, advocating for more flexible and inclusive pathways to citizenship.

It was Sharma Robin who said words can inspire, and words can destroy, choose your words carefully. The power of words within our communities and legal spaces can never be understated. In this article, Felicity critically analyzes the use of the word ‘illegal foreigner’ within the South African legislative framework. She argues that the term holds a criminal undertone that can fuel stigmatisation, discrimination, and ultimately results in the violation of people’s human rights. Felicity advocates for the amendment of the Immigration Act .

In this week’s post, Dr. Hobden tackles an ongoing situation on Zimbabwean Exemption Permits (ZEP). The ZEP is a special permit allocated to undocumented Zimbabwean migrants to legalize their stay in South Africa. In a way, she is persuaded that the ZEP is revelatory of the boundaries of citizenship in South Africa. She argues that the ZEP issue demonstrates SA’s overtly rigid stance towards access to citizenship within the Republic.

For a number of years it has been observed that South Africa needs more people to study at vocational schools, including Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges. There has also been a steady increase in the number of learners qualifying for university admission, yet universities are unable to house them all. Thandeka Nokwanda Khoza argues that there is a need to close the gap in the market by destigmatising vocational training so that more learners apply to and attend TVET colleges.

In this article Adv. Quentin du Plessis analyzes how the South African Constitutional Court handled the Competition Commission of South Africa v Mediclinic case. The matter was an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Competition Appeal Court (CAC). In that regard, the Constitutional Court had to answer whether the CAC was in law, correct in interfering as it did with the findings of and remedy given by the Competition Tribunal to prohibit a merger in the private healthcare services sector.