4 November 2025

Kopanang Against Xenophobia & Others v Operation Dudula & Others

Case: Kopanang Against Xenophobia & Others v Operation Dudula & Others (Case No. 44685/2023)

Court: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Date of hearing: 10 & 11 June 2025 at 10h00

Judge: Adams J

Status: Finalised (judgment handed down on 4 November 2025)

Last updated: 4 November 2025

*****

Case overview: Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia, the South African Informal Traders Forum, the Inner City Federation, and Abahlali BaseMjondolo (“Applicants”) instituted legal proceedings in the Johannesburg High Court against Operation Dudula and various government respondents. Their application addressed constitutional violations affecting foreign nationals and challenged the government’s failure to uphold its legal obligations to foreign nationals in South Africa.

The Applicants, who were represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI), sought an order prohibiting various actions by Operation Dudula, including threatening, intimidating, and harassing people based on their nationality both on- and offline, denying people access to healthcare services, and removing students and teachers from schools due to their nationality. The Applicants argued that this conduct infringed on multiple constitutional rights of foreign nationals in South Africa. The Applicants further contended that government respondents, including the South African Police Service (“SAPS”), the Department of Home Affairs, and the Department of Justice and Correctional Services, failed to protect foreign nationals from such violations.

Operation Dudula did not oppose the application. The Minister of Home Affairs and SAPS opposed the parts of the application that pertained to them. The South African Human Rights Commission (“SAHRC”) made submissions on the appropriate interpretation of the Immigration Act, particularly as it pertains to children’s rights.

Several civil society organisations were admitted as amici curiae (friends of the court) in this matter, including the International Commission of Jurists (“ICJ”) and SECTION27. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders was also admitted.

Media Monitoring Africa (“MMA”), represented by Power Law Africa, successfully applied to be admitted as an amicus curiae in the matter. MMA’s intervention focused on contextualising Operation Dudula’s activities within the digital landscape. In its submissions, MMA emphasised two key points:

The first is that the rights that apply offline must also be upheld online, necessitating a careful balancing of competing rights and interests in the digital era; and
Operation Dudula’s online conduct must be understood within the broader South African context, with attention to the consequences and impact of online hate speech and incitement.

Drawing on domestic and international law, MMA highlighted how hate speech, incitement, and disinformation through social media can disproportionately target marginalised groups, particularly foreign nationals, eroding their rights to dignity and equality. MMA’s submissions illustrated that as digital platforms increasingly shape public discourse, the legal framework governing online expression must align with constitutional protections against discrimination and violence.

On 4 November 2025, the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg, handed down judgment and addressed vigilantism, xenophobia, and the limits of public authority in enforcing immigration laws. Adams J held that only immigration and police officers are empowered under section 41 of the Immigration Act to request identity documents from individuals and explicitly interdicted Operation Dudula and its leaders from engaging in such conduct or any acts of intimidation, harassment, eviction, or hate speech against foreign nationals. The Court specifically prohibited hate speech and incitement on social media platforms, recognising that Operation Dudula routinely used online spaces to mobilise violence, spread xenophobic rhetoric, and encourage unlawful acts against non-South Africans.

While rejecting claims that the SAPS and Department of Home Affairs colluded with Operation Dudula, the Court found that the government failed to adequately implement its National Action Plan to Combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, ordering it to take concrete steps to operationalise it. The Court also clarified that section 41 must be read as applying only to public spaces, requiring reasonable suspicion before demanding identification, and protecting children from unlawful detention.

In relation to MMA’s amicus intervention, the judgment reinforces that social media cannot be a shield for hate speech or vigilantism, affirming that all persons in South Africa, regardless of nationality, are entitled to dignity, equality, and protection under the Constitution.

Advocates Deborah Mutemwa and Akona Pearl Mehlo were on brief for MMA.

Court Papers: