The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) has made a U-turn and responded to the March and March campaign.
This change of heart comes after the foundation initially refused to reply to a letter from the March and March campaign.
On May 21, Sunday World reported that the March and March campaign was planning a protest against the HSF.
In their letter, the campaign accused the HSF of protecting undocumented immigrants. They wrote:
Protecting undocumented immigrants
“March and March, a movement of ordinary South Africans fighting to reclaim our country from the chaos of undocumented immigrants, has a simple question for you: Whose side are you on?
“You’ve spent years dragging the government to court, fighting for the rights of undocumented foreigners while our communities drown in the consequences.
“Our clinics are collapsing under the weight of overcrowding. Our jobs are stolen by employers exploiting cheap, undocumented labour.
“And our women and children fear walking to school because gangs, many led by foreign nationals, rule the streets. Your legal victories don’t feed our families. They don’t keep us safe.”
At the time, the HSF made it clear that they would not entertain the March and March campaign’s letter.
This response made things worse as the March and March campaign intensified their efforts by launching a petition.
The petition, which calls for the closure of the HSF, has gathered over 11, 000 signatures.
Combined with pressure on social media, this forced the HSF to reconsider and issue a formal response.
HSF denies accusations
Kalim Rajab, Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, responded as follows:
“The Foundation has been accused of focusing more on the rights of undocumented migrants than on the needs of South Africans.
“This is simply not borne out by the facts. Over the past 15 years, HSF has appeared in approximately 20 court cases. The vast majority of these have focused on issues affecting South African citizens.
“Cases we have pursued have involved state capture, land reform, the unfinished business of the TRC, the judiciary, policing, a free press, and service delivery. More information regarding HSF’s litigation can be found here.
“The fact is that only two cases have involved migration. And neither involved undocumented or ‘non-legal’ migrants.
Foundation defends its work
“The first case concerned Zimbabwean Exemption Permit holders. [They] are documented under a lawful government programme. And they have been residing legally in South Africa for over a decade.
“The second case focused on the rights of children affected by asylum regulations. It is important to state clearly: asylum seekers are not undocumented foreigners. South African law recognises the right of individuals to seek asylum.
“Those with pending claims are legally entitled to remain in the country while their applications are being processed.
“In the past year, HSF has made submissions on local government structures, electoral reform, state-owned enterprises, non-trial resolutions for crimes of corruption, and South Africa’s bail system.
“HSF remains committed to defending constitutional democracy, accountability, and human dignity in South Africa.
Campaign not convinced
“We are a South African organisation that works transparently and independently. To ensure that the principles of the Constitution and the rule of law are upheld for all.”
However, radio host Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, who leads the March and March campaign, told Sunday World that the response was not satisfactory.
“We take note of their response, but it came very late and with arrogance. Our questions are still not answered. And we still want them out of the country,” said Ngobese-Zuma.
The HSF was approached again for comment but did not respond.
