18 years documentation struggle with Home Affairs

In 2011, Van Hillegondsberg appeared in court 11 times before Home Affairs (DHA) realized they had not criminal evidence against him.

He said, “On 20 August 2013, I handed a notice of motion that was supposed to be finalised in October through a court hearing. The DHA breached the court rules because they opposed the court hearing without giving their notice of motion to oppose my application within the time frame.”

“To date, they did not file their motion of opposing papers explaining why they are opposing my application to the court to grant me permanent residency, which should be done within 30 days. This has compelled me to take the matter to the high court.”

Van Hillegondsberg told GroundUp: “I am looking forward to the court case, and I feel much relieved, because at the court, I will deal with a judge who will look into the constitution and will not dismiss the Public Protector report findings as lies and fabrications as Home Affairs did.”

“My first application was rejected on 26 May 2003 by the minister then, Mapisa Nqakula. From there on I dealt with five different ministers who still did not rule in my favour. In 2008, there was Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, in 2012, Naledi Pandor, and 2014 Malusi Gigaba. I’ve seen a systematic abuse of power within the department.”

In April 2012, the Public Protector in a report titled Unconscionable Delay found that Home Affairs had failed the family and abused its power.

The Public Protector recommended that the department set things right with the family by invoking ministerial powers and changing the family’s temporary residency status, and urged the department to issue the family with permanent residency in South Africa by way of an exemption application.

In June 2012, Van Hillegondsberg submitted an exemption application.

On 19 November 2012, DHA rejected his application.

On 18 July 2013, Van Hillegondsberg was ordered to leave the country. He refused and applied for an interdict saying the minister should review the application.

He believes the DHA violated the law by refusing to grant him permanent residency since he has two adopted South African children.

“It is ridiculous DHA questions the High Court Order which deemed us fit and granted us guardianship … It is incorrect to say I rely on a Public Protector report in my application. I was also never charged with immigration related offences.”

GroundUp is reporting on the case for the third year now:

See our reports from 2012 and 2013.