ANC using migrant ploy as an escape route, political experts say

The ANC’s sudden populist approach towards illegal migrants is an escape route because it has erred on immigration policy, political experts say.

The governing party was also under pressure from the opposition and civil society groups opposed to illegal immigrants accessing free basic services and jobs in South Africa while authorities do nothing about it.

Home Affairs Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has admitted the ANC has no immigration framework and that, since 1994, all laws and regulations have been passed without one.

The ANC submitted the issue at the party’s national policy conference in July, for a resolution to be passed.

The experts were commenting on this week’s controversial statements by MEC for health in Limpopo Dr Phophi Ramathuba, who accused illegal foreign nationals of abusing the province’s healthcare system.

ALSO READ: ‘I stand by my words’: Limpopo Health MEC says SADC countries must pay for their citizens

Political analyst Dr Ralph Mathekga said: “It’s not the government’s policy to take a populist stance on an immigration issue.

“The MEC’s attitude is a strategy by the ANC to be seen to be siding with the people, while knowing that the source of the problem is a bad policy and declining capacity in state institutions.

“It’s a great escape route for government to distance itself from the problem it caused.”

The ANC has been under mounting pressure from ActionSA, whose leader, Herman Mashaba, has taken a hard line on illegal migrants.

A similar stance was taken by the Patriotic Alliance and African Transformation Movement, while Operation Dudula activists engage in street protests.

Legal analyst, attorney and author Modidima Mannya said Ramathuba had not violated the law by trying to stop illegal migrants accessing local health facilities for non-emergencies. But some people believed the MEC was not upholding the laws of the country.

“South African law does not make provision for SA to provide health services for nationals of other countries except in cases of emergencies,” he said.

Section 27 of the constitution refers to “everyone”, but this is qualified in Section 2(c) of the National Health Act.

The Act specifically provides that the national health system was established to fulfil the rights of South Africans to the progressive realisation of their constitutional right to access healthcare services.

“It is therefore incorrect to suggest there is any legal obligation on the state to provide health services to those who enter the country illegally,” Mannya said.

The expert said Zimbabwe legally prohibited foreigners from accessing its health facilities unless it was an emergency.

“Section 76 (1) of the Zimbabwean constitution provides that ‘every citizen and permanent resident of Zimbabwe has the right to access basic healthcare services’.”

In SA, illegal migrants were able to access healthcare when “not every citizen of SA is entitled to free healthcare”.

“Section 4 of the National Health Act makes it clear that only certain categories of persons are eligible for free healthcare at state expense. It is inconceivable that when the rights of citizens to free healthcare are limited, persons who hardly reside in the republic be entitled to it.”

Motsoaledi recently said 60% of patients in Steve Biko Academic Hospital’s maternity section were foreigners.

A previous report by former Gauteng MEC for health Dr Gwen Ramokgopa, showed that for every 10 maternity patients admitted to Rahima Moosa Hospital in Joburg, six were foreign mothers, indicating the bulk of Gauteng’s healthcare budget was going to foreigners.

– ericn@citizen.co.za