The Future of the Zimbabwe Exemption Permit (ZEP): Call for Clarity and Justice
Date: 13 January 2026
Author: Alfred Kandengwa (ZEP Holder & ZIF Member)

Overview
The Zimbabwe Exemption Permit (ZEP) began as a humanitarian and pragmatic response to regional instability, enabling Zimbabwean nationals already in South Africa to live and work lawfully, study, and contribute to the economy. Over time, however, ZEP holders have been left in prolonged uncertainty—renewals, grace periods, and policy shifts—while continuing to pay taxes, build businesses, and raise families rooted in South Africa. This moment calls for constitutional fidelity, economic realism, and moral courage.

Why the ZEP Matters
ZEP holders are integral to South Africa’s social and economic fabric:
Longstanding residence: Many have lived in South Africa for 15–20+ years.
Lawful participation: They arrived legally, remained compliant, and pay PAYE, VAT, UIF, SDL.
Entrepreneurship & jobs: They run businesses and employ South Africans.
Family and community: They own or rent homes, and their children attend local schools and consider South Africa home.


The contradiction: A community good enough to work, pay taxes, and stabilize sectors—yet kept “temporary” without a clear pathway. That tension undermines dignity, legal certainty, and social cohesion.

Constitutional and Legal Principles
South Africa’s Constitution protects human dignity and administrative justice for everyone. Policies that:
Remove or restrict work rights
Disrupt schooling and family life
Create persistent uncertainty and fear are difficult to reconcile with constitutional principles of equality, reasonableness, and fair process. Prolonged lawful residence, coupled with integration and contribution, generates legitimate expectations that the state must address through lawful, proportionate, and non‑arbitrary measures.


Economic Realities
Destabilizing ZEP holders is fiscally and operationally counterproductive:
Tax base: ZEP holders contribute billions in direct and indirect taxes.
Public finance: They do not receive social grants or state benefits, yet strengthen revenue and demand.
Business impact: Removal or uncertainty shrinks the tax base, disrupts businesses, expands informality, and raise costs.
Skills & productivity: They fill gaps across sectors, sustaining value chains and local employment.

Sound governance should regularize contributors, not penalize them for compliance.

Regional and Moral Responsibility
Zimbabwe and South Africa share history, labour migration, trade, and family ties. A fair, humane, and lawful policy towards ZEP holders honors South Africa’s role in the region and supports investor confidence, social stability, and continental solidarity.


What Should Happen Next
After a decade or more of lawful residence, rational options include:
A clear pathway to permanent residence for qualifying holders.
Points‑based regularisation aligned to contribution and integration.
Sector‑specific absorption for critical skills and established enterprises.
Family unity safeguards, particularly where children are settled in South Africa.
These measures are constitutionally aligned, economically sensible, and morally defensible.


Key Court Findings from ZIF Litigation (Summary)
This section distills holdings from Magadzire & ZIF v Minister of Home Affairs (Part A, Gauteng Division, Pretoria, 28 June 2023) and the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment (6 June 2025). These strengthen the legal case for a clear, rights‑compliant ZEP solution.

High Court (Part A – Interim Relief)
Prima facie rights established: The Court found ZIF raised serious constitutional questions (human dignity, equality, family life, children’s interests) and administrative‑law grounds warranting review, including procedural unfairness and failure to consider relevant factors.
Ultra vires concern: The Court recorded a substantive ultra vires challenge—whether the Minister’s reliance on section 31(2)(b) of the Immigration Act to terminate/non‑extend exemptions was lawfully exercised, including the requirement of “good cause.”
Irreparable harm & balance of convenience: Given families, schooling, jobs, and property interests, the Court held that irreparable harm was reasonably apprehended and that the balance of convenience favored ZEP holders pending review.
Interim protections: The order interdicted arrests and deportations, constrained adverse treatment under sections 29, 30, and 32, and permitted entry/exit pending Part B—thereby preserving the status quo.

Source: Magadzire and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, Gauteng Division, Pretoria, Case No. 2022‑006386, 28 June 2023 (Part A).

Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA, 6 June 2025)
Appeal dismissed: The SCA dismissed the Minister’s appeal against the Part A interim order, with costs (including two counsel).
Live issues remain: The Court held the ZIF Part B case raised distinctive grounds not disposed of elsewhere (including ultra vires—lack of “good cause” and material error of law).
Constitutional posture: The SCA recognized that the declaratory relief sought by ZIF—rooted in constitutional rights—could lead to different remedial outcomes than merely remitting decisions; these remain for adjudication in Part B.
No redundancy: The interim order was not redundant, because ZIF’s case pendente lite involves live, unresolved legal questions, including the scope of executive power under section 31(2) and the constitutional limits to altering long‑standing exemption regimes.

Source: Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Vindiren Magadzire and Another (Case No. 245/2024), 6 June 2025, Supreme Court of Appeal (ZASCA 81).

Implication for Policy: Until Part B is finally adjudicated, constitutional and administrative‑law constraints on terminating or altering exemptions remain active. Any future policy must be consultative, rights‑compliant, and grounded in proper statutory authority with demonstrable good cause.

ZIF’s Position ZIF calls for a transparent, humane, and lawful framework that:
Recognizes longstanding residence and contribution;
Provides certainty through regularisation pathways;
Upholds the best interests of children and family unity;
Aligns with constitutional values and regional responsibility.

What You Can Do
Add Your Voice
Share your perspective on how a fair ZEP solution should work.
Tell your story—families, businesses, jobs, and community ties matter.

Engage & Support
Comment below with your proposals for regularisation pathways.
Join ZIF’s mailing list for updates on Part B proceedings and policy engagements.
Partner with ZIF (legal, academic, business, community) to co‑design practical solutions.

Call to Action (Comments)
What should happen to the ZEP—and why?
Do you support a pathway to permanent residence?
How should points‑based regularisation measure contribution and integration?
What family‑unity safeguards are vital for children and mixed‑nationality households?
Which sector‑specific routes best reflect skills and entrepreneurship?

Post your comment below. Constructive, rights‑based proposals help shape a durable, lawful, and humane solution.

Contact ZIF
Email: info@zif.org.za
Website: zif.org.za
Media enquiries: members@zif.org.za

References (Case Documents)

High Court (Part A): Magadzire & ZIF v Minister of Home Affairs and Others — Gauteng Division, Pretoria, Case No. 2022‑006386, 28 June 2023.
SCA: Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Vindiren Magadzire and Another (Case No. 245/2024), 6 June 2025 (ZASCA 81).