The South Gauteng High Court in Johan­nes­burg dis­missed Ahmed Mohammed Ali’s applic­a­tion to review and set aside the Stand­ing Com­mit­tee for Refugee Affairs’ decision to with­draw his refugee status.

In a recent judg­ment, Judge Mokate Vic­tor Noko found that Ali had failed to chal­lenge one of the legal grounds on which his refugee status was with­drawn and had trav­elled abroad in cir­cum­stances that amoun­ted to re-avail­ment of pro­tec­tion under the Refugees Act.

The court held that the decision to with­draw his refugee status was ration­ally con­nec­ted to the inform­a­tion before the author­it­ies and that there was no evid­ence of bias.

Fraud­u­lent cer­ti­fic­ate dis­covered

Ali, a Somali cit­izen who entered South Africa in 2008 after flee­ing per­se­cu­tion by Al-Shabaab, was gran­ted refugee status on Octo­ber 7 that year.

After resid­ing in South Africa, he applied to be cer­ti­fied as an indef­in­ite refugee, a step that could even­tu­ally allow him to apply for per­man­ent res­id­ence.

The court heard that Ali enlis­ted the ser­vices of a per­son who claimed to be an immig­ra­tion agent and prom­ised to exped­ite his applic­a­tion.

Ali sub­sequently obtained a cer­ti­fic­ate and, on Decem­ber 15, 2017, applied for per­man­ent res­id­ence.

However, while pro­cessing the applic­a­tion, the Depart­ment of Home Affairs dis­covered that the cer­ti­fic­ate was fraud­u­lent and rejec­ted his per­man­ent res­id­ence applic­a­tion on July 9, 2018.

The author­it­ies later ini­ti­ated pro­ceed­ings to with­draw his refugee status, cit­ing the fraud­u­lent cer­ti­fic­ate.

Home Affairs dis­cov­ers visit to Somalia

On March 5, 2024, the author­it­ies issued a notice of their inten­tion to with­draw Ali’s refugee status and invited him to sub­mit writ­ten rep­res­ent­a­tions.

Dur­ing an inter­view on Novem­ber 7, 2024, it emerged that Ali had trav­elled to Hargeisa on March 2, 2017, and returned to South Africa on May 15, 2017.

The author­it­ies regarded the visit as re-avail­ment of pro­tec­tion under the Refugees Act, which provides that a per­son may cease to qual­ify for refugee status if they vol­un­tar­ily re-avail them­selves of the pro­tec­tion of their coun­try of nation­al­ity.

The law also provides for cir­cum­stances in which trav­el­ling abroad in viol­a­tion of con­di­tions endorsed on refugee travel doc­u­ments may be deemed re-avail­ment. Ali argued that his visit was not vol­un­tary in the rel­ev­ant legal sense and that he had neither sought nor obtained effect­ive pro­tec­tion from Somalia.

He main­tained that Hargeisa was in a “no-man’s land”, which he described as Soma­li­l­and.

Refugee says he trav­elled to visit sick father

In his court papers, Ali said he trav­elled to Hargeisa to visit his ter­min­ally ill father, who died and was bur­ied on May 13, 2017.

He argued that his three­month stay should not be regarded as re-avail­ment because the trip was motiv­ated by human­it­arian cir­cum­stances.

His legal rep­res­ent­at­ive, J Malapane, argued that the author­it­ies had failed to estab­lish the require­ments for with­draw­ing refugee status on the basis of re-avail­ment.

The law­yer also con­ten­ded that the decision was irra­tional, that the author­it­ies were reas­on­ably sus­pec­ted of bias and that the with­drawal viol­ated the prin­ciple of non-refoule­ment, which pro­hib­its return­ing refugees to coun­tries where they face per­se­cu­tion.

Judge rejects explan­a­tion human­it­arian

However, Noko found that Ali had not men­tioned vis­it­ing his sick father in his writ­ten rep­res­ent­a­tions sub­mit­ted to the author­it­ies in May 2025.

The explan­a­tion was raised only in his court papers in Feb­ru­ary 2026.

The judge said Ali had failed to explain why he omit­ted the reason for his visit when he ini­tially made rep­res­ent­a­tions against the with­drawal of his refugee status.

Noko described the explan­a­tion as an after­thought and an attempt to mould his case to fit the require­ments of the United Nations refugee frame­work.

The judge also found that the three-month visit could not be regarded as an occa­sional visit.

“Without more, this can­not be viewed as an occa­sional visit; it appears oppor­tun­istic and indefens­ible,” Noko said.

The court found that Ali had trav­elled vol­un­tar­ily, knew that cit­izens were pro­tec­ted in Hargeisa and had accessed that pro­tec­tion.

Court says deport­a­tion would not breach non-refoule­ment

Noko also rejec­ted the argu­ment that Ali’s deport­a­tion would viol­ate the prin­ciple of non-refoule­ment.

The judge said South Africa did not recog­nise Soma­li­l­and as an inde­pend­ent coun­try and found that Hargeisa was in Somalia and safe, with cit­izens pro­tec­ted there. The court con­cluded that Ali could be depor­ted to that part of Somalia without viol­at­ing the prin­ciple of non-refoule­ment.

Noko said Ali’s applic­a­tion was bound to fail because he had not chal­lenged the with­drawal of his refugee status on the basis of the fraud­u­lent cer­ti­fic­ate.

The judge also found that his trip to Hargeisa fell within cir­cum­stances pre­scribed by the Refugees Act and reg­u­la­tions as re-avail­ment of pro­tec­tion.

The applic­a­tion was