South Africa’s immigration debate has become increasingly polarised. Discussions often centre on border security, undocumented migration, crime, employment and pressure on public services.
Yet beneath the political rhetoric lies a practical governance problem that receives far less attention: the South African state simply does not have the capacity to monitor immigration compliance everywhere, all the time.
The reality was acknowledged, indirectly, in recent government efforts to strengthen inspection and enforcement capacity.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has repeatedly emphasised the importance of deploying additional inspectors and strengthening enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with labour, immigration and regulatory requirements.
The interventions are necessary. However, they also raise an important question: Even if the government recruits hundreds of additional inspectors, will it ever be enough?
The answer is probably no.
South Africa is a country of more than 60 million people, thousands of workplaces, sprawling urban settlements, extensive rural areas and one of the most complex migration environments on the continent. No government department, regardless of resources, can effectively monitor every workplace, informal business, residential area or potential immigration violation.
This is where the conversation needs to shift.
Rather than viewing immigration governance solely as a function of border control and law enforcement, South Africa should begin exploring it as a shared responsibility between the state and society.
One of many potential mechanisms for achieving this is citizen-based monitoring (CBM).
CBM has long been used in South Africa to strengthen accountability in service delivery. Communities monitor water provision, housing projects, healthcare facilities, municipal performance and public expenditure.
The principle is straightforward: citizens often observe governance failures before government institutions become aware of them. Rather than replacing the government, citizens provide information that enables the government to respond more effectively.
The same principle can be applied to immigration governance.
This does not mean encouraging citizens to stop people on the street, inspect IDs or determine immigration status. Such actions would be illegal and risk fuelling xenophobia and discrimination.
Instead, CBM creates structured mechanisms through which citizens can communicate information, concerns and observations to relevant authorities for investigation and verification.
In practice, communities are generating valuable intelligence every day. Residents often become aware of human trafficking operations, document fraud syndicates, labour exploitation practices, criminal networks facilitating illegal migration and suspicious activities long before these reach law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, there are often no formal mechanisms for systematically collecting, assessing and acting on this information.
The result is a significant loss of community-generated intelligence.
A study examining immigration enforcement in eThekwini revealed that officials face significant operational challenges, including limited access to shared databases, delays in verification processes, inadequate technological resources and fragmented coordination between institutions.
The findings suggest that immigration governance is not merely a technological challenge but a broader governance problem requiring better information flows and stronger collaboration.
Technology remains important. Through the department of home affairs strategic plan 2025-2030, the government has committed itself to modernising identity management and immigration systems.
The proposed Draft Digital Identity Regulations, the broader digital transformation programme and the planned Electronic Travel Authorisation system all point towards a more sophisticated immigration management system.
Yet technology should be viewed as an enabler rather than the solution itself. The real value of technology lies in its ability to connect communities, institutions and information systems. Reporting platforms, mobile applications, community safety portals and digital hotlines could provide structured channels through which citizens submit information while allowing trained officials to conduct verification and enforcement.
International evidence supports this approach. The Migration Governance Indicators developed by the International Organisation for Migration highlight the importance of stakeholder participation and institutional coordination.
Similarly, the Migration Gover-nance Data Portal emphasises that effective migration governance depends on trust, information sharing and collaborative governance arrangements.
South Africa’s own policy framework also supports broader stakeholder participation. The White Paper on International Migration recognised that migration governance involves multiple actors beyond the state.
More recently, the proposed Revised White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection seeks to modernise the country’s migration governance framework in response to changing realities.
The challenge is ensuring that citizen participation does not become citizen policing.
South Africa’s history demands caution. Poorly designed monitoring systems could encourage racial profiling, xenophobia and the targeting of foreign nationals based on appearance, language or nationality.
Any CBM model must therefore be grounded in constitutional values, human rights protections and clear accountability mechanisms.
This is where lessons from citizen-based monitoring research, open digital governance and emerging digital migration reforms become critical.
Citizens should report activities and concerns. The government should investigate. Enforcement should remain the responsibility of authorised officials. Rights should remain protected.
The future of immigration governance will not be secured by
technology alone. It will depend on the state’s ability to build partnerships with communities, strengthen public trust and create mechanisms through which citizens can contribute responsibly to governance processes.
The question is not whether
South Africans should be involved in immigration governance. They already are.
The real question is whether the government will create systems that allow that participation to occur lawfully, responsibly and effectively.
If South Africa is serious about improving immigration governance, it must look beyond borders and biometrics. It must also look towards its citizens.
Dr Lesedi Senamele Matlala is a public governance scholar, evaluation specialist and senior lecturer in public management, governance and public policy at the University of Johannesburg. He is the chair of the South African Monitoring and Evaluation Association and has published widely on digital governance, citizen-based monitoring, public accountability and state responsiveness in South Africa.