In a shocking revelation, several organizations are taking a stand against xenophobic vigilantism in South Africa, where the lives of vulnerable people are at stake. But here’s where it gets controversial: the state’s response is under scrutiny.
Médecins Sans Frontières, Treatment Action Campaign, and Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (KAAX) are fighting to ensure immigrants and undocumented individuals can safely access healthcare at Rosettenville and Yeoville clinics. These organizations have filed an urgent case in the South Gauteng High Court, demanding the removal of xenophobic vigilantes who are blocking access to these clinics.
The situation is dire, as SECTION27, representing the plaintiffs, claims the City of Johannesburg, health departments, and the police are collectively failing to address the issue. They argue that patients, including pregnant women, infants, and children, are being denied life-saving treatments such as antiretroviral therapy, immunizations, and medication for chronic diseases.
And this is the part most people miss: the applicants are seeking a comprehensive solution. They want the court to order the respondents to take several actions, including ensuring safe access to the clinics, removing unauthorized individuals, deploying security guards, posting public notices, and reporting incidents to the police.
The case also aims for broader relief to tackle vigilantism in healthcare institutions across Gauteng. This follows reports of Operation Dudula’s xenophobic actions at various clinics, particularly in Rosettenville and Yeoville.
SECTION27 emphasizes the impact on the broader public, stating that untreated illnesses and disrupted medical treatment can have severe consequences for communities. Despite a recent interdict against Operation Dudula, the group allegedly continues its xenophobic activities.
The organizations argue that identifying vigilantes is challenging, and even if identified, they might be replaced by others. They believe the respondents have the power and authority to address the issue effectively.
In a twist, the national and provincial health departments claim they are not directly involved and should not be part of the proceedings. Meanwhile, the South African Police Service (SAPS) defends its actions, stating it has fulfilled its duties and that the applicants have not provided sufficient evidence of their inaction.
SECTION27 counters that the respondents are engaged in ‘buck-passing’, with each entity shifting responsibility. The organization highlights the need for collective action and the involvement of the City, SAPS, and other respondents to effectively address the vigilantism.
As the judgment is reserved, the question remains: will the state take decisive action to protect the rights of immigrants and vulnerable citizens? The outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of healthcare access and xenophobia in South Africa.