South Africa's Home Affairs Ministry Battles Adetshina Citizenship Case in Court

Leon Schreiber, South Africa’s Home Affairs Minister, is letting the courts do the talking on Chidimma Adetshina’s citizenship dispute, even as his department actively fights her legal challenge in the Western Cape High Court.

Speaking to Newzroom Afrika, Schreiber declined to address the substance of the case while litigation remains active. He framed the department’s opposition as proof, not contradiction, of a functioning immigration system. “The concept of someone being able to go to court precisely puts to bed the suggestion that SA somehow does not have these mechanisms in place while, at the same time, we can have a clear dispute on the facts, and we certainly hope that the court will settle this matter so that we can move forward,” he said.

The minister’s comments land against a backdrop of fresh scrutiny in parliament. The portfolio committee on home affairs confirmed this week that it received multiple unsolicited public submissions raising questions about immigration attorney Stefanie de Saude-Darbandi’s dual roles. De Saude-Darbandi sits as one of five independent members of the Immigration Advisory Board, a statutory body established under section 4 of the Immigration Act to advise the minister on immigration regulations, policy, border management and enforcement. She also represents Adetshina in the legal challenge against that same department.

Committee chairperson and ANC MP Mosa Chabane said last week that the committee would engage directly with Schreiber and investigate whether the concerns raised could undermine public confidence in the advisory board. De Saude-Darbandi has publicly defended her position, stating she would not accept a legal mandate if she believed a client was attempting to misuse the legal system.

Schreiber, for his part, insists the department’s actions are grounded in investigative findings rather than discretion. He stated that home affairs uncovered alleged identity fraud by Adetshina’s mother and that enforcement steps followed from that finding. “I think the case demonstrates that we don’t take arbitrary action. We don’t deny anyone the right to go to court and have their day in court. But, at the same time, we have a dispute here. We disagree,” he said.

He added: “The work by home affairs has resulted in the uncovering of [a] South African who had her identity stolen by the mother in this particular case and then a series of other steps that have been effected precisely to enforce the rule of law without fear or favour.”

The case first drew national attention during the Miss SA 2024 competition, when questions about Adetshina’s nationality and eligibility ignited public debate. The department investigated her family’s citizenship and said preliminary evidence indicated her mother had committed identity fraud in 2001 while obtaining South African citizenship. Adetshina withdrew from the pageant in August 2024 as public pressure mounted and security concerns emerged.

What followed was a rapid escalation of enforcement. The department revoked the South African identity documents and passports of both Adetshina and her mother. In December 2024, home affairs declared Adetshina a prohibited person under the Immigration Act. Then, in June this year, immigration officials arrested her in Cape Town, alleging she was residing unlawfully in South Africa after obtaining a Nigerian passport, unsuccessfully applying for a South African visitor visa and re-entering through the Lebombo border.

Adetshina’s legal team disputes the department’s findings, contending that home affairs failed to conduct a fair investigation before invalidating her status. She is challenging both the revocation of her citizenship-related status and the deportation process in the Western Cape High Court, and she remains out on warning pending the outcome.

The deeper question the case leaves open is whether the department’s investigative and administrative processes will withstand judicial scrutiny, or whether the courts will find procedural fault in the steps Schreiber describes as impartial enforcement.