Operation Dudula found itself in the midst of a legal battle as it faced allegations of xenophobia towards foreigners. The case unfolded in the Johannesburg high court, where organizations such as Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia, Abahlali baseMjondolo, Inner City Federation, and SA Informal Traders Forum brought forth their grievances. They demanded that Dudula cease harassing foreigners, impeding their access to healthcare services, and forcibly removing them from their trading stalls.
However, during the court proceedings, Solomon Kekana, the treasurer-general of Operation Dudula, claimed ignorance of the case, stating that they had only become aware of it the day before the hearing. He emphasized that their operations always involve engaging with stakeholders such as home affairs and the South African Police Service, and asserted that they operate lawfully. This claim was met with skepticism by the applicants’ lawyer, advocate Jason Brickhill, who argued that Dudula’s assertions were baseless.
“Operation Dudula was served at its registered address, and we have the returns of service. They’ve had the papers for two years and made a public decision to ignore the proceedings,” Brickhill pointed out.
Brickhill highlighted public statements made by Operation Dudula, including a quote from their technical adviser, Isaac Lesole, dismissing the legal action as mere grandstanding by NGOs and indicating no intention to contest it. The presiding Judge Lester Adams expressed doubts about allowing Dudula to intervene at such a late stage, raising questions about the validity of their claims.
Representing the Department of Home Affairs, advocate William Mokhari SC noted that Dudula had failed to file a notice to oppose the allegations, suggesting that they had forfeited their right to be heard. He emphasized that the legal process must proceed without delay, indicating that Dudula’s inaction had consequences.
The case involves a total of 13 respondents, including Operation Dudula, various government entities, ministers, the national police commissioner, and other relevant authorities. The applicants’ challenge focuses on what they perceive as Dudula’s xenophobic behavior and the alleged inadequate response from the state.
This legal confrontation underscores the complexities of addressing xenophobia and the importance of holding individuals and organizations accountable for their actions. It also sheds light on the challenges faced by marginalized communities, particularly foreign nationals, in accessing essential services and conducting their livelihoods without fear of discrimination or harassment.
As the legal battle unfolds, it prompts a broader conversation about social cohesion, inclusivity, and the role of the justice system in upholding the rights of all individuals within a diverse society. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future actions against xenophobia and serve as a reminder of the collective responsibility to create a more tolerant and equitable society for all.
