The 1996 South African Constitution proudly affirms that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.” This is a noble sentiment, one that speaks to a vision of collective ownership and shared sovereignty. But how does this principle hold up when measured against the realities of governance, public service, and fiscal responsibility? It seems that while anyone who resides within our borders can claim ownership of South Africa’s benefits, the burden of financing these benefits falls disproportionately on South African citizens.
A recent legal judgment, Centre for Child Law and Others v Minister of Basic Education and Others (2840/2017) [2019] [ZAECGHC 126], further underscores this paradox. The Graham’s town High Court ruled that a child’s right to basic education is unconditional and should not be restricted based on legal status. This means that undocumented children cannot be excluded from public schooling, as such exclusion would be unconstitutional. The court confined itself to S.29 of the Constitution that guarantees everyone the right to basic education.
No financial implications were considered in enforcing this Constitutional right. Yes, whereas there’s is not a single United Nations treaty explicitly outlining a nation’s responsibility to its citizens. Several international human rights treaties and conventions, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, establish obligations for states to protect their citizens, including those in foreign countries. No directive was made by the court for the South African government to take up this matter with the governments of the countries these undocumented foreign nationals come from. Whereas the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), outlines the rights of children, including the right to protection from harm and exploitation, regardless of their location, and obligates states to ensure these rights are upheld.
The problem in these African countries is not poverty but mismanagement of governance. We have porous borders. These African countries that inhumanely deport their citizens to South Africa, without consequences are deliberately create unnecessary conflicts between South Africans and foreign nationals. They know this thing is unsustainable. This leads to the creation of this blackmailing term xenophobia on the part of the South Africans when this is not the truth. South Africans most especially at the lower echelons of economic chain, find themselves excluded cheaply in the economic stream.
The BELA Act subsequently reinforced this principle, effectively giving undocumented foreign nationals’ children precedence in accessing education. If a foreign child arrives at a school before a South African child, the foreign child’s right to admission is protected, regardless of the legal status of their parents.
Education is one of the most crucial tools in breaking the cycle of poverty, and every child deserves a quality education. However, the prioritization of undocumented learners over South African citizens highlights inconsistencies in policy implementation. It is not about denying education to foreign children but about ensuring fairness in how resources are distributed. South African parents who struggle to find placement for their children in well-resourced schools are right to feel aggrieved when they see a system that appears to work against their interests.
Meanwhile, South African citizens are expected to bear the financial burden of the country. During his budget speech on March 12, 2025, Minister of Finance Enoch Godongwana urged South Africans to comply with the law and support SARS in revenue collection. It is puzzling, then, that while the Constitution declares South Africa to belong to all who live in it, the responsibility for funding government services falls squarely on the shoulders of South Africans.
One must ask: why does the responsibility of contributing to the national budget not extend to all who reside in South Africa? While tax laws require South Africans and permanent residents to contribute to state coffers, there is little discussion about how undocumented individuals—who benefit from public resources—should also be contributing in some form. Whether through tax contributions, levies, or a formalized system of shared responsibility, there needs to be a broader conversation about fiscal fairness.
Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane SC once remarked that our Constitution is a “lullaby”—a comforting song that soothes but does not change reality. Is he wrong? It becomes increasingly difficult to accept the oft-repeated phrase that we have “the best Constitution in the world” when it presides over one of the most unequal societies globally. The glaring contradictions in our laws expose a deeper structural problem: a disconnect between idealistic constitutional principles and practical governance.
A truly just and equitable society does not place the entire financial burden on one group while extending unrestricted benefits to another. If South Africa truly belongs to all who live in it, then all who live in it must contribute fairly to its upkeep. The financing of the fiscus should not be the sole responsibility of South Africans, but rather a shared duty of all who call this country home. The time for difficult but necessary conversations about fiscal responsibility, resource allocation, and national priorities is long overdue. Without a recalibration of these policies, we risk deepening resentment, fostering division, and exacerbating inequality in a country that is already struggling with these issues.
