Couple barred from SA sue for R3.6m

A couple who were barred from re-entering SA for 6 months following a pilgrimage are suing the Home Affairs minister.

Pretoria - When businessman Mukthar Ahmed and his wife Tasleem Akthar went on a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, they left their two young children in South Africa.

But when they got back, they were barred from entering the country and suffered the trauma of being separated from their family for six months.

Now the couple, who hail from Durban, are claiming R3.6 million in damages from the Minister of Home Affairs in a case before the high court in Pretoria.

This includes R1m for the emotional trauma and depression they had suffered while being separated from their children for so long and R500 000 on behalf of each of their children, Abdur and Abdullah, who were under 5 years old when they were left in the care of family in South Africa. They are each claiming a further R300 000 in damages for loss of income during the time that they were away from work.

The parents are married in terms of Islamic law. According to court papers Ahmed is a Pakistani national who acquired South African citizenship and his Pakistani wife received asylum when she first entered the country. After marrying her husband her asylum permit was revoked and she was given an accompanying spouse’s residence permit.

The couple left the country on August 5, 2012, for a two-week trip to Saudi Arabia.

Upon their return they were informed at Dubai Airport that they may not enter South Africa, as they had been placed on a “V” list (a Home Affairs watch list).

According to the couple’s lawyer, Zehir Omar, this listing, which had been placed on the system by Home Affairs official Sam Langa, was incorrect. In February 2013 the high court in Johannesburg declared the listing to be unlawful, he said.

The couple were only allowed to enter South Africa in March 2013 – more than six months after they had left.

Omar argued in court that the couple were unlawfully prevented from entering the country as the appearance of their names on the list had been a mistake. Home Affairs also did not give any regard to the couple’s two children who remained in South Africa.

Omar said the department, as the immigration authority in South Africa, owed a duty of care towards the couple as legitimate residents of this country.

Ahmed had come to South Africa in 1998 and was given a naturalisation certificate in 2008, thus making him a South African, Omar said.

Home Affairs, in defending the claim, said Ahmed’s citizenship here was obtained in contravention with the immigration laws and he was thus not entitled to the citizenship on which he is relying. It was said that it thus followed that his wife was also not entitled to be here.

The department argued that the names of the couple was placed correctly on the “V” list as they were not legally in the country.

The court reserved judgment on whether the family is entitled to compensation or not.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za

Pretoria News