South Africa Court Challenged Over Asylum Rejection of Congolese Survivor

High Court Challenge Launched Over Rejected Asylum Claim of Congolese Sexual Violence Survivor

The Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA) and Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) have approached the Pretoria High Court to challenge the rejection of an asylum application submitted by a Congolese woman. The legal challenge, filed on June 19, 2026—coinciding with the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict—seeks to have the Refugee Appeals Authority’s decision reviewed and set aside.

The case centers on a woman from South Kivu in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) who claims she was subjected to repeated sexual violence by soldiers before fleeing her home country with her children. According to court papers, her journey to South Africa, which she reached in approximately 2006 or 2007, involved further alleged sexual exploitation by border officials in Burundi, Tanzania, and Mozambique.

Allegations of Procedural Failure and Trauma Neglect

ISLA and LHR argue that the Refugee Appeals Authority’s rejection of the woman’s asylum claim was unlawful under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. The organizations contend that officials failed to properly consider the impact of trauma, language barriers, and the passage of time on the applicant’s ability to provide a consistent account of her experiences.

The Refugee Appeals Authority had previously rejected the application, characterizing the woman’s evidence as “mobile” and concluding that she had not credibly established her claim for refugee protection. In response, the legal advocates argue that the authority placed undue emphasis on inconsistencies in her testimony without accounting for the neurological and psychological effects of trauma. As stated in their submission, survivors of sexual violence and torture frequently present inconsistent accounts, not because they are lying, but because of the neurological and psychological effects of trauma on memory and recall.

Legal Stakes and Human Rights Implications

The litigation raises significant questions regarding how South Africa assesses asylum claims from survivors of conflict-related sexual violence. The applicant’s legal team asserts that the decision failed to recognize conflict-related sexual violence as a legitimate form of persecution under South Africa’s Refugees Act and international law.

The woman is currently detained at the Lindela Repatriation Centre after residing in South Africa for years with unresolved immigration documentation. Her representatives argue that deporting her to the DRC would violate the international principle of non-refoulement, which forbids the return of individuals to territories where their safety or lives would be threatened.

Psychological first-aid practitioner Matthew Mbuvi noted that individuals who have experienced prolonged insecurity, displacement, and violence often require safety, empathy, and practical support before they can navigate complex bureaucratic systems or seek formal redress.

Calls for Systematic Reform

Beyond the specific circumstances of this case, ISLA and LHR are calling on the Department of Home Affairs to implement systemic changes to the asylum process. Their recommendations include:

• Introducing gender-sensitive asylum procedures.
• Providing specialized training for officials in trauma-informed credibility assessments.
• Formally recognizing gender-based violence as a basis for persecution.
• Ensuring that asylum seekers are not detained or deported while their legal status remains unresolved.

The applicant’s founding affidavit emphasizes that her ordeal was not an isolated event, but part of a broader, documented pattern of abuses committed against civilians in conflict-affected areas of the eastern DRC. The High Court is now tasked with determining whether the administrative process followed by the Refugee Appeals Authority met the necessary legal standards for fairness and human rights protection.