The RESPOND Coalition in the Repatriation Process

South Africa has lived with a difficult and unresolved immigration question for many years. Migration has shaped our cities, our townships, our workplaces and our communities, with people from across the African continent coming to South Africa in search of safety, work, education and a better life. At the same time, South Africans have experienced deep frustration about unemployment, poverty, pressure on public services, crime, weak border management and what many see as the failure of the state to manage immigration effectively. These frustrations are real and they cannot simply be dismissed. They form part of the lived experience of many South Africans, particularly in communities where poverty, unemployment and inadequate public services are already placing enormous pressure on households.

These frustrations became increasingly visible through public protests and community mobilisation. March and March and other civic organisations called for stronger enforcement of immigration laws and demanded that undocumented foreign nationals leave the country. The campaign brought immigration to the centre of national conversation and exposed the depth of public anger about the way South Africa was managing migration. For some, the mobilisation represented a demand for the government to take greater responsibility for the country’s borders and immigration system. For others, particularly migrants and organisations working with migrant communities, the language and atmosphere surrounding some of the mobilisation created fear and a sense of vulnerability.

This exposed a difficult question for the Church. How should Christian organisations respond when a country is facing a genuine and serious immigration problem, while people who are migrants and foreign nationals are also experiencing fear, displacement and vulnerability? How does the Church hold together the legitimate concerns of South African communities with the dignity and rights of people who have crossed borders and are living among us? And how does the Church respond when a question that should be addressed through law, policy and responsible government begins to produce a humanitarian crisis on the ground? The RESPOND Coalition found itself having to answer these questions in real time.

When repatriation became a humanitarian crisis

By June, the immigration debate was no longer only a question of legislation, border management or public protest. It was becoming a humanitarian crisis that was unfolding in front of churches and community organisations. On 18 June, Rev. Rachel Mash reported to the RESPOND network that almost 200 Zimbabwean nationals were at the Zimbabwean Consulate in District Six and that another group of approximately 140 Malawian nationals was arriving at ? and looking for accommodation before buses could transport them. As people waited to be processed to return to their countries,the immediate needs were basic but urgent, including food, water, sanitation, blankets and hygiene supplies.

The Anglican Cathedral, Central Methodist Mission and the Groote Kerk were among the churches that became involved, while Gift of the Givers was providing immediate relief to people at the consulate through warm meals, bottled water, blankets and hygiene kits. Groote Kerk at 55 Kloof Street became an important collection and distribution point, allowing churches and individuals who wanted to contribute to bring donations into one place. Caritas also became closely involved, with Aisling Foley reporting on 19 June that the organisation was preparing 50 hygiene buckets containing toiletries, toothpaste, sanitary towels and Savlon. Methodist churches were also assisting, and members of the coalition began coordinating supplies across congregations and organisations.

As the days passed, it became increasingly clear that this was not a small group of people waiting for transport. On 22 June, Lester Sedras reported that another group of almost 100 Zimbabweans had arrived and that people had been sleeping in a Woodstock church after spending time outside in the cold at the Zimbabwean Embassy in District Six. The following day, the estimated number had risen to approximately 200 people, with many mothers and babies among them. The coalition was told that 172 people had slept at the consulate the previous night and that new arrivals were continuing to come while buses departed each day.

By the evening of 23 June, the estimated number had reached around 220 people, including approximately 150 adults and 70 children, with around 20 nursing babies. The practical needs became increasingly specific. People needed food and water, but mothers also needed nappies and sanitary products, babies needed formula and children needed appropriate food. There was a need for gazebos and shelter, particularly as the winter weather became increasingly difficult. Groote Kerk received and distributed donations, Central Methodist collected 1,000 nappies and a R5,000 donation was used to purchase sanitary pads, Lactogen, 50 five-litre containers of water and fruit. Gift of the Givers provided soup, bread and formula.

These details matter because they remind us that the immigration crisis was not experienced only through statistics or political arguments. Behind every number was a person waiting for transport, a mother trying to care for a baby, a child needing food, or a family trying to understand what would happen next. The language of immigration can easily become abstract, but the experience of immigration policy is always lived through bodies, households and communities.

Compassion without pretending that the questions are simple

The RESPOND conversation was not naïve about the complexity of the situation. The WhatsApp discussions reveal an awareness that churches could not simply open their doors indefinitely without considering safety, sanitation, capacity and the possibility that temporary shelter could become permanent. There were memories of the 2008 xenophobic violence and displacement crisis, including the difficulties churches and other organisations experienced when temporary humanitarian responses became longer term arrangements. There were also concerns about the responsibilities of government and about the possibility that churches might unintentionally create informal settlements or camps without having the resources to manage them safely.

These concerns were important because compassion does not mean pretending that difficult questions do not exist. South Africa has a responsibility to manage its borders and immigration system. Government has a responsibility to know who is entering the country, to process immigration applications, to enforce immigration law fairly and to ensure that the system is capable of responding to the movement of people across borders. Communities also have legitimate concerns about unemployment, access to services, crime, housing and the pressure that poor immigration management can place on already struggling communities.

At the same time, the failure to manage immigration effectively cannot be transferred onto the bodies of vulnerable people. A person who is undocumented may still be a parent, a child, a worker, a neighbour or a member of a faith community. Whatever questions may exist about their legal status, their basic human dignity does not disappear. The Church therefore found itself having to hold together two realities that are often presented as opposites. South Africa needs responsible immigration management, and migrants remain human beings whose dignity must be protected. This tension became increasingly important as the humanitarian situation expanded.

From District Six to Epping

By 25 June, the number of people at the consulate had reached approximately 300. By 26 June, estimates had grown to between 500 and 600 Zimbabwean citizens, many of them children. By 27 June, reports suggested that more than 700 people were at the consulate. The need for shelter became one of the most urgent concerns. Churches and humanitarian organisations were providing food and basic supplies, but the number of people arriving was growing faster than the available facilities.

The possibility of erecting tents and gazebos became a subject of discussion. Yet even this apparently simple solution carried complications. There were concerns that establishing a larger tented site could be interpreted as creating an informal settlement or squatter camp, particularly while the City was simultaneously dealing with other informal settlements. The coalition therefore had to consider not only what would help immediately, but what the consequences of that help might be.

On 27 June, the City of Cape Town announced that people gathered at the District Six consulate would be relocated to the Epping Home Affairs Repatriation Centre, which had been designated for the processing of voluntary repatriation. The announcement created another layer of complexity because different actors appeared to have different understandings of what Epping was intended to provide. A monitoring report circulated in the RESPOND network raised serious concerns about the gap between the City’s understanding of Epping and the position of Home Affairs. There were also concerns about the absence of a single coordination mechanism between government departments, humanitarian organisations and faith based organisations.

The South African Human Rights Commission monitoring report circulated through the network estimated that approximately 213 migrants had been processed, while approximately 1,400 additional people were reportedly travelling from the Zimbabwean Consulate towards Epping. The report warned that the numbers could potentially reach 10,000 if the situation was not properly managed. It identified a lack of central coordination, duplication of assistance, confusion over responsibilities and inadequate planning for vulnerable people as significant concerns.

For RESPOND, this was a critical moment of learning. Humanitarian response cannot depend only on goodwill. Good intentions are not enough when thousands of people are moving through a system that involves Home Affairs, the City, provincial government, the police, disaster management, the Zimbabwean Consulate, humanitarian organisations and churches. There needs to be coordination, clear communication and an agreed understanding of who is responsible for what.

The response grew beyond Cape Town

As the number of people at Epping increased, the Church response became a much larger network of practical support. By 29 June, around 2,000 Zimbabweans and some Malawians were reported to be at Epping. The situation was increasingly being treated as a disaster management issue rather than simply a Home Affairs matter. Mothers and children were moved inside while stretch tents were used to accommodate others.

St Stephen’s Anglican Church in Pinelands, at 7 Central Square, became another important collection point. Volunteers prepared food and collected donations for people travelling north. Caritas prepared approximately 700 sandwiches, while other churches provided fruit, toiletries, baby items and water. At one point, 368 loaves for sandwiches were left at St Stephen’s from Gift of the Givers for distribution at Epping. The exact number of people who received the food is difficult to establish from the WhatsApp reporting, but the scale of the effort shows how quickly congregations mobilised when they understood what was needed.

Other churches also found ways to contribute. Jesus Nation Church in Elsies River provided soup, tea and coffee and funded seven buses travelling towards Malawi. The Salvation Army delivered 500 blankets to Thornton Methodist Church for distribution through Gift of the Givers. The United Methodist Church served the Zimbabwean community, delivering sandwiches and drinks. Churches that were not physically present at Epping were still able to mobilise their congregations and resources from a distance.

This is where the idea of RESPOND as a coalition became meaningful. The response did not depend on one organisation doing everything. Different churches and Christian organisations contributed according to their relationships, resources, location and capacity. Some were physically present at Epping. Others collected donations. Others connected with government. Others mobilised congregations. Others coordinated food and transport. Some members were less able to contribute during this period, and the WhatsApp coordination does not hide that reality. This uneven participation is part of the honest story of the coalition. A network can have many members without every member having the same capacity to respond at every moment.

From Epping to Musina

By early July, the crisis had entered another phase. Rev. Annie Kirke circulated a RESPOND Churches Update from Epping explaining that approximately 1,780 Zimbabwean nationals, including 95 Malawian nationals, were being relocated from Cape Town’s Epping Home Affairs Centre towards Musina. Eight buses had already left at 23:30 the previous night in a convoy accompanied by a police escort, while another 18 buses were planned.

The Church’s response became increasingly logistical. Rev. Riaan de Villiers from Groote Kerk and volunteers were counting babies, women and men on each bus and recording bus numbers. Driver telephone numbers were added to a WhatsApp group that included two RESPOND members so that there could be communication while the buses travelled. Before people left, volunteers distributed blankets, nappies, sanitary pads, wet wipes, children’s food pouches and toilet paper.

Rev Sikawu Makubalo, the Central Methodist Minister and Secretary of the Church Unity Commission, was providing regular updates from the Disaster Management Team meetings and from the site itself. By this stage there were reports that Epping was being closed because of infrastructure problems and an outbreak of diarrhoea and flu. The crisis was therefore not only about immigration and repatriation. It was also becoming a public health and humanitarian concern.

The response then extended across provincial boundaries. RESPOND churches in Cape Town engaged churches in Bloemfontein to establish a stopping point at Shell Ultra City. The plan was for the buses to stop there so that people could receive soup, sandwiches, children’s food, water, nappies, sanitary towels, toilet paper and wet wipes. When the first eight buses arrived at Shell Ultra City between approximately 13:30 and 14:00, churches and volunteers were ready.

Approximately 30 volunteers were involved in receiving the first convoy. One sick baby was seen by a doctor and received treatment, while volunteers distributed food, water and fruit before the buses continued towards Musina. The movement of the buses demonstrated something important about the nature of the crisis. It was no longer confined to Cape Town. The humanitarian responsibility was travelling with the people.

The crisis moves North

Rev. Annie Kirke captured this reality when she wrote “the humanitarian disaster in Epping had effectively been relocated to Musina”, where an even greater humanitarian crisis was unfolding. This was one of the most important moments in the RESPOND experience because it challenged the idea that repatriation itself represented the end of the humanitarian response.

People were still arriving. Thousands were expected. There were reports of approximately 235 Malawians reaching Musina, and Rev. Rachel Mash helped one group obtain a solar charger so that they could remain in communication. The WhatsApp coordinators continued discussing what was happening in Musina and whether there was adequate human rights monitoring and humanitarian support. The Church had to adjust its actions as the crisis remained fluid. A bus leaving Epping does not mean the humanitarian responsibility ends when the bus disappears from sight. If people arrive in Musina without adequate food, shelter, communication, medical care and clear information, the crisis simply changes location.

This also revealed the limitations of what RESPOND could do. The coalition could mobilise churches and humanitarian assistance, but it could not become the government. It could not take responsibility for immigration processing, border management or repatriation policy. The response therefore had to remain both compassionate and appropriately bounded. Churches could support people through a difficult journey while continuing to insist that the government must fulfil its responsibilities.

What the coalition achieved

The success of RESPOND was never that it solved South Africa’s immigration crisis, because it did not and could not do so. The immigration challenge is much larger than any coalition of churches. It involves national policy, border management, immigration law, unemployment, poverty, public services, regional migration patterns, political leadership and the capacity of government institutions.

The significance of RESPOND was instead found in how the coalition responded when these large questions became a humanitarian emergency. A network of churches and Christian organisations mobilised food, water, blankets, nappies, sanitary products, baby food, volunteers, medical assistance and transport support. It connected Cape Town with Bloemfontein and followed the crisis towards Musina. It created relationships between churches that might otherwise have responded separately. It shared information quickly and enabled congregations to respond to needs that were changing almost daily.

The response was not perfect. Information changed quickly, numbers were sometimes inconsistent, responsibilities between government departments were unclear and there were moments when churches were unsure about what they should or should not do. Some organisations were able to contribute more than others. There were disagreements and concerns about shelter, safety, legal responsibilities and the possibility of creating unintended consequences through humanitarian assistance. These are not weaknesses that need to be hidden from the story. They are part of what makes the story credible. The coalition was learning while responding. It was trying to make responsible decisions in circumstances where there was no clear playbook.

What the crisis taught the Church

The experience raises questions that go beyond June and July 2026. South Africa needs an immigration system that works, and the state has a responsibility to manage its borders, process applications, enforce immigration law fairly and protect the country’s communities. South Africans have a right to ask difficult questions about unemployment, crime, public services, housing and the impact of poorly managed migration. These concerns should not automatically be labelled xenophobic simply because they involve immigration.

At the same time, concern about immigration cannot become permission for violence, intimidation or the denial of human dignity. The Church has a responsibility to recognise that migrants are not simply an immigration category. They are people with families, children, histories, fears and hopes. Some may be undocumented, some may be seeking asylum, some may be legally resident and some may be returning voluntarily to their countries of origin. Their circumstances are different and should not be collapsed into a single category.

This is where the Church’s public witness becomes particularly important. The Church must be able to say that immigration law matters while also saying that human dignity matters. It must be able to call the government to account for failures in immigration management while also challenging xenophobia and violence. It must listen to South Africans who feel that their communities are under pressure while also listening to migrants who experience fear and exclusion. This is not an easy position to hold, but it may be one of the most important responsibilities of Christian communities in this moment. Compassion does not mean ignoring complexity. It means refusing to allow complexity to become an excuse for abandoning people.

The RESPOND experience also demonstrated that humanitarian response requires preparation. Relationships between churches need to exist before the crisis. Communication channels need to be established. Organisations need to know who is responsible for coordination, logistics, finance, safeguarding, communication and advocacy. Churches need to understand the limits of their own capacity and know when to work with government and specialised humanitarian organisations. Human rights monitoring, child protection, public health and safety cannot be treated as secondary issues. Perhaps most importantly, RESPOND learned that no single church can carry a crisis of this scale alone.

A Church that chose to remain present

The story of RESPOND is therefore not a story about churches solving South Africa’s immigration problem. It is a story about what happened when a national immigration crisis became personal and when the political debate about undocumented migration began to have immediate consequences for people standing outside a consulate, sleeping in churches, waiting at Epping, travelling by bus towards Musina and arriving in communities along the way.

The story began within a wider national debate about immigration and the responsibility of the South African state. It unfolded alongside the mobilisation of March and March the Abahambe movement and became increasingly visible as people sought voluntary repatriation. It moved from District Six to Epping, from Epping to Bloemfontein and from Bloemfontein towards Musina. At each stage, the Church had to decide how it would respond. RESPOND did not have all the answers. It could not remove the complexity of immigration. It could not resolve the tension between the rights and concerns of South African citizens and the dignity of foreign nationals. It could not replace the state or solve the structural failures that had contributed to the crisis. What it could do was remain present.

It could work together when working alone was no longer enough. It could listen to people whose circumstances were changing by the hour. It could ask difficult questions of the government while still working alongside the government when cooperation was necessary. It could provide food while larger political questions were being debated. It could put nappies, baby food and sanitary pads on a list alongside blankets and water because children and families were part of the crisis too. It could follow people beyond Cape Town and recognise that the humanitarian responsibility did not end when the buses left Epping.

In a country struggling to work out how migration, citizenship, belonging and responsibility should coexist, the Church cannot afford to respond only when the answer is simple. It must be willing to enter difficult spaces without losing its compassion or its courage. It must be prepared to listen to the fears and frustrations of South Africans, while also refusing to dehumanise migrants. It must hold the government accountable for managing immigration properly, while also holding communities accountable for how they treat vulnerable people.

The story of RESPOND is ultimately a story of presence. It is the story of churches discovering that solidarity is not about having all the answers. It is about being willing to stand with people while the answers are still being worked out. And perhaps that is what responsible Christian witness looks like in a country facing a crisis as complex as South Africa’s immigration challenge. It means holding truth and compassion together, refusing both denial and dehumanisation, and recognising that justice requires more than choosing one group against another. It requires building a society in which the concerns of citizens are taken seriously, the responsibilities of government are upheld, and every person caught in the consequences of our national failures is treated with dignity.