A Lesotho-based human rights organisation has formally petitioned South Africa’s Parliament to scrap passport controls at the Lesotho–South Africa border, arguing that the current system is constitutionally outdated and socially harmful.
Advocates for the Supremacy of the Constitution, commonly known as Section Two, says the long-standing passport requirement no longer reflects the political and social realities of the two countries. In its submission, the group contends that the rule, introduced in 1963, originated in an era defined by apartheid-era security controls and racialised movement restrictions.
Although South Africa has since transitioned to democracy, Section Two argues that the legal architecture governing cross-border movement has not meaningfully evolved. The organisation maintains that mandatory passport controls undermine constitutional principles such as dignity, equality and freedom of movement.
A Border That Cuts Through Communities
Lesotho remains geographically encircled by South Africa. Families, language groups and economic networks span both sides of the border, often predating colonial demarcations.
According to the petition, the border regime disrupts social and economic life for thousands of people whose daily routines involve movement between the two countries. The group argues that what appears administratively routine in Pretoria or Maseru translates into significant hardship at community level.
Section Two also highlights operational failures within Lesotho’s passport system, citing prolonged backlogs that can leave applicants waiting months for travel documents. The delays, it argues, carry serious consequences.
Families reportedly miss funerals, births and urgent medical situations. Cross-border workers risk losing employment when documentation lapses. In more desperate circumstances, some individuals attempt to cross through informal routes along the Mohokare, also known as the Caledon River, exposing themselves to drowning, arrest, deportation and criminal charges.
The organisation contends that these realities illustrate a policy framework disconnected from lived experience along the border.
Proposed Alternative
Rather than abolishing border controls entirely, Section Two proposes a shift from passport-based entry to national identity document recognition between the two states.
The group argues that ID-based travel would preserve sovereign border management while acknowledging the deep socio-economic integration between Lesotho and South Africa.
South Africa’s Parliamentary Petitions Office has confirmed receipt of the submission. However, it noted that international agreements fall within the competence of the Executive branch rather than Parliament.
Section Two coordinator Kananelo Boloetse acknowledged the procedural response but said it sidestepped the substantive issue.
“The response was technically correct on treaty-making,” Boloetse said. “But it avoided the substance of what we were asking Parliament to do. We are not asking Parliament to negotiate directly with Lesotho, but to exert oversight and pressure on the Executive to act.”
A Debate Larger Than Documentation
The petition raises broader questions about regional integration, labour mobility and the unfinished business of post-apartheid reform. At its core lies a tension between sovereign border enforcement and the practical realities of communities whose social and economic ties ignore political boundaries.
Whether the proposal gains traction remains uncertain. What is clear is that the issue touches not only immigration policy, but constitutional values and the everyday lives of Basotho and South Africans who navigate one of the most unusual borders on the continent.
