South Africa has rejected new visa restrictions announced by the United States against individuals linked to policies Washington characterises as discriminatory, arguing that the measures misrepresent the country’s domestic legal framework and risk undermining diplomatic efforts between the two governments.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the policy on 15 September, saying visa restrictions would apply to foreign nationals involved in the enactment or implementation of policies that Washington considers to facilitate race-based discrimination, incitement of imminent violence against minority groups or uncompensated land seizures in South Africa. The announcement did not publicly identify specific individuals subject to the restrictions. (EBS Public Now)
South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola, said Pretoria respected Washington’s right to hold different views on South African policy but expected its sovereignty, constitutional order and democratic institutions to be respected. He argued that legislation adopted since the end of apartheid must be understood within the country’s longer history of racial exclusion and economic inequality. (Government of South Africa)
The dispute centres partly on South Africa’s land reform programme and wider policies intended to address inequalities created under colonialism and apartheid. The United States has maintained that some of these measures disproportionately affect Afrikaners and other minorities. President Donald Trump’s administration has previously made similar claims, including in a February 2025 executive order that characterised the Expropriation Act as enabling the seizure of Afrikaner agricultural property without compensation. (The White House)
Pretoria disputes that interpretation. South African authorities maintain that the country’s constitutional and legislative framework is intended to address historical exclusion rather than target a racial or ethnic community. The government has also stressed that land expropriation is governed by South African law and constitutional processes rather than representing a general programme of uncompensated confiscation. (Reuters)
The disagreement reflects a broader question over how South Africa’s post-apartheid transformation should be interpreted internationally. While the country continues to face significant racial disparities in wealth, land ownership and economic opportunity, the government argues that these inequalities cannot be separated from the institutional legacy of apartheid. At the same time, critics within South Africa, including political opponents of the governing African National Congress, have questioned whether some transformation policies have produced their intended outcomes. (Investing.com)
Lamola said Pretoria remained committed to addressing bilateral disagreements through direct engagement between governments rather than unilateral measures. The latest restrictions therefore add another layer to an already strained relationship between two countries with longstanding economic, diplomatic and strategic ties.
For South Africa, the dispute is not only about immigration policy. It also concerns the extent to which domestic approaches to historical inequality should be assessed externally, and how competing understandings of race, equality and redress can be managed without weakening diplomatic channels.
