So, for the estimated 230 000 Zimbabweans who are sitting with their 2010 ZDP permits, the truth has come out and the waiting is at an end. Cabinet has decided that the holders of these permits, most of which expire in 2014, “will be expected to reapply for their permits in their country of origin”.

There has to be a suspicion that some of the logic of this decision lies in the fact that, whereas these permits were issued to persons who do not have the skills to qualify for ordinary work permits, their departure should free up an equivalent number of jobs, or thereabouts, for South Africa’s unemployed.

‘Creating’ some 200 000 jobs at the stroke of a pen, as it were, should, at the very least, count for something at the polls, in the minds of some un- or underemployed voters – no matter the impact on the economy or on hard-pressed businesses. And how do 200 000 people queue for permits at the High Commission in Harare?

It may well be that some of these persons do not have formal skills to justify work permits. But, as employers will tell you, workplace appointments are also about experience, the required work ethic, levels of trust, interpersonal relationships, literacy, and so on. You can ‘command’ a free market economy only so much.

But even so, life is just not that simple. People’s motives for applying for the ZDP permits in the first place are far more complex. And, importantly, the rules and conditions of the amnesty were never made clear to the general public. The Department of Home Affairs failed or refused to formally promulgate the process. Instead, it ‘legislated’ the amnesty process through a series of media releases and occasional notices on websites and at Home Affairs’ offices.

Indicatively, anecdotal reports suggest that some people thought that they were required to change their existing permits simply because they were Zimbabwean. Other people moved out of the refugee system, not because they were not deserving of refugee status, but because the promise of a four-year permit that allowed them to work without restriction was infinitely better than the indignities thrust on many asylum seekers having to renew permits every three months at the refugee offices. And most employers under- stand ‘work permits’ – many do not like asylum papers that are valid for three months only.

No one was told that the permits would not be extendable or that, if they were, they would first have to leave the country. In terms of the Immigration Act, there is only one work permit which cannot, on the face of it, be extended – the intracompany transfer work permit. Barring that, all work permits and, in fact, all other temporary residence permits, can be extended.

Another relevant consideration was that Zimbabwe in 2009 and 2010 was in a very different situation to that which it is currently. There was a government of national unity, the economy was improving and the human rights situation, generally, was improving. Today, in almost all respects, Zimbabwe is once again regressing in the wake of the shambles of the last elections – and Zanu-PF is once again very much in charge.

This raises the very tricky issue of whether some of the ZDP permit holders will not need to avail themselves again of the refugee system in South Africa. There is nothing in the Refugees Act that prevents a person from applying or reapplying for refugee status, especially should political and other relevant conditions back home have taken a turn for the worse since they left ‘home’.

This is a well-recognised principle of refugee law and such applications are known as ‘applications sur place’. The matter becomes considerably more complicated, given that, contrary to the requirements of refugee law, the identities of former applicants for refugee status will have been disclosed to the Zimbabwe authorities by the Department of Home Affairs.

Finally, and not so inconsequentially for South Africa’s standing internationally (not- withstanding that it abstained in the United Nations General Assembly on the Crimean annexation vote, along with its partners in the Brics [Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa] bloc), this country may find itself accused of designing what is in reality a mass expulsion.