Reflections from South Africa Fieldwork | Insights and Next Steps

By Poorvi Yerrapureddy

---

South Africa’s expanding digital public infrastructure intersects with complex migration flows in ways that fundamentally shape access to rights, services and protection for refugees, asylum seekers and migrants from across the African continent. This research investigates how digital identity systems interact with broader institutional data flows, which actors control access at different stages of migration and how communities navigate, contest or build alternatives when formal systems exclude them. By tracing data movements between government agencies, humanitarian organisations, private sector actors and civil society, we illuminate both the exclusions produced by datafied migration management and the possibilities for more participatory, rights-respecting digital governance.

Fieldwork in South Africa: Approach and Methodology

Our fieldwork in South Africa adopted a participatory, trauma-informed methodology designed to centre the voices and experiences of people on the move. We conducted focus group discussions with 50 participants aged 14–65, predominantly women, representing diverse migration journeys to South Africa from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia and Zimbabwe. This demographic composition reflects the mixed migration corridors that characterise South Africa’s mobile populations, encompassing refugees and asylum seekers at different stages of their journeys. 

This primary research built upon extensive desk research examining South Africa’s policy frameworks, literature on migration and digital governance, and expert interviews with civil society organisations and academics working at the intersection of migration and technology.

Recognising that traditional research frameworks can reproduce extractive dynamics and retraumatise vulnerable communities, we employed a persona-based approach grounded in trauma-informed principles. Rather than structured questionnaires, we facilitated semi-structured conversations that created space for participants to share their experiences with digital systems, data flows and technologies on their own terms. These dialogues explored how people on the move encounter digital identity infrastructures, navigate bureaucratic data requirements and experience exclusions or enablement through datafied migration management systems. 

To complement community insights, we engaged with key stakeholders from academia and civil society organisations working in migration, digital rights or social justice. These conversations with researchers, community leaders and frontline service providers presented institutional perspectives on data governance frameworks, policy gaps and advocacy strategies. By triangulating community experiences with expert analysis, we sought to build a comprehensive understanding of South Africa’s migration data infrastructure— the interconnected systems through which refugee and migrant data flows between entities—digital identity platforms serve as the primary interface, and government databases, humanitarian systems, financial service providers and verification platforms form the broader architecture that process, store and share this data.

What we learned: Findings from the field

1. Digital ID as a gateway and a gatekeeper

   South Africa’s asylum seeker permits and refugee status documents create differentiated access to digital systems, with documentation status determining eligibility for financial services and social protection schemes. While South African law provides for refugees’ right to work, open bank accounts and access services, implementation gaps between legal entitlements and institutional recognition create barriers at the point of service delivery. Banks and mobile money providers across South Africa often fail to recognise the full spectrum of refugee documentation types, raising questions about how financial inclusion can be reimagined to accommodate temporary or uncertain status documentation. Biometric data collection has expanded significantly within South African migration management, yet the question of how transparency mechanisms and meaningful consent processes are developed before data collection occurs must still be answered. Extended waiting periods for formal status determinations by the Department of Home Affairs leaves people unable to access services that demand verified identity. Desk research and civil society reports have documented these delays, yet our focus group discussions substantiated these claims with direct evidence of how prolonged waiting periods affect livelihoods, prompting inquiry into how alternative forms of verification might bridge this gap during transitional periods.

   
   

2. Fragmented data systems and limited interoperability

   South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs, South African Social Security Agency, commercial banks, mobile money operators, UNHCR, IOM and other community organisations each maintain datasets on refugee populations that operate largely in institutional silos. When opportunities exist for data coordination between South African actors, how might transparency frameworks ensure refugees understand what information moves and for what purposes? The absence of unified refugee data governance in South Africa creates inefficiencies through repeated data collection, yet this fragmentation also presents an opportunity to design new governance architectures that prioritise community participation from the outset. It provides South Africa the opportunity to develop data stewardship models that balance institutional needs with refugee rights and autonomy.

   
   

3. Community networks fill critical gaps

   WhatsApp groups, community leaders and peer networks in South Africa circulate essential information about documentation requirements and service access that institutional channels do not provide. Intermediaries within South African refugee communities assume crucial roles in translating information, advocating for access and guiding people through bureaucratic processes, indicating where institutionalised support structures could strengthen community-led approaches. South African communities have created community-based verification systems, employment networks and financial support mechanisms where institutional systems have not reached, demonstrating both the capacity for innovation and the opportunity to learn from and integrate these practices into institutional service delivery.

   
   

4. Trust, surveillance and the cost of inclusion

   Refugees in South Africa expressed concerns about data movement between government agencies, highlighting the necessity for clear protocols about information sharing and data protection. Many participants lack awareness of their rights under South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act and available accountability mechanisms, presenting an opportunity to develop accessible education and redressal pathways. Refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa make deliberate choices about when to engage with digital systems versus when to remain invisible, raising important questions about how digital inclusion initiatives can address the legitimate security concerns that shape these decisions and build trust through demonstrated accountability.

Next Steps

With these insights, we hope to distil our research in South Africa into the following action points and move towards more inclusive, rights-respecting infrastructure:

• Document which institutions collect what data, where information resides and how it circulates between actors. Identify formal and informal data-sharing arrangements and the governance gaps that expose refugees and asylum seekers to risk. Develop visual representations to make these complex systems comprehensible.

• Evaluate how South Africa’s digital transformation efforts through implementation of DPI will accommodate people with uncertain or temporary status. Catalogue the specific technical and policy barriers that currently prevent access and identify design principles for inclusive DPI that could guide future development.

• Document community-led alternatives by taxonomising community-led efforts, understanding the conditions enabling or constraining these innovations and exploring how community-led solutions might inform or integrate with institutions while preserving community autonomy and self-determination.

• Develop stakeholder-specific recommendations tailored to government departments, private sector actors including banks and mobile money providers and civil society organisations. Ground all recommendations directly in the lived experiences and insights gathered through fieldwork.

  
  

These actions position our findings from South Africa within broader South-South migration conversations and inform forthcoming policy moments including the Global DPI Summit and regional convenings, identifying patterns that reveal both replicable approaches and shared challenges across geographies. 

This research demonstrates that inclusive digital migration infrastructure is achievable when communities lead the design process and when institutions commit to transparency and accountability. Digital systems do not neutrally process information; they encode power relationships, institutional hierarchies and political choices about whose data matters. The innovations, resilience and knowledge that refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa have demonstrated offer evidence for reimagining how technology can serve migration rather than constrain it.

If you're interested in learning more about our research and thinking of ways in which we can collaborate, please reach out to us at contact@aapti.in