Section 11(2) Visas: A Growing Risk for South African Projects

Over the past few months, there have been increasing concerns about how South African missions abroad are adjudicating Section 11(2) visa applications.

Section 11(2) of the Immigration Act was created for a very specific purpose. It allows a foreign national holding a visitor’s visa to be authorised to conduct work in South Africa for a limited period. It fills an important gap in the immigration system for technicians, engineers, project specialists, trainers and other experts who need to come to South Africa temporarily to perform specific assignments.

Without Section 11(2), many of these individuals may not clearly fit within alternative visa categories.

Unfortunately, recent adjudication trends at several South African missions may indicate some divergence from the original intent of Section 11(2).

Understanding Directive 1 of 2019

Directive 1 of 2019 introduced limitations on the use of Section 11(2) visas. Foreign missions were explicitly instructed to issue an initial Section 11(2) authorisation for a maximum period of three months, as already provided for in the Immigration Act. If necessary, a further extension of up to three months could be granted from within South Africa.

The directive also indicates that a person who has already received a Section 11(2) visa and extension may not typically qualify for another Section 11(2) visa within the same calendar year, and it prohibits back-to-back applications at the missions.

The practical effect is a maximum period of approximately 180 days in a calendar year.

At the time, the objective was to prevent the repeated use of visitor visas for ongoing employment.

The difficulty is that many large projects do not fit neatly into a six-month window.

Why the 180 Day Limitation Creates Practical Business Challenges

In theory, six months may seem sufficient. In practice, major infrastructure, mining, manufacturing, energy, and technology projects are frequently delayed. Equipment arrives late. Construction schedules change. Commissioning phases take longer than expected. Clients request additional testing or modifications. The same specialist who started a project is often needed to complete it.

For example, a foreign commissioning engineer is overseeing the installation of specialised manufacturing equipment. The engineer may spend three months in South Africa during the installation phase, return home while civil works and local preparations continue, and then return several months later for testing, commissioning, and staff training.

Under the current interpretation of Directive 1 of 2019, that second phase can, in some cases, be difficult to facilitate, even when it forms part of the same project.

In practice, some applications appear to be treated more restrictively than the directive anticipates.

A similar challenge arises in the renewable energy sector. Wind farm and solar projects frequently require the same OEM technicians to return at different stages of construction and commissioning.

When the 180-day limitation is strictly applied, projects may lose access to individuals with critical technical knowledge needed to complete them.

The alternative is rarely practical. Companies may need to bring in a new team, which will require additional handovers, retraining, and familiarisation. This can increase costs, cause delays, and introduce operational risk for projects that may already be under pressure.

While the directive was intended to prevent misuse, its application in practice may create challenges for projects that rely on continuity of specialist expertise and contribute to investment and economic activity.

A Growing Problem at South African Missions

What has been observed in recent months, during May and June 2026, is that some. Section 11(2) applications have reportedly been refused because the applicants intend to work in South Africa and should therefore apply for work visas. This has been raised with the Department of Home Affairs, but further clarity is awaited.

This interpretation may not fully align with the purpose of Section 11(2). The purpose of a Section 11(2) authorisation is to permit short-term work. The Immigration Act specifically provides that a visitor visa holder may be authorised to conduct work under prescribed conditions. The intention to perform short-term work is therefore an inherent feature of this category, rather than, in itself, a ground for refusal.

In many cases, a traditional work visa may not be a practical alternative.

A general work visa requires a South African employer and a local contract of employment. Critical Skills visas similarly require an employment relationship that often does not exist in project-based deployments. Intra-company transfer visas are limited to specific corporate structures and transfer arrangements.

Consider a foreign technician employed by a European equipment manufacturer who is sent to South Africa to install and commission machinery sold to a local mining company. The South African customer does not employ the technician and does not have a South African employment contract. A general work visa is therefore not an appropriate solution. This type of short-term, project-based assignment is typically aligned with the purpose of Section 11(2).

Many foreign specialists entering South Africa to install equipment, commission plants, train local personnel, or provide technical support are not employed by South African companies. They remain employed abroad and are fulfilling contractual obligations linked to a project in South Africa.

Section 11(2) was designed precisely for these circumstances.

The Way Forward

The Minister of Home Affairs has indicated that the future Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) platform may help improve consistency in visa adjudication. Extending the system to Section 11(2) applications could enhance predictability and processing efficiency.

However, a more immediate intervention is also required.

The Department should urgently issue internal guidance to missions to support consistent interpretation of  Section 11(2) and Directive 1 of 2019.

Officials may benefit from clarification that:

• Section 11(2) is intended to authorise short-term work.
• The presence of work activity alone is not necessarily inconsistent with the category.
• The category plays an important role in supporting investment and project delivery.
• South Africa continues to attract investment across key sectors, many of which depend on the effective deployment of specialised skills.

The legislative framework for Section 11(2) remains one of the most important tools to facilitate this movement. The challenge lies in ensuring consistent interpretation is applied in practice.

If inconsistencies persist, the impact is likely to be felt not by immigration practitioners but across projects that rely on specialist expertise. The consequences are likely to be seen on construction sites, in factories, at power plants, and across sectors where delivery timelines and operational efficiency are critical.

Written by Andreas Krensel, Senior Director, Africa and Europe