The Cape Town Regional Court has postponed judgment in the deportation case of the former Miss South Africa contestant and Miss Universe Nigeria, Chidimma Adetshina, to February 2027.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The court held that it is not in a position to make a determination at this stage until the Western Cape High Court has ruled on her review application.
Adetshina has approached the High Court to review the decision of the Department of Home Affairs to deport her. According to her lawyer, the earliest that review can be heard is May 2027.
The regional court was due to rule on the narrower question of whether she may be detained pending deportation, rather than on the final validity of her citizenship or of the deportation itself.
Supporters of the March and March movement protested outside the court on Wednesday, chanting “Chidimma, go home,” as the court prepared to rule on her legal challenge over her immigration status. Members of the civic organisation Operation Dudula have also staged protests demanding her immediate deportation.
Adetshina became the subject of a nationality and immigration controversy during the 2024 Miss South Africa pageant, withdrawing from the contest after public controversy over her origins and her South African identity documentation.
The Department of Home Affairs subsequently alleged that her South African identity documents derived from a fraudulent birth registration linked to her mother, Anabela Rungo. The department’s position is that the alleged fraud undermines the legal basis on which she was recognised as South African.
@thenigerialawyer“Court Postpones Chidimma Adetshina Deportation Ruling To February 2027” — Protesters Chant “Chidimma, Go Home” Outside Court
Her side maintains that she was born in South Africa, has lived there, and has substantial personal connections to the country, including having given birth to her child there.
The dispute flows from a sequence of administrative steps rather than from the arrest alone.
In September 2024, Home Affairs notified her of its intention to cancel her and her child’s South African identity documents. She later obtained a Nigerian passport and applied for a South African visitor’s visa, which Home Affairs says was refused on the ground of allegedly fraudulent supporting bank documentation, and which the department says she did not appeal.
On 19 December 2024, Home Affairs declared her a prohibited person under the Immigration Act, which the department says meant she was not eligible for a visa or permit to remain in the country.
She sought reconsideration or upliftment of that status. In March 2026, the Minister of Home Affairs, Leon Schreiber, rejected the application and maintained the prohibition. Her child’s application was also rejected, the child’s immigration position being treated as dependent on hers.
Her legal team has taken the prohibited-person decision to the Western Cape High Court for review. That review remains significant because it could determine whether the administrative foundation for removal was lawful.
The proceedings in the regional court arose from her arrest in June 2026.
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| 6 June 2026 | Arrested in Cape Town, with authorities alleging she was unlawfully in South Africa, after Home Affairs located her and her minor child |
| 9 June 2026 | First appearance in the Cape Town Regional Court; matter postponed and she was released on conditions rather than kept in custody |
| 16 July 2026 | Matter returned to court, with an affidavit expected setting out steps taken to regularise her immigration position |
| 20 July 2026 | Court heard substantive arguments on Home Affairs’ attempt to have her detained pending deportation |
| 20/21 July 2026 | Magistrate Reema Khorana reserved judgment and set 19 August 2026 for delivery |
| 19 August 2026 | Judgment postponed to February 2027 pending the High Court review |
The department argues that she has no lawful right to remain in the country because her citizenship documentation was revoked or undermined and because she was declared a prohibited person.
Its reported case includes allegations that she re-entered South Africa from Mozambique through the Lebombo border post while presenting herself as South African; that she had previously re-entered the country in 2025 despite being on a visa-restricted list; that she holds no current lawful residence status in the department’s systems; that detention and deportation are appropriate because she lacks the necessary immigration documentation; and that she still possesses a South African passport which she has not surrendered.
The state asked the court to confirm detention for the purpose of deportation. Its counsel also cautioned against a ruling that would anticipate or determine the separate High Court review of the prohibited-person designation.
Her legal team resists detention and argues that a final removal decision should not be taken before her status and her administrative-law challenges are conclusively determined.
Her reported arguments are that she has strong and long-standing ties to South Africa, having been born there and given birth to her child there; that Home Affairs has not shown her to be a flight risk; that as a high-profile individual she is unlikely to disappear; that she is prepared to surrender her South African passport; and that less restrictive alternatives exist, including reporting to an immigration officer every two weeks.
Counsel described her arrest after entry from Mozambique as an “ambush,” particularly as she had recently sought to have the prohibited-person designation lifted. Her team maintains that she was not personally implicated in the historical identity fraud, that her status should be regularised rather than that she be punished for documentation issues linked to her parents, and that the prohibited-person decision now under review ought ultimately to be overturned.
The regional court’s decision concerns detention pending deportation. It may determine whether Home Affairs can keep her in custody, or whether she should remain at liberty subject to conditions such as reporting obligations or the surrender of travel documents.
It is not, by itself, a final determination of whether she is a South African citizen, whether the cancellation of her identity documents was lawful, or whether the prohibited-person declaration must stand. Those questions remain tied to the High Court review and to any subsequent remedies.
An immigration law expert has noted that even if she took no part in any alleged registration fraud as an infant, that does not automatically create citizenship; a statutory basis for citizenship or lawful residence must still be established.
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
