Streetwise Legal

Website Contact the business

Streetwise Legal Protecting South African motorists from unfair fines, intimidation, and abuse of power.

⛽ 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗣𝗘𝗧𝗥𝗢𝗟 𝗖𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝟮𝟭 𝗖𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗔 𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗥𝗘?📅 𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗞 𝗜𝗡 𝟭𝟵𝟳𝟲!Look at this old Ballito Motors invoice! A reminde...
12/10/2026

⛽ 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗣𝗘𝗧𝗥𝗢𝗟 𝗖𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝟮𝟭 𝗖𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗦 𝗔 𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗥𝗘?
📅 𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗞 𝗜𝗡 𝟭𝟵𝟳𝟲!

Look at this old Ballito Motors invoice! A reminder of just how much times have changed.

Today, petrol 95 could reach a projected R33.60 per litre in November 2026 — compared with around 21 cents per litre in January 1976.

📈 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧’𝗦 𝗔𝗡 𝗜𝗡𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗧 𝗥𝟯𝟯.𝟯𝟵 𝗣𝗘𝗥 𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗥𝗘!

From cents to more than R33 a litre. And with another possible fuel price shock on the horizon, South Africans have every reason to be concerned.

𝗪𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗚𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗡𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗟𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗡 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗔’𝗦 𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗔 𝗥𝟯.𝟬𝟬 𝗣𝗘𝗥 𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗥𝗘 𝗙𝗨𝗘𝗟 𝗟𝗘𝗩𝗬 𝗖𝗨𝗧?

Streetwise Legal stands behind the call for meaningful relief for motorists and households.

👇 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗦𝗘 𝗣𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗘𝗦? Tell us in the comments — and share this post!

📞 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗖𝗧 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗧𝗪𝗜𝗦𝗘 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟

☎️ 065 846 3121
📲 WhatsApp: 076 400 4227
✉️ [email protected]
🌐 www.streetwise-legal.co.za

12/10/2026

🚨 𝗡𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗠𝗕𝗘𝗥 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗕𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔 𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗥𝗗 𝗙𝗨𝗘𝗟 𝗣𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗘 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗖𝗞!

⛽ 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗧𝗪𝗜𝗦𝗘 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟 𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗡𝗗𝗦 𝗕𝗘𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗔’𝗦 𝗖𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗔 𝗥𝟯.𝟬𝟬 𝗣𝗘𝗥 𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗥𝗘 𝗙𝗨𝗘𝗟 𝗟𝗘𝗩𝗬 𝗖𝗨𝗧!

South Africans are facing the prospect of a massive fuel price increase in November, with early projections warning that petrol could rise by more than R4 per litre.

If these projections materialise, the impact will reach far beyond the petrol station. Transport costs, food prices and the cost of everyday essentials could all come under further pressure.

𝗢𝗥𝗗𝗜𝗡𝗔𝗥𝗬 𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗧𝗛 𝗔𝗙𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗞𝗘𝗘𝗣 𝗔𝗕𝗦𝗢𝗥𝗕𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗛𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗘𝗥 𝗖𝗢𝗦𝗧𝗦.

Streetwise Legal stands behind the Automobile Association’s proposal for a R3.00 per litre cut in the general fuel levy and urges government to seriously consider this relief for motorists and households.

Government must recognise the pressure facing the public and act where it can to ease the burden.

𝗙𝗨𝗘𝗟 𝗜𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔 𝗟𝗨𝗫𝗨𝗥𝗬. 𝗜𝗧 𝗔𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗦 𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗬𝗗𝗔𝗬 𝗟𝗜𝗙𝗘.

👇 𝗗𝗢 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗔’𝗦 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗥𝟯.𝟬𝟬 𝗙𝗨𝗘𝗟 𝗟𝗘𝗩𝗬 𝗖𝗨𝗧? Share your thoughts below.

📞 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗖𝗧 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗧𝗪𝗜𝗦𝗘 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟

☎️ 065 846 3121
📲 WhatsApp: 076 400 4227
✉️ [email protected]
🌐 www.streetwise-legal.co.za

11/10/2026

No words.

10/10/2026

🚨 𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗬. 𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗖𝗔𝗠𝗣𝗔𝗜𝗚𝗡𝗦. 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗧𝗔𝗫𝗣𝗔𝗬𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗣𝗔𝗬𝗜𝗡𝗚?

A leaked recording of President Cyril Ramaphosa discussing the alleged use of public funds for ANC political campaigns has reignited a serious question.

𝗪𝗔𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗢𝗡𝗟𝗬 𝗔 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗔𝗦𝗧 — 𝗢𝗥 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦 𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗕𝗘𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗣𝗨𝗥𝗣𝗢𝗦𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗢𝗗𝗔𝗬?

South Africans deserve **𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗬, 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗪𝗘𝗥𝗦.**

💰 **𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗠𝗢𝗡𝗘𝗬 𝗕𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗡𝗚𝗦 𝗧𝗢 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗣𝗘𝗢𝗣𝗟𝗘 — 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗘𝗦.**

👇 **𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗞?** Should there be greater transparency over how political campaigns are funded?

10/10/2026

🚨 𝗔 𝗕𝗔𝗗𝗚𝗘 𝗠𝗘𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗣𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗜𝗕𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗬. 𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗜𝗦 𝗖𝗛𝗘𝗖𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗙𝗜𝗧𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗗𝗨𝗧𝗬?

2018 - 2026. And the question of public safety still matters.

When you wear a traffic police, Metro Police or SAPS uniform, you carry a responsibility that goes far beyond wearing a badge. Your role may require you to respond to emergencies, confront danger and protect the public when seconds count.

Back in 2018, OFM reported on a Free State traffic officer filmed apparently sleeping on duty. The department said he had a medical condition and was taking medication. That deserves compassion — not ridicule.

𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘’𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗜𝗚 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: If a medical condition affects an officer’s ability to perform essential operational duties safely, what happens next?

There must be appropriate fitness-for-duty assessments and, where necessary, consideration of alternative duties. This is not about punishing someone for becoming ill. It’s about ensuring that officers can safely fulfil the responsibilities of their roles.

⚠️ **𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗦𝗔𝗙𝗘𝗧𝗬 𝗖𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗕𝗘 𝗔𝗡 𝗔𝗙𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗛𝗧.**

A badge comes with responsibility. The public deserves confidence that those entrusted to protect them can carry out their duties safely and effectively.

👇 **𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗞?** Should regular fitness-for-duty assessments be part of operational law enforcement? Let’s hear your views in the comments.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗧𝗪𝗜𝗦𝗘 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟
🌐 www.streetwise-legal.co.za
📞 065 846 3121
📱 WhatsApp: 076 400 4227
✉️ [email protected]

💰 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗥𝟭.𝟲 𝗠𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗡  𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗙𝗘𝗜𝗧 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗛 𝗟𝗢𝗢𝗞𝗦 𝗟𝗜𝗞𝗘.𝗥𝟭.𝟲 𝗠𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗡 𝗙𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗛 — 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗔𝗡 𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗧 𝗜𝗡 𝗨𝗠𝗛𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗔!An upm...
10/10/2026

💰 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗜𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗥𝟭.𝟲 𝗠𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗡 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗙𝗘𝗜𝗧 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗛 𝗟𝗢𝗢𝗞𝗦 𝗟𝗜𝗞𝗘.

𝗥𝟭.𝟲 𝗠𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗡 𝗙𝗔𝗞𝗘 𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗛 — 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗔𝗡 𝗔𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗧 𝗜𝗡 𝗨𝗠𝗛𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗔!

An upmarket flat in Umhlanga Ridge. A search warrant. A raid involving Durban Metro Police’s Tactical Support Unit, the Hawks and Counter Narcotics KZN.

And what did officers allegedly uncover?

Counterfeit cash estimated at R1.6 million, a safe, an iPhone 16 and two passports with expired visas.

According to police, the suspect was also allegedly involved in a scheme known as “Black Dollar”. Members further reported that the flat was allegedly being used as a brothel.

A Ugandan national was arrested and faces charges relating to counterfeit currency, contravention of the South African Reserve Bank Act, keeping a brothel and illegal immigration.

He is expected to appear in the Durban Magistrates’ Court on Monday, 12 October.

Let’s be clear: these are allegations, and the case must follow due process.

But R1.6 million in alleged counterfeit cash is no small discovery. Fake money can have serious consequences for unsuspecting people and businesses who may unknowingly accept it.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗦: 𝗛𝗢𝗪 𝗙𝗔𝗥 𝗗𝗜𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗚𝗢 — 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗪𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗜𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗚𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥?

👇 What do you make of this seizure?

WHAT THE LAW SAYSEPISODE 1: ARREST, DETENTION & BAILEvery Thursday. Know it before they test it."They arrested him, so h...
09/10/2026

WHAT THE LAW SAYS
EPISODE 1: ARREST, DETENTION & BAIL
Every Thursday. Know it before they test it.
"They arrested him, so he must be guilty."
That's the comment section talking. The people doing the arresting are counting on you to believe it too.
Arrest is not guilt.
Section 35 of the Constitution protects people who are arrested, detained and accused. An accused person is presumed innocent and has the right to a fair trial (s35(3)(h)). An arrest is an accusation being tested. It is not a finding of anything.
You can stay silent. They'll hope you don't.
An arrested person has the right to remain silent, and must be told of that right and of the consequences of speaking (s35(1)(a)–(b)). You cannot be compelled to make a confession or admission that can be used against you (s35(1)(c)). Statements given to a room full of officers, without anyone explaining any of this, are how a lot of cases get built.
They can't arrest whoever they like.
Section 12 protects everyone from being deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause. The Criminal Procedure Act sets out when police may arrest, including the limited grounds for arrest without a warrant (s40). Suspicion has to rest on something. "We wanted to talk to you" is not a ground.
48 hours. Not "whenever we get to it."
An arrested person must be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, and no later than 48 hours after arrest. If those 48 hours expire outside ordinary court hours or on a non-court day, the deadline extends to the end of the next court day (s35(1)(d)). Detention beyond that without a court's say-so is unlawful.
Your rights don't stop at the cell door.
A detained person must be told promptly why they're being held. They can choose a lawyer and consult them, and if substantial injustice would otherwise result, the state must provide one at its own expense (s35(2)). Evidence obtained in violation of the Bill of Rights can be excluded if using it would make the trial unfair (s35(5)).
Does any of this actually get ignored?
The state's own figures say yes. Parliament was told that there were 48,569 pending cases of unlawful arrest and detention nationally, within SAPS facing R56.7 billion in pending civil claims overall. Separately, SAPS paid R2.8 billion in claims for unlawful arrest, detention and assault since April 2022. Those are claims and payouts, not every arrest, but they are the state's own numbers on what happens when the rules are broken. The people who pay for it are ordinary citizens, twice: once when they're arrested, and again as taxpayers when the bill arrives. (The Citizen) (The Citizen)
Bail is not an acquittal. Denial is not a conviction.
Where the interests of justice permit, an accused person may be released while the case proceeds, on conditions set by the court (s35(1)(f); s60 of the CPA). When someone walks out on bail, the case continues. When bail is refused, that says nothing about guilt. It says a court decided release wasn't appropriate at that stage.
The stages:
Arrest. Charge. First appearance. Bail. Trial. Verdict. Sentence.
Skip a stage and you're not applying the law. You're applying a feeling.
The rights are on paper. The paper only works for people who know it exists.
Next Thursday: Can the police search you, your car or your home without a warrant?
WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
Mind the law.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS Episode 2 SEARCH & SEIZUREEvery Thursday. Know it before they test it.“Open the boot. We’re searching ...
09/10/2026

WHAT THE LAW SAYS
Episode 2
SEARCH & SEIZURE
Every Thursday. Know it before they test it.
“Open the boot. We’re searching the car.”
That's where knowing your rights becomes rather more useful than arguing about them afterwards. Police powers are not unlimited, and wearing a uniform does not create a constitutional exemption from the law.
Section 14 of the Constitution protects everyone against having their person, home or property searched, their possessions seized or the privacy of their communications infringed. Your privacy is a constitutional right. It is not a courtesy granted by whoever happens to be standing in front of you.
Usually, they need a warrant.
Section 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for the seizure of articles through a search warrant where the statutory requirements have been met. In other words, the starting point is not “we felt like searching”; there must be lawful authority for the search.
But before somebody starts shouting “NO WARRANT, NO SEARCH!”, there are exceptions. Because, naturally, the law is slightly more complicated than a Facebook graphic.
Section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act permits a warrantless search where the person concerned consents, or where the police official has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant would be issued and that waiting to obtain one would defeat the purpose of the search. Other legislation can also create specific search powers.
A lawful arrest changes the position.
When someone is lawfully arrested, section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act permits the person making the arrest to search the arrested person and seize specified articles found in their possession or under their control.
That does not mean an arrest gives police a blank cheque to search anything and everything connected to that person. The authority to search still comes from the law, and the circumstances still matter.
Your car is not a constitutional dead zone.
A vehicle may be searched without a warrant where the law permits it, but “it's a car” is not itself a legal justification. The question is what authority the police are relying on and whether the requirements for exercising that power have been met.
The same principle applies to your home, where the constitutional protection of privacy is particularly important. Section 14 expressly protects the home against search, while the Criminal Procedure Act regulates when police may enter and search premises, including circumstances in which a warrant is not required.
So when someone arrives at your front door and says, “We're just going to have a look around,” you don't need to become a constitutional action hero. Ask what legal authority they are relying on.
“Just cooperate” doesn't rewrite the law.
Consent matters. If you voluntarily consent to a search, section 22 recognises that as a basis for a warrantless search. But consent, lawful statutory authority and an unlawful search are three different things.
And here's the important part: do not physically resist a lawful search. If you believe the search is unlawful, make your objection clear and challenge it through the proper legal process. Fighting with police at the roadside is a spectacularly bad way of proving that you understand constitutional rights.
And if they get it wrong?
Section 35(5) of the Constitution provides that evidence obtained in a manner that violates the Bill of Rights must be excluded where admitting it would make the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.
So the question is not simply what evidence the police found. The question is how they got it.
A warrant, consent, statutory authority and the recognised exceptions to the warrant requirement are not interchangeable concepts. Neither is “I'm the police” a magic phrase that switches off section 14.
The Constitution protects your privacy. The Criminal Procedure Act provides circumstances in which that privacy can lawfully be invaded.
Know the difference before somebody tests it on you.
Next Thursday: When can the police enter your home without a warrant?
WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
Mind the law.
Streetwise Legal

09/10/2026

🚨 🇿🇦 𝗕𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚: 𝗛𝗢𝗠𝗘 𝗔𝗙𝗙𝗔𝗜𝗥𝗦 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛𝗗𝗥𝗔𝗪𝗦 𝗔𝗦𝗬𝗟𝗨𝗠 𝗗𝗜𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 — 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗛𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗪?

The scenes at Marabastad Home Affairs in Pretoria raise serious questions about the management of South Africa’s asylum system. Long queues, overwhelmed reception offices and a sudden change in government policy have left the public demanding answers.

𝗦𝗢, 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗛𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗘𝗗?

The Constitutional Court ruled on 7 July 2026 that certain legal provisions restricting access to the asylum application process were unconstitutional. These included procedural barriers that could prevent some people from having their asylum claims considered.

Following the judgment, Home Affairs issued a directive on 28 September setting out how applications should be handled.

Then, on 9 October, the department withdrew that directive, saying refugee reception offices had become overwhelmed, officials faced safety risks, and public safety concerns had emerged. The department also stated that the directive had been issued without the minister’s knowledge.

⚠️ 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥?

South Africans have legitimate questions about border management, immigration enforcement, the capacity of Home Affairs offices and whether government is properly prepared to manage the consequences of its decisions.

𝗕𝗨𝗧 𝗟𝗘𝗧’𝗦 𝗕𝗘 𝗖𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗥:

The court ruling does **𝗡𝗢𝗧** automatically grant asylum, South African citizenship or voting rights to everyone who entered the country illegally. An asylum application is a request for protection, and each claim must still be assessed under the law.

The withdrawal of the directive also does **𝗡𝗢𝗧** cancel the Constitutional Court’s ruling. Home Affairs must still develop an approach that complies with the judgment.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗜𝗚 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: **𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗪𝗔𝗦𝗡’𝗧 𝗔 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗡 𝗜𝗡 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗖𝗘 — 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗖𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗕𝗟𝗘?**

South Africans deserve a properly managed immigration system, functioning government departments and transparent answers when decisions have such significant consequences.

🎥 **𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗖𝗛 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢** showing the queues at Marabastad and tell us what you think.

Is Home Affairs equipped to manage this process? What should government do next?

👇 **𝗝𝗢𝗜𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗦𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡.** Let’s discuss the facts, demand accountability and keep the conversation respectful.

𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗧𝗪𝗜𝗦𝗘 𝗟𝗘𝗚𝗔𝗟 — 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧𝗦. 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗩𝗢𝗜𝗖𝗘.

🌐 www.streetwise-legal.co.za
📞 065 846 3121
💬 WhatsApp: 076 400 4227
✉️ [email protected]

Address

597 Ontdekkers Road Maraisburg Roodepoort
Roodepoort

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Streetwise Legal posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Streetwise Legal:

Shortcuts

Share

Category