Former Miss South Africa finalist and Miss Universe Nigeria contestant Chidimma Adetshina returned to court in Cape Town on Monday as her legal team fought to block the Department of Home Affairs from detaining and deporting her, arguing she is not a foreigner and that South Africa is the only home she has ever known.
The Cape Town Regional Court heard competing arguments about Adetshina’s legal status, the State’s power to detain her, and whether the matter even falls within the court’s jurisdiction. After hearing submissions, the court reserved judgment and postponed the matter to 19 August, when it is expected to rule on whether Adetshina should be detained pending the outcome of the deportation process.
Home Affairs has told the court that Adetshina is in the country illegally and should be detained. Adetshina’s lawyer, however, argued that she was born in South Africa, has deep roots here and poses no risk that would justify detention. He also said she has no meaningful ties to Nigeria, despite the passports she has obtained.
Adetshina’s appearance in the Cape Town Regional Court was marked by visible tension, both inside and outside the building. She arrived wearing a white two-piece tracksuit and appeared subdued compared to her previous appearance, when she entered confidently. Outside the court, a group of March & March supporters gathered and shouted at her as she left, underscoring how her case remains a political flashpoint beyond the legal arguments being tested.
Before hearing submissions, the court encouraged Home Affairs and Adetshina’s legal team to attempt to resolve the matter without judicial intervention. No agreement was reached, and the parties proceeded with argument.
Advocate Giles Barclay-Beuthin, representing Adetshina, told the court she should not be treated as a foreign national because she was born and raised in South Africa and has lived nowhere else. He said Home Affairs’ attempt to detain and deport her ignores her lived reality and family ties.
“Her accent is South African. She was born here in 2001, her mother is under house arrest here and her father is a permanent citizen. This is her home,” Barclay-Beuthin told the court.
He argued that detaining Adetshina would not serve the interests of justice because she poses no danger to the public and is not a flight risk. He also questioned the practical logic of deportation to Nigeria, contending that she has no substantial connection to the country.
Home Affairs, however, framed the case differently: as a straightforward question of legality and enforcement. Advocate Rantho Motlalepule, appearing for the State, argued that the regional court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter and pointed out that the court previously granted a postponement on that basis.
Motlalepule said Adetshina is in South Africa unlawfully because she has no valid documentation.
“What this court knows is that the person we are dealing with is illegal in the country because she has no papers,” Motlalepule submitted.
She then argued that the “interests of justice” argument cannot override immigration enforcement where someone is illegally in the country.
The issue of the interests of justice is not a blank cheque. If you are illegal in the country, you should be deported.
Motlalepule went further, placing emphasis on Adetshina’s travel and documentation history. She told the court that Adetshina obtained Nigerian passports for herself and her minor child in order to advance her modelling career. She also raised claims about how Adetshina travelled and what immigration steps were taken while she was outside South Africa.
“Ms Adetshina applied for a South African visa while she was in Lagos, as well as for the acquisition of the Nigerian passports. The mode of entry is via the Mozambican port of entry. This is something that the court was not told about,” she argued.
Adetshina’s legal team countered by situating the case within broader litigation already before the High Court, arguing that Home Affairs is acting against her while her status is being reviewed in a different forum. The defence also argued that Home Affairs has proceeded in a manner that targets her family circumstances — particularly her mother’s status — without conducting a procedurally fair investigation into Adetshina’s own citizenship.
“The mere fact that Ms Adetshina’s citizenship and identity documentation were derived from her mother’s impugned identity record does not automatically establish that Ms Adetshina knowingly possessed or procured a fraudulent document,” the defence submitted.
The case has attracted intense national attention since 2024, when Adetshina became the subject of public scrutiny after qualifying as a finalist in the Miss South Africa pageant. She later withdrew amid controversy over her citizenship and subsequently represented Nigeria at the Miss Universe competition — a move that amplified political debate about identity, belonging, documentation, and who is recognised as South African.
Those debates have since spilled into political organising and public protest. The presence of March & March supporters outside court on Monday — and their shouting at Adetshina as she left — signals that her case is being used by some groups as part of wider campaigns around immigration and citizenship enforcement.
For the court, however, the immediate legal questions are narrower but consequential: whether it has jurisdiction, whether Home Affairs has a lawful basis to detain her now, and whether detention is justified given the arguments that she is not a flight risk and that her status is being contested through other court processes.
The regional court’s decision to reserve judgment suggests it is weighing multiple factors, including Home Affairs’ insistence that she has “no papers”, the defence’s argument about procedural fairness and the High Court review, and the practical consequences of detaining a woman who says she was born and raised in South Africa and has a minor child.
The matter was postponed to 19 August, when judgment is expected on whether Adetshina should be detained while Home Affairs pursues deportation. Until then, the case remains suspended between two narratives: one that treats her as an undocumented person unlawfully in the country, and another that insists she is a South African in everything but the bureaucratic record — and that she should not be locked up while that record is fought over in court.
