As thousands of migrants in South Africa rush to exit the country amid growing anti-migrant hostility, most have spent several weeks waiting in crowded repatriation centres for a chance to be transported home.

As always, the vulnerability and invisibility of womenâs experiences are also unfolding in those temporary repatriation centres, where, as with other gendered challenges, a gender-neutral migration response often overlooks them.

Not all migrants who are awaiting repatriation find shelter in designated temporary repatriation processing centres. Many remain in informal gathering places, church premises, community centres and other temporary locations where humanitarian support and protective measures are frequently inadequate. For women and girls, these unofficial environments can pose heightened risks, as access to healthcare, privacy, sanitation and protective services is often sporadic or completely missing.

Although the latest Inter-Ministerial Committee update on the comprehensive approach to migration, issued on 12 July 2026, confirms the provision of healthcare, sanitation, dignity packs, child protection and humanitarian assistance at the Musina Temporary Repatriation Processing Centre, this represents a more humane system.

Particular challenges

The current response has rightly recognised that people awaiting repatriation require food, shelter, sanitation, healthcare and transportation. But the particular challenges facing women require additional attention. The question remains: is this general humanitarian response enough to address the distinct experiences of migrant women?

Migration scholars such as Susan Martin and Nicola Piper have consistently argued that migration governance cannot be effective unless it recognises the distinct experiences and vulnerabilities of women.

The argument is not that the government has done nothing to protect vulnerable women, nor that every woman in a repatriation centre has experienced abuse or neglect. Rather, the current migration response requires a gender dimension to migration governance. For women, the forced displacement, the waiting and the repatriation are different. The repatriation process amid childcare, breastfeeding or pregnancy hits differently.

Crowded and temporary environments, combined with uncertainty and dependence on others, can make harassment, exploitation and gender-based violence easier to perpetrate and difficult to detect.

Limited privacy, uncertainty about the repatriation process, dependence on officials and service providers, and fears that reporting abuse could affect their treatment or departure can create conditions in which women may feel unable to report problems.

These concerns are not unique to the South African immigration crisis. Internationally, women have always been recognised to experience displacement differently from men.

Protection for women and girls

The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women requires states to protect women from discrimination throughout migration processes, while the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (2018) calls for gender-responsive migration governance and protection for women and girls during return and reintegration.

These frameworks recognise that a humanitarian response alone is not enough unless it also addresses gender-specific recognised risks.

The economic vulnerability of women is another challenge, even after a successful repatriation. Migrant women usually work in sectors such as domestic work, caregiving, hospitality or informal trading. When threats of anti-immigrant violence intensified, many left without receiving their unpaid wages, while others lost their stock or savings. For many of them, returning home means returning without the resources to rebuild their lives,

Given these circumstances, the availability of services matters, and a gender-responsive approach to identifying and addressing needs matters too.

South Africa can draw lessons from approaches by other countries which had to deal with massive displacements. For example, during the massive Ukrainian displacements in 2022, several European host governments, in partnership with international organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), established survivor relief centres that incorporated dedicated support for women and children, psychosocial services, maternal and reproductive healthcare referrals, safe spaces, and confidential mechanisms for reporting gender-based violence.

Distinct protection needs

These measures recognised that women face distinct protection needs even within broader humanitarian responses.

A systematic process should answer these questions: Are women being identified as more vulnerable? Are pregnant and nursing mothers receiving appropriate support? Are there female officials, social workers and trusted support providers available to women? Is reporting abuse, harassment or exploitation confidential for women? Is there collaboration with the continental counterparts regarding reintegration?

A âyesâ to these questions implies a gender-responsive approach that addresses core principles, vulnerability-sensitive assessment, maternal and reproductive health protection, dignity, confidentiality and safe and sustainable reintegration.

A practical gender-responsive approach should include several measures, such as the screening of women at the point of entry into the temporary repatriation centre to identify vulnerabilities such as pregnancy, health conditions, responsibility for children and risks of violence or exploitation.

The repatriation centre should have safe and confidential mechanisms for reporting abuse, harassment and other protection concerns.

Appropriate healthcare services

Healthcare should include appropriate maternal, reproductive and child health services, with referral systems for cases requiring specialised treatment. Mothers and children should be kept together wherever possible, while women should receive clear and accessible information about the repatriation process.

Women should also be connected to support services after arrival in their countries of origin, particularly where they are returning without employment, income or stable housing.

The consequences of overlooking womenâs vulnerabilities during displacement and return are well documented. UNHCRâs 2024 report and UNFPAâs 2025 report provide evidence from humanitarian crises in South Sudan and Myanmar, demonstrating that overcrowded displacement sites, inadequate lighting, limited privacy, fragile shelters and weak reporting mechanisms expose women and girls to heightened risks of sexual exploitation, gender-based violence, and barriers to accessing reproductive healthcare.

These experiences illustrate why gender-responsive protection should not be viewed as an optional addition, but as a central component of any humane repatriation system. Therefore, a humane and comprehensive response to the current migration crisis should place the experiences of migrant women at the centre. It should not merely move women across borders, but ensure that they are protected, informed and treated with dignity throughout the journey home. DM