Johannesburg, 22 October 2025- Allegations have emerged that the civic movement Operation Dudula is taking bribes from companies by threatening to expose employment of undocumented foreign nationals. According to investigative reports, businesses in parts of Johannesburg and Gauteng were approached by members of the movement who demanded payment under the implied threat of reputational damage or public raids if they did not comply.
The report, published by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, describes how restaurants and other businesses in suburbs such as Norwood, Lyndhurst and Orange Grove were targeted with demands framed as “protection fees” payments required to avoid harassment or accusations by the group over hiring practices.
In one case outlined in the report, a restaurant owner said the movement demanded money to prevent disruption of business. The Global Initiative describes how “as time went on they came with threats demanding money from us … or else they trash our stock.”
The scale of the alleged scheme remains unclear. No formal criminal charges have been publicly reported against Operation Dudula specifically for extortion or bribery, and the organisation has not issued a detailed response to the accusations. Civil-society groups and human-rights observers warn that such practices risk undermining the rule of law and could constitute vigilantism.
The organisation’s professed mission is to campaign against undocumented migration and to pressure employers who hire undocumented foreign nationals. But the new allegations shift the narrative: rather than solely campaigning, the movement is accused of monetising its access and influence over employers by offering to shield them from public exposure in exchange for cash.
Businesses approached by the movement find themselves in a difficult position. If they refuse to pay, they risk being publicly confronted by the group; if they comply, they are effectively subsidising an unofficial enforcement mechanism that operates outside formal legal channels. One employer in the investigative report claimed to have reported the matter to police, yet no prosecutions followed.
Experts say the allegations of taking bribes raise broader questions about what happens when non-state actors assume quasi-regulatory roles. “When a civic movement begins to demand payments from employers in exchange for avoiding intervention, that crosses from protest into extortion,” said Richard Calland, a South African constitutional scholar. While not directly commenting on this case, he emphasised that accountability and due-process must prevail.
The movement’s leadership has previously been criticised for vigilante-style tactics in other domains, including blocking access to public services for foreign nationals. The new charges of taking bribes add a financial and criminal dimension that may attract formal legal scrutiny.
The companies targeted are wary of speaking out, fearing reprisals or reputational harm. Legal analysts say any investigation would need to examine whether the payments were coerced, and whether the movement’s actions amount to extortion under South African law.
