False jobs, foreign battlefields: Policy gaps that exposed South Africans

The return of South Africans allegedly lured into Russia’s war exposes a preventive failure spanning overseas recruitment, online advertising, travel screening and consular protection.

Wellington Muzengeza is an independent journalist and political risk analyst specialising in governance, strategic infrastructure and African sovereignty. He is a Research Fellow at the Africa Centre for Critical Minerals and Energy Transition, founder of BuiltAfrica and author of The Informal State.

In February 2026, South Africans began returning home after the Presidency said that 17 men, aged between 20 and 39, had sought help from the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine.

The government said they had been drawn into “seemingly mercenary activities” after allegedly being offered lucrative employment opportunities.

Relatives said some had expected security or bodyguard training rather than frontline deployment. Pretoria’s engagement with Moscow subsequently secured the return of members of the group and continuing assistance for those not yet able to travel.

South African authorities have pursued related investigations under the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, while suspects in a separate recruitment case have faced allegations including fraud and trafficking.

The cases should not be conflated and allegations against particular people remain unproven. But the episode exposes a wider policy weakness: South Africa is better equipped to investigate unlawful military activity after it occurs than to scrutinise an apparently civilian overseas opportunity before a citizen departs.

Three evidentiary categories must remain separate. It is established that South Africans travelled to Russia, some entered the conflict zone, sought government assistance and were repatriated. Under investigation are allegations that individuals or networks misrepresented the purpose of the travel or facilitated unlawful military activity. Still unresolved are what each person understood, who financed the journey, which visas and contracts were used, and what South African or Russian institutions knew.

These distinctions matter. One person may enlist knowingly; another may agree to security training without consenting to combat. A signed contract may still be compromised by fraud, mistranslation, coercion or abuse of vulnerability.

Trafficking is a serious legal conclusion, not a synonym for every questionable recruitment arrangement. Conversely, the existence of a signature does not by itself prove informed and voluntary consent.

South Africa’s Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act prohibits mercenary activity and regulates unauthorised foreign military assistance. It defines mercenary activity as direct participation in armed conflict for private gain.

Intention, role and circumstances therefore matter when determining whether an offence occurred. The Act is primarily a criminal and security instrument.