The High court of South Africa has declared illegal Government’s lockdown regulations but ordered them to remain in place for the next fortnight. Phumula Williams the Government spokesperson said they have considered the judgement by the high court declaring the Alert Level 4 and Alert Level 3 Lockdown regulations unconstitutional and illegal.
The court also deferred the declaration of illegality for a fortnight meaning that the Alert Level 3 remains in full operation for the time being. However, the ban of tobacco has not been affected by the judgement as it is subject to a different court. Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, in discussions with the relevant ministers was ordered by the court to analyse, alter and review, amend and made known of the new regulations.
Nevertheless, the South African cabinet has said it will make another statement as soon as they have finished studying the high court’s judgement. The Democratic Alliance party filed a 170-page affidavit last month opposing the harsh restrictions on the people’s rights that led to an economic cost. Though the high court’s judgement was not in relation to DA’s court case, it was brought forward by Reyno de Beer and the Liberty Fighters Network.
Reyno de Beer and the Liberty Fighters Network echoes DA’s sentiments that dragged Government to court on two different cases that dared the legitimacy of some aspects of the lockdown. Gylniss Breytenbach a member of the House of National Assembly for DA last month argued that president Ramaphosa announced a state of emergency only to empower himself for 21 days, except if an extension was passed by the August House through a 60 percent majority vote.
“Under a state of emergency, the president may promulgate emergency regulations as are necessary of expedient to restore peace and order, but must make adequate provisions for terminating the state of emergency. The Cogta minister is not required by the DMA to describe how we will return to something resembling normality and in the Covid regulations, she has not,” she said.
She also argued that under the state of emergency, Ramaphosa should highlight emergency regulations in the August House where as the Disaster Management Act does not need any Parliamentary oversight.
Breytenbach also dared the court to ponder on the consequences of Ramaphosa’s pronouncement, arguing that under the state of emergency, Section 37(4) of the Constitution allowed laws that derogated certain rights in the Bill of Rights.
She also said that lockdown regulations may not derogate any rights. Breytenbach further said that said that, if the courts considered the lockdown regulations illegal, ‘the court is required to declare them to be unlawful and set them aside, and is empowered by Section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution to make any other order that is just and equitable’.