Ramaphosa asks Constitutional Court to overturn NHI judgment
The controversial bill, signed by Ramaphosa in May 2024, is a cornerstone of the government's proposed overhaul of South Africa's healthcare system, aiming to establish universal health coverage for all citizens.
However, the High Court in Pretoria ruled shortly afterwards that Ramaphosa's assent to the bill could be subject to judicial review — a finding that raised constitutional and procedural concerns. The court also ordered the president to provide a full record of all documentation and deliberations that informed his decision to approve the legislation.
This move sparked criticism from legal and political commentators who viewed it as a significant intrusion into executive authority. Now, Ramaphosa is asking the Constitutional Court — South Africa's highest legal authority on constitutional matters — to review and set aside the High Court's judgment.
In his application, the president contends that the lower court may have overstepped its bounds, arguing that it infringed on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. According to court papers filed by Ramaphosa, the High Court ruling 'undermines the functioning of the executive' and grants the judiciary undue influence over matters that, by design, fall within the president's discretion.
He maintains that while all actions of public office bear scrutiny, the power to sign legislation into law lies squarely with the executive and must be exercised without judicial interference unless a direct constitutional violation is evident.
The legal dispute unfolds amid intense national debate over the NHI, which has drawn sharp reactions from across the political spectrum. Supporters argue that the legislation is necessary to address systemic inequality in access to healthcare, while critics — including major stakeholders in the private healthcare industry — warn that the bill is vague, fiscally unsustainable, and potentially unconstitutional.
The High Court's ruling added a new layer of complexity to the NHI saga, as it suggested the president's role in enacting legislation is not immune from legal challenge if the process appears flawed. Some constitutional scholars noted that the court's directive to produce the 'record of decision' implies that judicial oversight could extend into executive reasoning, a move with far-reaching implications.
Legal experts say the outcome of Ramaphosa's appeal could set an important precedent for the limits of presidential authority and the role of the judiciary in legislative processes. If the Constitutional Court agrees to hear the matter, its judgment will have significant consequences not only for the future of the NHI but also for the balance of power between branches of government.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
24 minutes ago
- Mail & Guardian
Madlanga inquiry into police corruption to hear first witness in August
Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga The inquiry established by President Cyril Ramaphosa to investigate allegations of criminality, corruption and political interference in the criminal justice system will begin hearing public testimony in August, its chairperson, Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, said on Monday. Ramaphosa set up the inquiry in response to Madlanga said the commission has begun its preparatory work, including the appointment of senior personnel and the scheduling of the first witness consultation. 'Our first consultation with a witness is imminent. We are mindful that South Africa is eager to see the first witness in the stand. We too are keen to see that happen,' he told a media briefing. While Madlanga would not name the first witness, he confirmed that the commission would consult Mkhwanazi 'imminently'. Mkhwanazi alleged in a media briefing earlier this month that Mkhwanazi said 121 case dockets were removed from Mchunu, On Monday, Madlanga said the commission is treating the matter with urgency but must follow procedures, including consulting witnesses, assessing information and determining the need for follow-ups before public hearings can begin. 'The fact that General Mkhwanazi made the allegations does not make us ready to start hearing evidence immediately,' he said. He added that public hearings will take place in Gauteng, with a procurement process under way to secure a building. Madlanga assured the public that this would not delay preparations. 'We are proceeding full steam ahead. The lack of infrastructure does not affect progress on the commission's preparatory work,' he said. The commission will also establish facilities for members of the public to lodge relevant information, both in person and online. 'We consider it important that the public be afforded an opportunity to contribute,' Madlanga said. The commission has appointed a high-level team of professionals, with advocates Sesi Baloyi and Sandile Khumalo serving as co-commissioners. Advocate Terry Motau is the chief evidence leader, with Lolita Vukuza appointed as the commission secretary. Peter Gous is the chief investigator and Jeremy Michaels the commission's spokesperson. 'We believe this team is up to the task and will deliver on the mandate,' Madlanga said. The commission is expected to submit an interim report within three months and conclude its work in six months. Madlanga reiterated that the commission is bound by a timeline and said the interim report by the end of its first three-month period may include recommendations for immediate action. Madlanga also outlined the terms of reference, which include investigating the South African Police Service, metro police departments in Gauteng, the National Prosecuting Authority, the State Security Agency, the judiciary, correctional services and any executive members responsible for the criminal justice system. The inquiry will look into whether these entities have been infiltrated by criminal syndicates, including attempts to shield politically connected individuals and obstruct justice. Asked about witness safety, Madlanga said each case would be assessed to determine whether protection was required. Given that some implicated parties are still in the system, this is 'receiving serious consideration'. He said the commission is also empowered to conduct search-and-seizure operations when necessary, but would do so in a way that 'does not alert the intended persons'. When pressed on whether arrests could follow, Madlanga said: 'I cannot give a categorical answer at this stage.' He added that litigation challenging the commission's legitimacy is pending before the constitutional court, and the commission would abide by the court's ruling on whether it would be interdicted or continue. Mkhwanazi's disclosures include allegations that the police service is compromised at senior levels and that attempts were made to destabilise it, including efforts to frame national commissioner Fannie Masemola and remove senior officials. Mkhwanazi said Mchunu had tried to 'smooth the waters' between him and Sibiya, whom he referred to as 'a criminal'. He also alleged that Mchunu misled parliament about links to Brown Mogotsi, a man with alleged ties to organised crime, and Vusumuzi 'Cat' Matlala, a business person who allegedly benefited from police tenders despite criminal allegations against him. Ian Cameron, the chairperson of parliament's police portfolio committee, said Mkhwanazi had effectively 'He was fully aware of the risks — physical or career-related — and acknowledged this publicly,' Cameron said. Parliament is establishing an ad hoc committee to Madlanga declined to provide a budget estimate, which he said would be determined by the justice department. He said it was too early to estimate how many witnesses would testify. He confirmed that the commission's rules — including procedures for public access and media attendance — will be published.
Mail & Guardian
an hour ago
- Mail & Guardian
MK party to square off in court against Ramaphosa and Mchunu
In the dog box: Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, who comes from KwaZulu-Natal, has been put on 'special leave' by President Cyril Ramaphosa. Photo: Delwyn Verasamy The At the centre of the case are questions about the limits of presidential power, the legality of acting appointments and whether Ramaphosa acted rationally when he established a judicial commission of inquiry into serious allegations of criminal infiltration of law enforcement agencies. Ramaphosa suspended Mchunu after serious allegations by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi that he colluded with a criminal syndicate, accepted illicit payments, interfered in investigations and disbanded a specialised task force into political killings. Through its deputy president, John Hlophe, the MK party argues in court papers that Ramaphosa acted outside the bounds of the Constitution when he suspended Mchunu and installed Cachalia, who is not a cabinet minister, to act in his place. 'The president has no constitutional authority to place a minister on leave,' Hlophe argued, describing the measure as 'a fancy phrase for suspension with pay'. He insisted that ministers are political appointees, not employees, and therefore not subject to labour law. In a supporting affidavit, Zuma accused Ramaphosa of 'inventing new powers' not grounded in law, calling the president's interpretation of the Constitution 'indecipherable gobbledygook'. Ramaphosa, in his response, argued that his power to appoint and dismiss ministers include the discretion to place them on special leave, especially under circumstances that require an impartial investigation. 'This is not a punitive measure,' the president said. 'It is an interim step to preserve the integrity of the inquiry.' He said the Constitution vests in him the discretion to manage the cabinet and to act in the public interest when questions of credibility arise. Addressing concerns about Cachalia's appointment, Ramaphosa said he had followed a formal process. He said Cachalia was first to be appointed as a minister and then assigned the police portfolio on an acting basis. Hlophe dismissed this as a legal 'contrivance' and accused the president of manipulating constitutional provisions to serve political ends. He said the inquiry chaired by the acting deputy chief justice, Ramaphosa said the allegations made by Mkhwanazi were serious and required a process that would not be clouded by political interference or public suspicion. According to Mkhwanazi, the disbandment of the police's political killings task team was linked to efforts by criminal syndicates to capture the state's security architecture, a claim Mchunu has strongly denied. In his affidavit, Mchunu said Mkhwanazi's allegations were both 'unsubstantiated' and misinformed. He said he had instructed national police commissioner Fannie Masemola to disband the unit based on operational assessments, not political motives. Mchunu also criticised the timing of Mkhwanazi's public statements, arguing that the KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner did not inform him of his intentions to make allegations. 'He did not afford me any right to comment on the nature and basis of his intended 'revelations' before he made them. I was taken by complete surprise on 6 July 2025, when I learnt that Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi had called a press conference at short notice in order to level serious allegations against me,' Mchunu said. 'What is even more unfortunate is that the allegations he made against me relate to events which on his own version occurred several months ago, in particular, my decision in relation to the disbandment of the political killings task team. 'General Mkhwanazi had ample time to liaise with me and afford me a right to respond to any concerns that he may have had before he went into the public domain and made his extravagant and misinformed allegations.' Mchunu further stated that he had informed Ramaphosa of his willingness to cooperate with the inquiry, and denied that the ANC's The Madlanga commission has been tasked with investigating the infiltration of law enforcement and intelligence agencies by criminal syndicates. Its terms of reference include the South African Police Service, metropolitan police departments, the State Security Agency, the NPA and parts of the judiciary. The commission has the power to summon witnesses, compel documents and, in limited cases, conduct search-and-seizure operations. According to a government gazette last week, the commission may also recommend prosecutions, internal disciplinary steps and systemic reforms. Interim reports are expected within three and six months, with a final report to be submitted to the speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, and Chief Justice Mandisa Maya.
Eyewitness News
4 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Ramaphosa committed to full implementation of state capture recommendations - Presidency's Magwenya
JOHANNESBURG - President Cyril Ramaphosa has rejected claims that the recommendations of the state capture commission have been swept under the carpet. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has come under scrutiny lately, with questions raised about its handling of state capture-related cases. While the president admits there are challenges within the institution, he maintains that action is being taken against individuals implicated in the looting of state funds. ALSO READ: • Dearth of investigating skills among reasons for delays in prosecuting big corruption cases, SCOPA hears • ActionSA slams NPA for failing to successfully prosecute those implicated in state capture Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said there had been consistent progress. "Government has recovered nearly R11 billion in stolen public funds, strengthened our law enforcement capacity and implemented comprehensive reform across government." Last week, former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo stressed the need for adequate resourcing to hold the corrupt accountable. But Magwenya insisted that this was already underway. "President Cyril Ramaphosa remains committed to the full implementation of the state capture recommendations and to rebuilding public trust in our institutions."
