‘Errors of law': Ramaphosa heads to ConCourt over NHI Act ruling, argues appeal will succeed
The president says the high court erred in ruling that his decision to sign the NHI Act into law was reviewable.
President Cyril Ramaphosa at the Johannesburg City Hall on 24 January 2023. Picture: Neil McCartney / The Citizen
President Cyril Ramaphosa is pushing back against a court ruling that found his decision to sign the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law could be reviewed.
Ramaphosa has filed a notice with the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, indicating his intention to appeal the judgment.
Ramaphosa's NHI Act enactment reviewable
The case had been brought forward by the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) and the South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF).
This follows the high court ruling in favor of the applicants earlier this month, confirming that it did have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
ALSO READ: SAMA launches most comprehensive constitutional challenge yet to NHI Act
At the time, Judge Mpostoli Twala ordered Ramaphosa to submit documents explaining the reasoning behind his decision to enact the NHI Act in 2024.
Twala also instructed the president to comply within 10 days, setting a deadline of 16 May.
However, Ramaphosa has since chosen to appeal the decision.
Ramaphosa to appeal to ConCourt over NHI Act ruling
In his application for leave to appeal, Ramaphosa notified the court of his intention to approach the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) directly by 27 May.
He stated that if the Constitutional Court agrees to hear the case, the proceedings in the high court would be halted.
READ MORE: Health minister slammed for exorbitant spending on NHI advertising while doctors and nurses are unemployed
However, if the apex court declines to hear the appeal, the matter would then proceed before a full bench of the high court or the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
Ramaphosa argued in the application that the appeal has 'reasonable prospects of success' and claimed the court had made 'errors of law and fact.'
He maintained that the high court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place.
High court 'erred'
The president further said the court did not properly account for his constitutional powers to sign a bill into law after applying his judgment.
'Having failed to find that this matter was politically sensitive which meant the Constitutional Court enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction, the court also erred in failing to take into account the breadth of the discretion enjoyed by the president,' the court papers read.
'Even though the court appeared to have been alive to the fact that the president would decide for himself how to exercise his constitutional obligation, it sought to itself define how that power should be exercised.'
READ MORE: Government reassures private sector on NHI engagements
He also argued the court erred in ruling that his decision to sign the NHI Act into law was reviewable.
'First, it did so by assuming for itself a role that the Constitution gives to the Constitutional Court.
'Second, and on the substance, our law does not recognise a ground of review based on whether the president 'properly' applied his mind nor the basis on which such 'propriety' would or should be assessed.'
Outrage over NHI Act
Ramaphosa officially signed the NHI Act into law on 15 May last year, triggering strong criticism from some political parties and the public.
Those opposed the legislation have argued that the Act, in its current form, is unconstitutional and would be unaffordable and impractical to implement.
They maintain that substantial amendments are needed, and warn that the NHI Act will fail to achieve its stated goal of delivering universal health coverage for South Africans.
NOW READ: NHI regulations 'prematurely' published with legislation not proclaimed yet
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Health association takes legal action against NHI Act
File photo by James Oatway The Health Funders Association this week launched a legal challenge against the President Cyril Ramaphosa The ANC, which governed the country solely until being forced into a national coalition after the polls, says the NHI is intended to provide universal and comprehensive health coverage to all South Africans. But it has faced fierce criticism from the private healthcare sector and parties such as the Health Funders Association chief executive Thoneshan Naidoo acknowledged this week that 'South Africa needs a healthcare system that delivers equitable, quality care to all [and] we fully support that vision.' But he added: 'In its current form, and without private sector collaboration, the NHI Act is fiscally impossible and operationally unworkable, and threatens the stability of the economy and health system, impacting everyone in South Africa.' The association filed its application at the Pretoria high court, joining five other medical entities that are fighting the law. The It argued that the framework in its current form was not fiscally feasible and would also have adverse effects on South Africa's healthcare and economic outcomes. 'The steep tax increases required to fund the NHI will reduce disposable income, curb consumer spending across all sectors of the economy and may well trigger an exodus of high-income taxpayers,' it said. 'At the same time, destabilising the private healthcare sector will deter investment, put jobs at risk, and slow The association's position is premised on a report by Genesis Analytics, published this week, which showed that the 'NHI Act requires unsustainable tax increases while reducing healthcare access for medical scheme members'. It said the analysis also revealed South Africa's racially diverse medical scheme membership, in which more than 68% of members are black, Indian or coloured, and up to 83% earn less than R37 500 a month. 'The proposed NHI would, therefore, disproportionately impact working-class households who currently rely on medical schemes for quality care.' Modelling by Genesis Analysis showed that it would be impossible to raise the funds required for NHI, 'even under the most optimistic assumptions'. 'For NHI to fund a level of care equivalent to what medical scheme members currently receive, as government has indicated is the intention, the Genesis model shows that personal income tax would need to increase by 2.2 times (a 115% increase in tax) from the current average rate of 21% to an average of 46% of income.' This, it said, would push marginal tax rates in the lowest income bracket from 18% to 41%, and in the highest bracket from 45% to 68%. Building its case, the association said the Genesis model projected that more than 286 000 additional healthcare professionals would be required to fulfil the NHI vision. This is more than twice the number of general practitioners, nurses and pharmacists and three times the number of specialists. 'NHI will therefore place significant pressure on healthcare workers and addressing these capacity gaps will require significant time and investment,' the association said. Naidoo added that South Africa does not have enough skilled workers to deliver the NHI's mandate. 'By driving down service tariffs, the NHI risks accelerating the emigration or exit of healthcare professionals from the sector altogether.' The country is already facing a medical professional 'brain drain'. A survey conducted last year by the South Africa Medical Association, which represents approximately 17 000 doctors across South Africa, showed that as many as 38% of its members intended to leave the country in response to the implementation of the NHI scheme. Last month, Ramaphosa defended the Act after the Board of Healthcare Funders, which represents most private medical schemes, said he flouted his constitutional duty by failing to scrutinise its constitutionality when he signed the NHI into law. It added that the president ignored submissions that pointed to the patent constitutional defects in the legislation. The Pretoria High Court ruled in favour of the board. Ramaphosa launched an appeal, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter and erred in finding that his decision to sign the new law was reviewable. The court found no merit in his argument on the separation of powers and said the step of assenting to a Bill was but part of a lawmaking process that was a reviewable exercise in public power.
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
EFF loses fuel levy court challenge
EFF leader Julius Malema. (X) The The party's application, lodged against Finance Minister The EFF argued that it was unlawful because it was not introduced through a Money Bill, as required by section 77 of the Constitution. The party described the court's ruling as 'a betrayal of the poor and the working class' and accused Godongwana's office of sidestepping democratic procedures in the management of public finances. 'Taxation without representation is arbitrary and unconstitutional,' the party said. The ANC-led government of national unity was doing everything in its power 'to protect the interests of those who continue to benefit from the apartheid economy, while subjecting the masses of our people to economic misery'. Godongwana has insisted that he acted within existing legislation. In his He added that it had been frozen since 2021, and the increase was necessary to preserve the real value of the levy in the face of inflation and declining revenue. He warned that halting the increase would result in a R3.5 billion shortfall for the fiscus, necessitating further borrowing, spending cuts or alternative tax increases. 'The fuel levy is not a new tax. It is a regulatory adjustment falling under existing legislation and its increase does not require a Money Bill,' Godongwana argued in the affidavit, adding that freezing the levy any further would compromise the integrity of the budget and limit the state's ability to deliver services. The court's ruling allowed the increase to proceed and, on Wednesday, fuel prices rose accordingly for the month of June. However, a dip in global oil prices and modest strengthening of the rand brought slight relief for motorists. EFF leader 'It is not the EFF that got rejected; it is the people of South Africa who lost. When you increase fuel, you increase everything, transport, food, the cost of living. Our people are already suffering. This is an extra blow to the working class,' he said. The EFF would not abandon the matter, Malema said, indicating that it was considering further legal avenues, as well as a legislative push in parliament to close loopholes that allow the treasury to act unilaterally. EFF treasurer general Omphile Maotwe, who has led the party's engagements on budget matters, reiterated its position that the matter should have come before parliament. 'The levy seeks to recover revenue after the courts invalidated the unlawful VAT increase proposed earlier this year. By using the Customs and Excise Act to bypass section 77 of the Constitution, the minister is undermining the democratic function of parliament and the people's right to participate in fiscal policy decisions,' she said. Maotwe said the EFF would submit proposals to amend the relevant sections of the Customs and Excise Act and the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act to ensure no future taxation could be implemented without a parliamentary vote. While the EFF's application was dismissed, legal observers say the court did not definitively rule on the constitutional questions raised, which could leave the door open for further challenge. While the government is technically within its rights to use the Customs and Excise Act to amend levies, the broader question of public accountability in tax decisions remains unresolved, constitutional law expert professor Pierre de Vos said. 'There's a grey area here. The Constitution requires that money bills originate in the National Assembly, but there are long-standing statutes like the Customs and Excise Act that give the executive certain powers. Whether those powers are now unconstitutional is a debate we may see return to the courts.' The EFF said it would use all platforms, legal and political, to hold the treasury accountable. 'We will not rest while unelected officials continue to impose taxes behind the back of parliament. The people must have a voice in every cent that is taken from their pockets,' Malema said.
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
There is no genocide in South Africa – but there is billionaire disinformation
US President Donald Trump. What unfolded recently in the Oval Office — a meeting between US President Donald Trump, President Cyril Ramaphosa, Elon Musk, Johann Rupert, and DA leader John Steenhuisen — was a shameful display of misinformation, disinformation, elite self-preservation and racial scapegoating. It was a calculated act of fear-mongering and a spectacle of national chauvinism of the US state. Trump's tirade about a genocide against white people, or more specifically white farmers, in South Africa is not only factually wrong, it is morally grotesque. Especially in the context of the real genocide taking place in Gaza and which is being televised live around the world. According to reports by the Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (KAAX) champions a pan-African agenda. Race is a social construct, not a biological reality; it is shaped by history, politics and culture rather than rooted in genetics. There is only one race and that is the human race. By referring to a section of the population in South Africa who happen to have a white skin as refugees, especially a section of the population who benefited unfairly under the apartheid regime, is disingenuous at best. One apartheid-era example is job reservation where all white collar work was reserved exclusively for 'whites only'. It also makes a mockery of the plight of human beings fleeing war, conflict and persecution based on their political beliefs, sexual orientation and so forth; fleeing for their lives. Trump's fear-based rhetoric is echoed by US officials such as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who are leveraging disinformation to justify racist immigration policies. It also informs the practice of many European countries and others such as Australia, which are embedded in repressive measures taken against people fleeing countries including Afghanistan, Bangladesh and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These can only be seen as racially informed policies to keep refugees out, based on a racist trope of 'cultural difference'. Rupert's presence in the White House was a masterclass in elite deflection. He spoke about building homes for his grandchildren while ignoring the millions of children growing up in South Africa's informal settlements, excluded from land and opportunity by the very class Rupert belongs to. Rupert accumulated his wealth through the unfair privilege that he enjoyed simply because of the colour of his skin. So to talk about transformation and redress is to talk about how apartheid's systemic construction of inequality remains a reality. Rupert also referred to undocumented migrants as 'aliens' — a term that reeks of apartheid-era violence, recalling the Aliens Control Act, which dehumanised African workers while Rupert's empire was fattened by the exploitation that was the legal framework of apartheid. Today, that legacy continues. But words such as equality and science are anathema to Trump. It is no surprise that Trump uses false and unsubstantiated information, because it is Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon that are vehicles for the spreading of misinformation and toxic hatred. Big Tech firms increasingly operate above the regulatory grasp of governments. And the more toxic and divisive the information that is shared such as the claim of 'white genocide in South Africa', the more profits these companies make. Those US-based tech corporates own the vast majority of the world's digital nervous system and they use this to spread misinformation, lies and unsubstantiated statements. What we saw in the Oval Office was global apartheid in action. The apartheid of the rich and the poor. The apartheid of the excessively rich. This wealth distribution and inequality is informed by an era of the existence of a global empire shaped by multi-tech companies that have a monopoly and domination of global markets and are economic powerhouses. These multi-tech companies are the ones who have coined the phrase 'precarious work', which has impoverished and stripped the dignity of hundreds of millions of workers. There are serious problems in South Africa, but they are not unique to us. Around the world, and very much including Trump's US, it is the greed, cowardice, corruption and inhumanity of those who hold political power and who hoard wealth and dodge taxes, that drives systemic poverty, unemployment and crime, not the poor and not migrants. The Trump-led US state, like most of the states in the Global North, is choosing to ignore the real global crises — climate refugees, displaced people, economic migrants and the genocide in Gaza. Thousands of Palestinians are being killed. Whole neighbourhoods flattened. Hospitals bombed. Journalists assassinated. You don't get to preach about justice and peddle lies about 'white genocide' when you not only ignore but support actual crimes against humanity. We call on every worker, activist, migrant, and citizen to reject the myth of the 'invading alien' and stand firm against the real threat: a global billionaire elite desperate to protect its position and power at any cost. Stand in solidarity with the struggle for equality and justice in the world. Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia is a coalition of organisations united against xenophobia.
