
Constitutional rights for children: An urgent call for early childhood development in South Africa
The right to development must be understood holistically and is a legal entitlement rooted in international law. Access to early learning, nutrition, healthcare, responsive caregiving, safety, social services and play are not optional services, but are entitlements that enable children to survive, thrive, and participate fully in society.
South Africa cannot claim to uphold children's rights while the foundations for early childhood development (ECD) — the most critical phase of human development — remain legally invisible. Despite a growing budget and increased political support, the country's youngest six million citizens will continue to be deprioritised without a justiciable right to ECD.
This was the challenge a powerful group of legal minds and ECD champions confronted head-on at the Right to ECD Symposium hosted by the Real Reform for ECD movement in Johannesburg. The Symposium brought together ECD practitioners, law and policy experts, and seasoned ECD advocates in a powerful show of collective commitment to one goal: confronting the legal vacuum at the heart of ECD delivery.
The keynote address by Associate Professor Noam Peleg, an expert on children's rights and development, grounded the discussions in international law. He urged South Africans to rethink the legal framing of childhood. He argued that children should not be seen merely as future adults but as full rights-holders in the present. He called for the full recognition of the right to development, from zero to 18 years as understood in international law, with ECD recognised as a critical foundation for the realisation of that right.
Peleg's core message was that the right to development must be understood holistically and is a legal entitlement rooted in international law. Access to early learning, nutrition, healthcare, responsive caregiving, safety, social services and play are not optional services, but are entitlements that enable children to survive, thrive, and participate fully in society.
No enforceable right to ECD
While South Africa's Constitution protects several of these elements individually, there is no express unified and enforceable right to ECD. Further, the absence of a legally binding, cross-sectoral legislative framework weakens accountability and undermines coordination on service delivery. Roles remain poorly defined across departments, responsibilities shift without consequence, and systemic failures are often left unchallenged unless civil society steps in to advocate.
These are not theoretical concerns but have urgent real world impacts. Despite the welcome political shift by the government to significantly increase the ECD budget to more than R10-billion, the allocation remains inadequate to achieve universal access. Moreover, without legal and regulatory reform, policy commitments concerning universal access will not be achieved.
Presenting a proposed framework for constitutionalising the right to early childhood development, Nurina Ally (Director of the Centre for Law and Society at the University of Cape Town) and Tatiana Kazim (Research Associate at the Centre for Law and Society) argued that the South African Constitution, interpreted in light of international law, implicitly includes an umbrella right to early childhood development, holistically understood, as well as a number of component rights (the spokes of the umbrella): rights to early learning; adequate nutrition; good health; responsive caregiving; rest, leisure and play; and opportunities to participate in cultural life.
Both the umbrella right and each of the components, or spokes, also entail corresponding duties on the part of the state, families, and service providers. Importantly, the overarching umbrella right entails duties of coordination and funding on the part of the various government departments implicated in ECD service delivery, such as the departments of Basic Education, Health, and Social Development.
However, a constitutional right to ECD has not yet been widely recognised in South Africa, either in civil society, the courts, or in the government. The failure to recognise such a right is evident in existing legislation and policies, and has serious consequences for the ECD sector and for young children. Legal clarity is necessary for enforcement as well as accountability.
Consequences of legal gaps
The consequences of the legal gaps are felt throughout early childhood development services. Among many other issues, departments work in silos, children between birth and two are neglected, parents are inadequately supported, nutrition support is inadequate, and health policies do not speak to the National Integrated ECD Policy.
Many ECD programmes are locked out of public funding due to outdated planning laws, inflexible infrastructure norms, burdensome registration requirements, and the lack of a qualified and well-trained ECD workforce.
While incremental reforms — such as amending the Children's Act, revising municipal bylaws, and easing regulatory requirements — are necessary, they are insufficient. While we strongly support these reforms and call for the Department of Basic Education to table the Children's Amendment Bill in Parliament this year, we also urge it to commit to a longer-term law reform strategy, as outlined in its own ECD 2030 Strategy.
What we need is a bold shift: recognition that the Constitution protects an umbrella right to early childhood development, which encompasses the full essential package of ECD services. Crucially, this right is enforceable by the people it affects: the children, families and communities who rely on it.
The Right to ECD Symposium was a beginning. It marked the start of a new phase in the movement for legal recognition of ECD as a right, not just a policy objective. Real change requires more than political will, it requires a legal framework that is principled, enforceable, and grounded in the lived realities of children in South Africa. The time for fragmented approaches has passed. The right to ECD must be recognised, resourced, and protected by law. DM
Nobukhosi Zulu-Taruza is the Law and Policy Specialist at Ilifa Labantwana. Tess Peacock is the Executive Director at the Equality Collective. Nurina Ally is the Director of the Centre for Law and Society and Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of Cape Town. Cameron McConnachie is the co-lead of the Legal Resources Centre's Education Programme. Peter Daniel Al-Naddaf is a Legal Researcher at Equal Education Law Centre. Mmatsetshweu Ruby Motaung is the Executive Director of TREE (Training and Resources in Early Education).
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
Western Cape High Court rules against Dr John Hlophe's appointment to Judicial Service Commission
The Western Cape High Court has delivered a significant ruling against Dr Mandlakayise John Hlophe, the impeached former judge, declaring that he cannot be part of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The court's decision, handed down on Monday, underscores the imperative of judicial integrity and the constitutional responsibilities of South Africa's legislative body. In a judgement that has reignited debates about the judiciary's independence, the High Court found that the National Assembly (NA) had failed to appropriately exercise its discretion when approving Hlophe's appointment, an oversight that effectively undermined the credibility of the JSC. The court's order reflects a broad consensus that rigorous standards must be upheld in judicial appointments, especially for a body entrusted with safeguarding the country's constitutional commitment. The implications of the ruling are profound, as the JSC is constitutionally mandated to recommend judicial appointments and hold judges accountable. The court stated that failing to act responsibly in Hlophe's nomination could jeopardise the very independence the JSC is supposed to protect. Hlophe was nominated to the JSC last year but subsequently resigned amidst a flurry of controversy. The court explicitly stated that "Dr. Mandlakayise John Hlophe may not be designated to serve on the Judicial Services Commission in terms of section 178(1)(h) of the Constitution," marking a rare judicial rebuke of a parliamentary appointment. The judgment comes after a legal challenge by organisations including Freedom Under Law, Corruption Watch, and the Democratic Alliance (DA). These groups argued that including an impeached judge in the JSC threatened the integrity and independence of South Africa's judiciary. 'The judiciary is essential to the maintenance of constitutional democracy,' they asserted, solidifying their stance against any attempts that could compromise its impartiality. Dr Hlophe became South Africa's first judge to be impeached in its democratic era in February 2024, following charges stemming from a misconduct case dating back to 2008. He faced serious allegations of attempting to improperly influence Constitutional Court Justices Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta in a matter concerning then-President Jacob Zuma. After a protracted legal battle, the JSC finally recommended his removal in 2021, with Parliament voting in favour of impeachment only three years later. In response to the court's ruling, DA federal chairperson Helen Zille stated, "The High Court order to bar an impeached judge from serving on the Judicial Services Commission is a victory for the rule of law and the Constitution." She emphasised that the JSC must consist of members who are "fit and proper" and hold the public's confidence, reflecting the broader societal imperative for transparency and accountability within the judiciary. This latest development stands as a testament to the ongoing efforts to reinforce the principles of lawful governance within South Africa, propelling the conversation about judicial integrity into the national spotlight once more. DAILY NEWS


Eyewitness News
8 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Access to details on decision to sign NHI Bill into law is a privilege, argues Ramaphosa
JOHANNESBURG - President Cyril Ramaphosa has argued that access to a record detailing what informed his decision to sign the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill into law is a matter of privilege. The president has petitioned the Constitutional Court in an application for leave to appeal a High Court judgment over the NHI Act. In May, the court found that his decision to sign the bill into law was reviewable, ordering him to submit to the court the record of what led to his decision. However, the president argues that furnishing the court with the record is not a legal requirement. In papers before the Constitutional Court, Ramaphosa submits says various factors are considered before assenting to and signing a bill into law. ALSO READ: Ramaphosa takes his appeal against high court ruling on NHI to ConCourt Among them are the inputs by legal advisors, which the president says he has never been required to produce before and may be of a privileged nature. He adds that the record is at the heart of his performance in executing his obligations as enshrined in the constitution, and the order that he furnish the court with the record engages issues regarding the office of the presidency. This, Ramaphosa says, breaches the separation of powers doctrine, unnecessarily allowing courts to 'check the homework' of the head of State. The president further submits that the non-disclosure of the record in no way impedes parties from launching a constitutionality challenge, as this is a mechanism provided for by the Constitution.


Eyewitness News
8 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
WC High Court finds its former Judge President John Hlophe unfit to serve on JSC
CAPE TOWN - The Western Cape High Court has found its former Judge President, John Hlophe, to be neither fit nor proper to serve on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). It's consequently set aside a decision by the National Assembly (NA) last July to endorse the recommendation of the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party to have him serve as one of its six parliamentarians. The matter was heard in February by a full bench of judges from outside the division, after the court previously granted an interdict in favour of the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Under Law and Corruption Watch, preventing Hlophe from participating in the work of the commission pending this matter. The NA has in previous administrations never second-guessed the candidates political parties nominate from within their ranks to serve on the JSC. But in a judgment handed down on Monday, the court said the NA had fundamentally misunderstood the nature of its powers to designate members to serve on the body that interviews candidates to become judges. ALSO READ: • MK Party says if it were in govt, it would've scrapped Constitution in favour of parliamentary sovereignty • MK Party withdraws nomination of Hlophe to serve on JSC The court says while it does not dispute arguments made by the MK Party that Hlophe is highly qualified, his removal from the bench on charges of gross misconduct is the issue. This, the court says seriously threatens the independence of the judiciary and his presence on the JSC would prejudice the commission's ability to do its work. 'Dr Hlophe's academic ability does not cure this,' reads the judgment. 'Through the impeachment of Dr Hlophe, the National Assembly has effectively already determined that his continued involvement in judicial affairs would diminish public trust.' The court says by Hlophe trying to appeal this judgment in the first part of this case, he's shown disregard for the authority and integrity of the courts. For this reason it's made an order that a judge removed for gross misconduct may never serve on the JSC. Hlophe has also been ordered to pay costs on a punitive scale for disparaging remarks he's made about the litigants and the judges in this matter.