Latest news with #ConCourt
Eyewitness News
a day ago
- Politics
- 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
6 days ago
- Health
- Eyewitness News
Motsoaledi defends spending R9m on lawyers, says health dept being sued on several fronts over NHI
CAPE TOWN - Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi said that his department was being sued on several fronts over the National Health Insurance (NHI) and was forced to hire twelve counsel. Motsoaledi told the National Assembly that the legal team, which is made up of five senior counsel and seven junior counsel, had been paid R9 million to defend the department's universal health policy and the National Health Insurance Act. ALSO READ: • Ramaphosa eyes direct appeal to ConCourt over NHI Act challenge • BHF confident it will be able to prove the NHI Act is unconstitutional • BHF, SAPPF given green light to challenge NHI Act • BHF disappointed with Motsoaledi publishing draft regulations for NHI Act, despite several court challenges The minister was responding to questions in the House as part of the social services cluster of ministers. Minister Motsoaledi was asked by the Democratic Alliance (DA)'s Michéle Clarke why he needed such a big legal team to defend the department at such a cost. "I would like to ask the minister how he justifies paying for such a huge legal team, given that hospitals can't afford food for patients and overtime for doctors?" Motsoaledi justified the cost, saying they were facing seven different litigations on two separate but related matters. "We regard this team as appropriate. The president is suing for only one case. We are sued for seven cases. And this amount of money is those that have been involved in litigation, will know how expensive senior counsel is." Motsoaledi also told MPs that medico-legal cases due to negligence were another costly burden but were mostly as a result of fraudulent claims.
The Citizen
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Citizen
AfriForum challenges Expropriation Act in court, criticises Ramaphosa for ‘silently' signing the law
'It is clear that the president obstinately pushed ahead despite valid concerns,' AfriForum's application reads. Lobby group AfriForum has formally lodged a legal challenge against the Expropriation Act, coinciding with President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit to the United States (US). On Tuesday, AfriForum submitted an application to the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, seeking an order declaring the Expropriation Act unlawful and unconstitutional. The organisation has asked the court to set aside the legislation and issue a directive for Parliament to amend the Act within 24 months. ALSO READ: Ramaphosa advises Gauteng to take advantage of Expropriation Act In addition, AfriForum is requesting a costs order and has asked that the matter be referred to the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) for confirmation should the High Court rule in its favour. The respondents listed in the court papers include the president, Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson, National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, and National Council of Provinces (NCOP) Chairperson Refilwe Mtshweni-Tsipane. AfriForum challenges Expropriation Act In an affidavit, AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel argued that certain sections of the Expropriation Act contain 'inherent contradictions which render the whole Act unconstitutional'. He contended that the Act introduces substantial provisions impacting property owners, particularly regarding the payment of just and equitable compensation. Kriel also highlighted that the Act affects the legal recourse available to affected parties in courts at all levels, including the ConCourt. While he acknowledged that the outdated 1975 Expropriation Act required revision to align with the current constitution, Kriel expressed opposition to the new Act's allowance for nil compensation. 'The Expropriation Act has been controversial and has elicited broad debate from various walks of life, and is of significant public interest and importance,' the affidavit reads. READ MORE: Expropriation: Another land reform bill in the works Kriel further alleged that President Ramaphosa 'silently' assented to and signed the Expropriation Bill into law on 24 December 2024, after a five-year legislative process. However, the decision was only made public when the law was published in the government gazette on 24 January 2025, more than a month later. He noted that the Act has not yet come into effect, as its implementation date must be determined by the president through proclamation. Kriel described the delay in gazettetting the Act as 'inexplicable,' arguing that it denied Members of Parliament (MPs) the opportunity to challenge the legislation directly in the ConCourt. 'It is clear that the president obstinately pushed ahead despite valid concerns and controversy regarding certain provisions of the Expropriation Act.' Nil compensation Kriel emphasised that Section 12(3) of the Act, which permits zero compensation, opens the door for potential abuse of public power. He warned that any expropriating authority, including 'poorly managed' local municipalities, could take land without monetary payment. 'The Act also has far-reaching and negative effects on property rights, economic stability, food security, the viability of farming enterprises, economic freedom and the like.' He also raised concerns that the law allows a property owner to be deprived of their property while legal proceedings over the expropriation are still ongoing – proceedings that could take years to resolve. Expropriation Act a 'real threat' Meanwhile, AfriForum's Head of Public Relations, Ernst van Zyl, issued a statement criticising the legislation. He contended that the Act had 'serious flaws' and was a 'real threat' to the constitutional right to private property. 'We have heard them highlight their objectives, and we believe them,' Van Zyl said, referring to the ANC's advocacy for nil compensation. The Expropriation Act has sparked intense debate across South Africa and has also drawn criticism from US President Donald Trump. NOW READ: Expropriation Act: 'Contradictory processes' will prevent implementation, says Macpherson
The Citizen
17-05-2025
- Health
- The Citizen
‘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
The Citizen
17-05-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
Home affairs extends office hours for big change to ID applications in SA
The rollout will be in phases 'to manage the volume of applications effectively'. The department of home affairs has extended its operating period by five hours on Saturdays in May to allow naturalised citizens and permanent residents to apply for smart ID cards. The department recently announced that residents from visa-exempt countries can now apply for a card. The list of countries can be seen by clicking here. 'This rollout marks a significant step in modernising identity documentation, improving security, and enhancing service delivery,' it said. The rollout will be in phases 'to manage the volume of applications effectively'. The first phase includes replacing green barcoded ID books of naturalised citizens and permanent residents from the listed countries. Applications can be done at all Live Capture Offices, bank branches and via the eHome-Affairs portal. Applicants can now also register and book appointments via the eHome-Affairs portal and the branch appointment booking system. Extended hours All offices offering smart ID cards will operate for extended office hours on the following weekends and times: Saturday 17 May 2025: 08:00 – 13:00 Saturday 24 May 2025: 08:00 – 13:00 Saturday 31 May 2025: 08:00 – 13:00 For a list of offices that offer smart ID card services, click here. 'Extended hours over the specified weekends will allow for processing of smart ID card applications from naturalised citizens and permanent residents from listed countries, in possession of green barcoded ID books. 'Naturalised citizens and permanent residents from listed countries are encouraged to make use of this opportunity. This will take us closer to fully adopting the more secure smart ID card and doing away with the green barcoded ID book,' the department said. ALSO READ: Phil Craig's citizenship controversy explained How much does it cost to apply? All applications must be accompanied by the prescribed application fee of R140. For applicants who are 60 years and over, no payment is required. What if I still can't get my smart ID? Phase 2 of home affairs' smart ID card rollout project is in the planning stage and will include all currently excluded groups, including those applying for an ID for the first time. 'All applicants will undergo verification against the National Population Register (NPR) at the meeter-greeter station to confirm the authenticity of their green ID book details. 'Permanent resident permit holders will also be checked for their country of birth, which must be among the 106 countries. Those who do not verify positively in the first phase may be accommodated during Phase 2,' explained the department. NOW READ: ConCourt strikes down Citizenship Act clause, restores citizenship for affected South Africans
