Latest news with #NHIAct
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 South African
21-05-2025
- Business
- The South African
EFF condemns Rupert's key role in Ramaphosa-Trump talks
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has strongly condemned the inclusion of billionaire businessman Johann Rupert in a South African delegation set to meet United States President Donald Trump. The party described Rupert's participation as a sign of corporate capture. It said wealthy elites were exerting undue influence over state affairs, especially in efforts to restore diplomatic and trade ties between South Africa and the United States. In a statement issued on Wednesday, 21 May 2025, the EFF accused both Rupert and Elon Musk of using their financial influence to shape national policies. The party alleged that both businessmen represent a threat to democratic processes, calling them 'racist to the core' and opposed to transformation efforts. The EFF claimed that Rupert would use the meeting to reassure the US that controversial legislation would not move forward in South Africa. This includes laws such as land expropriation without compensation. The party argued that this undermines parliamentary processes and national sovereignty. 'Rupert, a major beneficiary of unequal land ownership, has previously threatened to disinvest from South Africa if his wealth is threatened. His role in this meeting is to protect that wealth,' the statement read. The EFF warned President Cyril Ramaphosa and Rupert against making any private commitments that contradict laws passed by Parliament, such as the BELA Act, the NHI Act and the Expropriation Act. The party also opposed any attempts to bypass local ownership requirements for companies like Elon Musk's Starlink. The party concluded by stating that it will challenge any backroom agreements in court if they undermine South Africa's laws and democratic processes. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
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
Eyewitness News
17-05-2025
- Health
- Eyewitness News
Ramaphosa eyes direct appeal to ConCourt over NHI Act challenge
CAPE TOWN - President Cyril Ramaphosa is seeking to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court after a high court found that his decision to sign the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law could be reviewed. Ramaphosa on Friday filed notice to appeal the Pretoria High Court's earlier decision that also gave him ten days to provide the record of his decision to sign into law the highly contentious NHI Act in 2024. Ramaphosa's decision was challenged by the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF), which contends that the legislation is "vague, unaffordable, and ultimately unworkable". ALSO READ: - BHF confident it will be able to prove the NHI Act is unconstitutional - NHI Act: BHF expecting Ramaphosa to ignore Friday's deadline to comply with court order - Board of Healthcare Funders set to file two more legal challenges to NHI Act In court papers, Ramaphosa pointed to inconsistencies in the court's decision and how the president could exercise his powers. Ramaphosa also said that the role played by the president in assenting to and signing a bill was not that of legislating. "If it were, that would constitute a demonstrable incursion into the terrain of the legislature and breach the separation of powers," argued Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa listed several grounds for leave to appeal, including how the court erred in failing to take into account the discretion enjoyed by the president. Ramaphosa said by permitting this kind of review, the court had potentially allowed a "pre-enactment challenge to a bill, which is a severe threat to the legislative authority of Parliament," which he said the Constitution had already warned against. He said that previous court decisions had found that the president and the president alone assented and signed bills into law.
