Latest news with #WerksmansAttorneys
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Unpacking the South African land law that so inflames Trump
South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa is at the centre of a political firestorm after he approved a law that gives the state the power to expropriate some privately owned land without compensation for owners. The law, which is yet to be implemented, has drawn the ire of US President Donald Trump, who sees it as discriminating against white farmers. Centre-right political parties and lobby groups in South Africa have also opposed it, saying they will challenge the Expropriation Act – as the law is named – in court on the grounds that it threatens property rights. Ramaphosa's government says the law provides for compensation to be paid in the vast majority of cases – and the changes are needed to increase black ownership of land. Most private farmland is still owned by white people. When Nelson Mandela came to power more than 30 years ago, ending the racist system of apartheid, it was promised that this would be rectified through a willing-buyer, willing-seller land reform programme – but critics say this has proved too slow and too costly. In rare circumstances it would be land that was needed for the "public interest", legal experts told the BBC. According to South African law firm Werksmans Attorneys, this suggested it would mainly, or perhaps only, happen in relation to the land reform programme. Although it could also be used to access natural resources such as minerals and water, the firm added, in an opinion written by its experts in the field, Bulelwa Mabasa and Thomas Karberg. Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in their view, productive agricultural land could not be expropriated without compensation. They said any expropriation without compensation – known as EWC – could take place only in a few circumstances: For example, when an owner was not using the land and was holding it for "speculative purposes" Or when an owner "abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so". Owners would probably still get compensation for the buildings on the land and for the natural resources, the lawyers said. Mabasa and Karberg added that EWC was "not aimed at rural land or farmland specifically, and could include land in urban areas". However, in cases where compensation is paid, the rules are set to change, with owners likely to get less money. The plan is for owners to receive "just-and-equitable" compensation – a departure from the higher "market value" they have been getting up to now, Mabasa and Karberg said. The government had been paying market-value compensation despite the fact that this was "at odds" with the constitution, adopted after white-minority rule ended in 1994, they added. The lawyers said that all expropriations had "extensive procedural fairness requirements", including the owner's right to go to court if they were not happy. The move away from market-value compensation will also apply to land expropriated for a "public purpose" – like building state schools or railways. This has not been a major point of controversy, possibly because it is "hardly a novel concept" – a point made by JURISTnews, a legal website run by law students from around the world. "The US Constitution, for instance, provides that the government can seize private property for public use so long as 'just compensation' is provided," it added. The government hopes so. University of Western Cape land expert Prof Ruth Hall told the BBC that more than 80,000 land claims remain unsettled. In the eastern regions of South Africa, many black people work on farms for free – in exchange they are allowed to live there and keep their livestock on a portion of the owners' land, she said. The government wants to transfer ownership of this land to the workers, and it was "unfair" to expect it to pay the market value, Prof Hall added. Over the last three decades, the government has used existing powers to expropriate property–- with less than market-value compensation – in fewer than 20 cases, she said. The new law was aimed at making it easier and cheaper to restore land to black people who were "dispossessed" of it during white-minority rule or were forced to be "long-term tenants" as they could not own land, Prof Hall added. "It's a bargaining chip," she said. But she doubts that the government will press ahead with implementing the law in the foreseeable future as the "political cost" has become too high. The academic was referring to the fact that Trump has opposed the law, saying it discriminates against white farmers and their land was being "seized" – a charge the government denies. In February, Trump cut aid to South Africa, and in April he announced a 30% tariff on South African goods and agricultural products, although this was later paused for 90 days. This was followed by last month's infamous Oval Office showdown when Trump ambushed Ramaphosa with a video and printouts of stories alleging white people were being persecuted – much of his dossier has been discredited. Fact-checking Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa Like Trump, the second-biggest party in Ramaphosa's coalition government, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is opposed to the legislation. In a statement on 26 May, the party said that its top leadership body had rejected the notion of "nil compensation". However, it has agreed with the concept of just-and-equitable compensation rather than market-value compensation, adding it should be "adjudicated by a court of law". Surprisingly, Jaco Kleynhans of the Solidarity Movement, an influential Afrikaner lobby group, said that while the new law could "destroy" some businesses and he was opposed to it, he did not believe it would lead to the "large-scale expropriation of farmland". "I don't see within the wording of this text that that will happen," he said in a recent panel discussion at an agricultural exhibition held in South Africa's Free State province – where a large number of conservative Afrikaner farmers live. The South African Property Owners Association said it was "irrational" to give "nil compensation" to an owner who held land for speculative purposes. "There are many landowners whose sole purpose of business is to speculate in land. They do not get the land for free and they have significant holding costs," the association said, adding it had no doubt the law would be "abundantly tested" in the courts. Mabasa and Karberg said one view was that the concept of EWC was a "legal absurdity" because "intrinsic in the legal definition of expropriation, is a requirement for compensation to be paid". However, the lawyers pointed out the alternative view was that South Africa's constitution "implicitly recognises that it would in some circumstances be just and equitable for compensation to be nil". South Africa's Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson has defended the legislation, breaking ranks with his party, the DA. In fact he is in charge of the new legalisation and, on a discussion panel, he explained that while he had some concerns about the law, it was a "dramatic improvement" on the previous Expropriation Act, with greater safeguards for land-owners. He said the law could also help end extortionist demands on the state, and in some cases "nil compensation" could be justified. He gave as an example the problems being faced by the state-owned power utility Eskom. It plans to roll out a transmission network over about 4,500km (28,000 miles) of land to boost electricity supplies to end the power crisis in the country. Ahead of the roll-out, some individuals colluded with Eskom officials to buy land for 1m rand ($56,000; £41,000), and then demanded R20m for it, he said. "Is it just and equitable to give them what they want? I don't think that's in the interest of the broader community or the state," Macpherson said. Giving another example, Macpherson said that some of South Africa's inner cities were in a "disastrous" condition. After owners left, buildings were "over-run" and "hijacked" for illegal occupation. The cost to the state to rebuild them could exceed their value, and in such cases the courts could rule that an owner qualified for "nil compensation", he said. "Nil is a form of compensation," Macpherson added, while ruling it out for farms. Johannesburg mayor Dada Morero told South Africa's Mail & Guardian newspaper that he wanted to use the buildings for the "public good", like accommodating around 300,000 people on the housing waiting list. He added the owners of nearly 100 buildings could not be located. "They have abandoned the buildings," he said, adding some of the owners were from the UK and Germany. But Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in such cases compensation would probably still have to be paid for the buildings, though not the land. If the state could not locate the owners, it "must deposit the compensation with the Master of the High Court" in case they returned or could be traced later, they said. The law is in limbo, as Ramaphosa – about four months after giving his assent to it – has still not set a date for its implementation. Nor is he likely to do so anytime soon, as he would not want to further antagonise Trump while South Africa was trying to negotiate a trade deal with the US. And on the domestic front, the DA is spearheading opposition to the legislation. It said it wanted a "judicial review" of it, while at the same time it was pressing ahead with court action to challenge the law's constitutionality. The DA's tough line is in contrast with that of Macpherson, who, a few weeks ago, warned that if the law was struck down in its entirety: "I don't know what's going to come after that. "In politics, sometimes you must be careful what you wish for because often you can get it," he said. His comments highlight the deep fissures in South African politics, with some parties, such as Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), believing that the legislation did not go far enough to tackle racial inequality in land ownership. With land such an emotive issue, there is no easy solution to the dispute – and it is likely to continue to cause tensions within South Africa, as well as with the US president. Rebuked by Trump but praised at home: How Ramaphosa might gain from US showdown Is there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims? South Africans' anger over land set to explode Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Africa Daily Focus on Africa
BBC News
3 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
South Africa's land law explained – and why it so inflames Donald Trump
South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa is at the centre of a political firestorm after he approved a law that gives the state the power to expropriate some privately owned land without compensation for law, which is yet to be implemented, has drawn the ire of US President Donald Trump, who sees it as discriminating against white farmers. Centre-right political parties and lobby groups in South Africa have also opposed it, saying they will challenge the Expropriation Act – as the law is named – in court on the grounds that it threatens property government says the law provides for compensation to be paid in the vast majority of cases – and the changes are needed to increase black ownership of private farmland is still owned by white people. When Nelson Mandela came to power more than 30 years ago, ending the racist system of apartheid, it was promised that this would be rectified through a willing-buyer, willing-seller land reform programme – but critics say this has proved too slow and too costly. So what exactly can be expropriated without compensation? In rare circumstances it would be land that was needed for the "public interest", legal experts told the to South African law firm Werksmans Attorneys, this suggested it would mainly, or perhaps only, happen in relation to the land reform it could also be used to access natural resources such as minerals and water, the firm added, in an opinion written by its experts in the field, Bulelwa Mabasa and Thomas and Karberg told the BBC that in their view, productive agricultural land could not be expropriated without said any expropriation without compensation – known as EWC – could take place only in a few circumstances:For example, when an owner was not using the land and was holding it for "speculative purposes"Or when an owner "abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so". Owners would probably still get compensation for the buildings on the land and for the natural resources, the lawyers and Karberg added that EWC was "not aimed at rural land or farmland specifically, and could include land in urban areas".However, in cases where compensation is paid, the rules are set to change, with owners likely to get less money. Why will less money be paid in compensation? The plan is for owners to receive "just-and-equitable" compensation – a departure from the higher "market value" they have been getting up to now, Mabasa and Karberg government had been paying market-value compensation despite the fact that this was "at odds" with the constitution, adopted after white-minority rule ended in 1994, they lawyers said that all expropriations had "extensive procedural fairness requirements", including the owner's right to go to court if they were not move away from market-value compensation will also apply to land expropriated for a "public purpose" – like building state schools or has not been a major point of controversy, possibly because it is "hardly a novel concept" – a point made by JURISTnews, a legal website run by law students from around the world. "The US Constitution, for instance, provides that the government can seize private property for public use so long as 'just compensation' is provided," it added. Will it make it easier for the government to acquire land? The government hopes so. University of Western Cape land expert Prof Ruth Hall told the BBC that more than 80,000 land claims remain the eastern regions of South Africa, many black people work on farms for free – in exchange they are allowed to live there and keep their livestock on a portion of the owners' land, she government wants to transfer ownership of this land to the workers, and it was "unfair" to expect it to pay the market value, Prof Hall the last three decades, the government has used existing powers to expropriate property–- with less than market-value compensation – in fewer than 20 cases, she new law was aimed at making it easier and cheaper to restore land to black people who were "dispossessed" of it during white-minority rule or were forced to be "long-term tenants" as they could not own land, Prof Hall added."It's a bargaining chip," she said. But she doubts that the government will press ahead with implementing the law in the foreseeable future as the "political cost" has become too high. The academic was referring to the fact that Trump has opposed the law, saying it discriminates against white farmers and their land was being "seized" – a charge the government February, Trump cut aid to South Africa, and in April he announced a 30% tariff on South African goods and agricultural products, although this was later paused for 90 was followed by last month's infamous Oval Office showdown when Trump ambushed Ramaphosa with a video and printouts of stories alleging white people were being persecuted – much of his dossier has been Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa What has been the reaction in South Africa? Like Trump, the second-biggest party in Ramaphosa's coalition government, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is opposed to the legislation. In a statement on 26 May, the party said that its top leadership body had rejected the notion of "nil compensation". However, it has agreed with the concept of just-and-equitable compensation rather than market-value compensation, adding it should be "adjudicated by a court of law".Surprisingly, Jaco Kleynhans of the Solidarity Movement, an influential Afrikaner lobby group, said that while the new law could "destroy" some businesses and he was opposed to it, he did not believe it would lead to the "large-scale expropriation of farmland"."I don't see within the wording of this text that that will happen," he said in a recent panel discussion at an agricultural exhibition held in South Africa's Free State province – where a large number of conservative Afrikaner farmers South African Property Owners Association said it was "irrational" to give "nil compensation" to an owner who held land for speculative purposes. "There are many landowners whose sole purpose of business is to speculate in land. They do not get the land for free and they have significant holding costs," the association said, adding it had no doubt the law would be "abundantly tested" in the courts. Mabasa and Karberg said one view was that the concept of EWC was a "legal absurdity" because "intrinsic in the legal definition of expropriation, is a requirement for compensation to be paid".However, the lawyers pointed out the alternative view was that South Africa's constitution "implicitly recognises that it would in some circumstances be just and equitable for compensation to be nil". What does the government say? South Africa's Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson has defended the legislation, breaking ranks with his party, the fact he is in charge of the new legalisation and, on a discussion panel, he explained that while he had some concerns about the law, it was a "dramatic improvement" on the previous Expropriation Act, with greater safeguards for land-owners. He said the law could also help end extortionist demands on the state, and in some cases "nil compensation" could be gave as an example the problems being faced by the state-owned power utility plans to roll out a transmission network over about 4,500km (28,000 miles) of land to boost electricity supplies to end the power crisis in the of the roll-out, some individuals colluded with Eskom officials to buy land for 1m rand ($56,000; £41,000), and then demanded R20m for it, he said. "Is it just and equitable to give them what they want? I don't think that's in the interest of the broader community or the state," Macpherson another example, Macpherson said that some of South Africa's inner cities were in a "disastrous" condition. After owners left, buildings were "over-run" and "hijacked" for illegal occupation. The cost to the state to rebuild them could exceed their value, and in such cases the courts could rule that an owner qualified for "nil compensation", he said. "Nil is a form of compensation," Macpherson added, while ruling it out for mayor Dada Morero told South Africa's Mail & Guardian newspaper that he wanted to use the buildings for the "public good", like accommodating around 300,000 people on the housing waiting added the owners of nearly 100 buildings could not be located. "They have abandoned the buildings," he said, adding some of the owners were from the UK and Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in such cases compensation would probably still have to be paid for the buildings, though not the the state could not locate the owners, it "must deposit the compensation with the Master of the High Court" in case they returned or could be traced later, they said. What next? The law is in limbo, as Ramaphosa – about four months after giving his assent to it – has still not set a date for its implementation. Nor is he likely to do so anytime soon, as he would not want to further antagonise Trump while South Africa was trying to negotiate a trade deal with the US. And on the domestic front, the DA is spearheading opposition to the legislation. It said it wanted a "judicial review" of it, while at the same time it was pressing ahead with court action to challenge the law's constitutionality. The DA's tough line is in contrast with that of Macpherson, who, a few weeks ago, warned that if the law was struck down in its entirety: "I don't know what's going to come after that."In politics, sometimes you must be careful what you wish for because often you can get it," he comments highlight the deep fissures in South African politics, with some parties, such as Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), believing that the legislation did not go far enough to tackle racial inequality in land land such an emotive issue, there is no easy solution to the dispute – and it is likely to continue to cause tensions within South Africa, as well as with the US president. You may also be interested in: Rebuked by Trump but praised at home: How Ramaphosa might gain from US showdownIs there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims?South Africans' anger over land set to explode Go to for more news from the African us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Unpacking the South African land law that so inflames Trump
South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa is at the centre of a political firestorm after he approved a law that gives the state the power to expropriate some privately owned land without compensation for owners. The law, which is yet to be implemented, has drawn the ire of US President Donald Trump, who sees it as discriminating against white farmers. Centre-right political parties and lobby groups in South Africa have also opposed it, saying they will challenge the Expropriation Act – as the law is named – in court on the grounds that it threatens property rights. Ramaphosa's government says the law provides for compensation to be paid in the vast majority of cases – and the changes are needed to increase black ownership of land. Most private farmland is still owned by white people. When Nelson Mandela came to power more than 30 years ago, ending the racist system of apartheid, it was promised that this would be rectified through a willing-buyer, willing-seller land reform programme – but critics say this has proved too slow and too costly. In rare circumstances it would be land that was needed for the "public interest", legal experts told the BBC. According to South African law firm Werksmans Attorneys, this suggested it would mainly, or perhaps only, happen in relation to the land reform programme. Although it could also be used to access natural resources such as minerals and water, the firm added, in an opinion written by its experts in the field, Bulelwa Mabasa and Thomas Karberg. Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in their view, productive agricultural land could not be expropriated without compensation. They said any expropriation without compensation – known as EWC – could take place only in a few circumstances: For example, when an owner was not using the land and was holding it for "speculative purposes" Or when an owner "abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so". Owners would probably still get compensation for the buildings on the land and for the natural resources, the lawyers said. Mabasa and Karberg added that EWC was "not aimed at rural land or farmland specifically, and could include land in urban areas". However, in cases where compensation is paid, the rules are set to change, with owners likely to get less money. The plan is for owners to receive "just-and-equitable" compensation – a departure from the higher "market value" they have been getting up to now, Mabasa and Karberg said. The government had been paying market-value compensation despite the fact that this was "at odds" with the constitution, adopted after white-minority rule ended in 1994, they added. The lawyers said that all expropriations had "extensive procedural fairness requirements", including the owner's right to go to court if they were not happy. The move away from market-value compensation will also apply to land expropriated for a "public purpose" – like building state schools or railways. This has not been a major point of controversy, possibly because it is "hardly a novel concept" – a point made by JURISTnews, a legal website run by law students from around the world. "The US Constitution, for instance, provides that the government can seize private property for public use so long as 'just compensation' is provided," it added. The government hopes so. University of Western Cape land expert Prof Ruth Hall told the BBC that more than 80,000 land claims remain unsettled. In the eastern regions of South Africa, many black people work on farms for free – in exchange they are allowed to live there and keep their livestock on a portion of the owners' land, she said. The government wants to transfer ownership of this land to the workers, and it was "unfair" to expect it to pay the market value, Prof Hall added. Over the last three decades, the government has used existing powers to expropriate property–- with less than market-value compensation – in fewer than 20 cases, she said. The new law was aimed at making it easier and cheaper to restore land to black people who were "dispossessed" of it during white-minority rule or were forced to be "long-term tenants" as they could not own land, Prof Hall added. "It's a bargaining chip," she said. But she doubts that the government will press ahead with implementing the law in the foreseeable future as the "political cost" has become too high. The academic was referring to the fact that Trump has opposed the law, saying it discriminates against white farmers and their land was being "seized" – a charge the government denies. In February, Trump cut aid to South Africa, and in April he announced a 30% tariff on South African goods and agricultural products, although this was later paused for 90 days. This was followed by last month's infamous Oval Office showdown when Trump ambushed Ramaphosa with a video and printouts of stories alleging white people were being persecuted – much of his dossier has been discredited. Fact-checking Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Ramaphosa Like Trump, the second-biggest party in Ramaphosa's coalition government, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is opposed to the legislation. In a statement on 26 May, the party said that its top leadership body had rejected the notion of "nil compensation". However, it has agreed with the concept of just-and-equitable compensation rather than market-value compensation, adding it should be "adjudicated by a court of law". Surprisingly, Jaco Kleynhans of the Solidarity Movement, an influential Afrikaner lobby group, said that while the new law could "destroy" some businesses and he was opposed to it, he did not believe it would lead to the "large-scale expropriation of farmland". "I don't see within the wording of this text that that will happen," he said in a recent panel discussion at an agricultural exhibition held in South Africa's Free State province – where a large number of conservative Afrikaner farmers live. The South African Property Owners Association said it was "irrational" to give "nil compensation" to an owner who held land for speculative purposes. "There are many landowners whose sole purpose of business is to speculate in land. They do not get the land for free and they have significant holding costs," the association said, adding it had no doubt the law would be "abundantly tested" in the courts. Mabasa and Karberg said one view was that the concept of EWC was a "legal absurdity" because "intrinsic in the legal definition of expropriation, is a requirement for compensation to be paid". However, the lawyers pointed out the alternative view was that South Africa's constitution "implicitly recognises that it would in some circumstances be just and equitable for compensation to be nil". South Africa's Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson has defended the legislation, breaking ranks with his party, the DA. In fact he is in charge of the new legalisation and, on a discussion panel, he explained that while he had some concerns about the law, it was a "dramatic improvement" on the previous Expropriation Act, with greater safeguards for land-owners. He said the law could also help end extortionist demands on the state, and in some cases "nil compensation" could be justified. He gave as an example the problems being faced by the state-owned power utility Eskom. It plans to roll out a transmission network over about 4,500km (28,000 miles) of land to boost electricity supplies to end the power crisis in the country. Ahead of the roll-out, some individuals colluded with Eskom officials to buy land for 1m rand ($56,000; £41,000), and then demanded R20m for it, he said. "Is it just and equitable to give them what they want? I don't think that's in the interest of the broader community or the state," Macpherson said. Giving another example, Macpherson said that some of South Africa's inner cities were in a "disastrous" condition. After owners left, buildings were "over-run" and "hijacked" for illegal occupation. The cost to the state to rebuild them could exceed their value, and in such cases the courts could rule that an owner qualified for "nil compensation", he said. "Nil is a form of compensation," Macpherson added, while ruling it out for farms. Johannesburg mayor Dada Morero told South Africa's Mail & Guardian newspaper that he wanted to use the buildings for the "public good", like accommodating around 300,000 people on the housing waiting list. He added the owners of nearly 100 buildings could not be located. "They have abandoned the buildings," he said, adding some of the owners were from the UK and Germany. But Mabasa and Karberg told the BBC that in such cases compensation would probably still have to be paid for the buildings, though not the land. If the state could not locate the owners, it "must deposit the compensation with the Master of the High Court" in case they returned or could be traced later, they said. The law is in limbo, as Ramaphosa – about four months after giving his assent to it – has still not set a date for its implementation. Nor is he likely to do so anytime soon, as he would not want to further antagonise Trump while South Africa was trying to negotiate a trade deal with the US. And on the domestic front, the DA is spearheading opposition to the legislation. It said it wanted a "judicial review" of it, while at the same time it was pressing ahead with court action to challenge the law's constitutionality. The DA's tough line is in contrast with that of Macpherson, who, a few weeks ago, warned that if the law was struck down in its entirety: "I don't know what's going to come after that. "In politics, sometimes you must be careful what you wish for because often you can get it," he said. His comments highlight the deep fissures in South African politics, with some parties, such as Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), believing that the legislation did not go far enough to tackle racial inequality in land ownership. With land such an emotive issue, there is no easy solution to the dispute – and it is likely to continue to cause tensions within South Africa, as well as with the US president. Rebuked by Trump but praised at home: How Ramaphosa might gain from US showdown Is there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims? South Africans' anger over land set to explode Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Africa Daily Focus on Africa
News24
08-05-2025
- Health
- News24
Forceful ruling in Gauteng cancer case has far-reaching implications
A new ruling against the Gauteng Department of Health makes use of a supervisory interdict. This sets a precedent for future cases, empowering courts to step in when government entities fail to fulfil their constitutional duties, write Helen Michael, Slade van Rooyen and Farah Yassin of Werksmans Attorneys. For more financial news, visit the News24 Business front page. In a decisive move that underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional rights, the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court, Johannesburg, recently issued an urgent interim relief order against the Gauteng Department of Health (GDoH). This order, stemming from the case of Cancer Alliance v Member of Executive Council for Health Gauteng Province and Others, mandated the GDoH to immediately formulate and implement a plan to address the growing backlog in radiation oncology services at two of its key hospitals. This ruling isn't merely a legal decision; it's a stark reminder of the critical intersection between public administration, budgetary allocation, and the fundamental right to healthcare. The heart of the issue lay in the GDoH's apparent failure to utilise allocated funds effectively. In March 2023, the Gauteng Provincial Treasury earmarked R784 million to bolster surgical and radiation oncology services, with a significant R250 million specifically designated for outsourcing radiation oncology. Shockingly, these designated funds for outsourcing were not used and were eventually returned to the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year. This inaction became the focal point for Cancer Alliance, a collective of non-profit organisations and advocates who brought the matter to court. They argued that the GDoH's dereliction not only squandered allocated resources, but also directly violated several constitutional provisions. The case brought to the forefront critical constitutional sections that underpin the state's responsibility to its citizens. Section 7(2) mandates the state to protect and fulfil the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, while section 27 assures everyone the right to access healthcare services. Additionally, the argument hinged on section 33, which ensures just administrative action, and section 195(1), which outlines principles for efficient public administration, including the prudent use of resources. Cancer Alliance contended that the GDoH's inaction breached all these sections, leading to a severe crisis in cancer care. Forceful The court's judgment was forceful and unambiguous. It recognised the urgent need for intervention, noting the grave circumstances where patients were 'deprived of radiation oncological treatment for so long that repeated surgeries and repeated chemotherapy virtually became routine and early death at times became inevitable.' This observation drove home the devastating real-world impact of administrative delays and bureaucratic missteps. The judge found that the GDoH had unjustifiably ignored the patients' right to receive outsourced radiation oncology, especially when funds had been specifically allocated for that purpose. Furthermore, the GDoH had sidestepped attempts by Cancer Alliance to engage in discussions about the tender process and to follow established regulatory procedures. This lack of engagement was seen as a direct violation of section 195 of the Constitution, which emphasises accountability and transparency in public administration. Van Nieuwenhuizen AJ, who presided over the case, was particularly critical of the GDoH's lack of accountability. He highlighted the failure to maintain professional ethics, promote efficient use of resources, provide services impartially, and respond to patients' needs adequately. The court emphasised the gravity of the situation, noting that the patients on the backlog list were facing life-threatening illnesses. Without timely treatment, their health would inevitably deteriorate, potentially leading to premature deaths. This scenario, according to the court, constituted actual and ongoing irreparable harm, demanding immediate action. The GDoH's argument that the issues would be addressed in a future review application was dismissed as 'insensitive and dismissive' of the patients' suffering. Ultimately, the court held that a 'compelling need' existed to ensure the GDoH was held accountable. It found that officials within the department had essentially acted independently, failing to recognise their obligation to the public interest. To rectify this, the court issued a supervisory interdict, effectively forcing the GDoH to take concrete steps. Within 45 days, the department was ordered to update the backlog list of cancer patients awaiting radiation oncology. It was also mandated to take all necessary actions to provide these services at Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital and Steve Biko Academic Hospital. Finally, the GDoH must submit a report within three months detailing the steps taken and outlining a long-term plan for providing radiation oncology services. This ruling has far-reaching implications. Firstly, it reinforces the state's undeniable constitutional obligation to provide access to healthcare. The judgment makes it clear that merely allocating funds is insufficient; the state must actively ensure those funds are used to deliver essential services. Secondly, it shines a light on the critical importance of accountability and transparency in public administration. The court's findings underscore that delays and inefficiencies in processes like tendering can have life-or-death consequences. Lastly, the use of a supervisory interdict sets a precedent for future cases. It empowers courts to step in when government entities fail to fulfil their constitutional duties, providing a powerful tool for ensuring compliance and safeguarding citizens' rights. Powerful reminder In conclusion, the Cancer Alliance case is more than just a legal victory; it's a powerful reminder of the human element in public service. It reasserts the vital role of the judiciary in ensuring that the state meets its constitutional obligations, particularly in areas as fundamental as healthcare. It stands as a crucial checkpoint for how public resources are managed and highlights that inaction has a cost – often a human one. The judgment underscores that administrative functions must be carried out with ethical integrity, transparency, and a steadfast commitment to the needs of the public they serve. This week, the Gauteng health department announced that it would appeal the ruling. Helen Michael is a director, while Slade van Rooyen and Farah Yassin are candidate attorneys at Werksmans Attorneys.
