Activist Reyno De Beer says the ruling by the High Court in Pretoria regarding the lockdown regulations is a victory for all South Africans.
The court declared that the regulations under lockdown level 4 and 3 are unconstitutional and invalid.
However, the ruling is suspended for two weeks, meaning that level 3 lockdown regulations are still in force.
The court has directed members of the National Coronavirus Command Council to review amend and republish the regulations to be in line with the Bill of Rights.
The case was brought by De Beer and his organisation, the Liberty Fighters Network.
“The initial argument is that there needs to be a balance between what the government is trying to achieve and looking after the health of people. There was no consideration. These lockdown regulations were impulsive. What the court used as an example was that you are not allowed to go and visit your father on his death bed but the moment he passes away, you are allowed to go to his funeral. The moment we asked that question to the minister we received no response,” explains De Beer.
Government can appeal the ruling: Richard Calland
Associate professor in Public Law at the University of Cape Town, Richard Calland, says government may well approach the Constitutional Court to appeal a High Court ruling declaring lockdown level 4 and 3 regulations as unconstitutional and invalid.
However, the ruling by the High Court in Pretoria is suspended for 14 days, meaning that level 3 lockdown regulations remain in force.
Below is the full judgment:
The court has directed members of the National Coronavirus Command Council to amend and republish the regulations, to be in line with the Bill of Rights.
Activist, Reyno De Beer of Liberty Fighters Network approached the court to challenge the lockdown regulations.
The video below is reporting on the court ruling against level 4 and 3 regulations:
Professor Calland says the ruling has the potential to derail government’s efforts to fight the coronavirus.
“What the judge says is that the way those regulations have been decided on and the actual impact of the regulation itself does not meet the end objection which is to delay the transmission or infection rate of COVID-19.”
“I’m not sure what evidence the government put before the court and I’m certain that their legal advice would be, let us appeal this, and let us get the Constitutional Court to look at it quickly. Because otherwise; it is going to create a massive spanner in the works,” explains Calland.
Below is Cabinet’s response to the judgment:
