Solidarity submits comments on the Health Act regulations; preparing court papers
24 April 2022
Solidarity today submitted its comments on the four sets of regulations issued by the Department of Health in order to replace the Covid-19 state of disaster. Solidarity also stated that if the government does not change the draft regulations radically, it could lead to one of the most major court cases yet in South Africa.
Solidarity says that its comments have been drafted by a team of researchers, occupational health experts, medical experts and lawyers. According to Solidarity, its comments also serve as preparation for a court case that is very likely. Solidarity’s legal team has already been instructed to proceed with court documents.
“All indications are that the government wants to press on with regulations that will give the Minister of Health unprecedented powers,” Solidarity Chief Executive Dr Dirk Hermann says. “To our knowledge hundreds of thousands of people have already submitted comments, overwhelming rejecting the regulations. People are tired of a government that wants to control things centrally. The government is now trying to turn temporary powers associated with a state of disaster into permanent powers.”
According to Solidarity, the proposed regulations are unclear, incoherent and ineffective.
“The new regulations are even more stringent than the last set of revised transitional regulations issued in terms of the Disaster Management Act. It is patently clear that most of the proposed regulations have simply been copied and pasted. We are dealing with the 2020 regulations that are now being made permanent, which is totally irrational. The regulations have been drafted in a sloppy and rushed way and have not been thought through. For the past two years the government has known that the state of disaster will come to an end and that the pandemic would become endemic. Yet, the government was not ready for it, and it now wants to enforce health regulations with undue haste,” Hermann says.
“The regulations make provision for the wearing of masks to become permanent. We are tired of masks and especially of the government making it mandatory. The key is freedom of choice: If someone prefers to wear a mask because of a personal risk or if a business such as a doctor’s practice opts for the wearing of masks due to a specific risk they should be allowed to do so. However, the government should not be in a position to prescribe it to all of us. One shoe, in this case one mask, cannot fit all,” Hermann explains.
Solidarity contends that the extension of the period for comments means that hundreds of thousands of comments would have to be studied and considered between 26 April and 5 May. According to Solidarity, it is impossible for the department to complete this task in this short period in the manner prescribed by legislation.
The government will either not have finished the process, and the transitional regulations will expire, or the public comment process was window-dressing. Whatever the case may be, the government’s incompetence and poor governance have again plunged our country into uncertainty. Given how dismally this whole process has been managed, we know that if the government does continue with the regulations major litigation lies ahead,” Hermann says. “This court case will be known as the people of South Africa versus the government, and we expect that political parties, trade unions, civil rights organisations, employer organisations and others will take the government to court,” Hermann concludes.
To peruse Solidarity’s full comments, click here.
Issued by Connie Mulder, Head: Solidarity Research Institute (SRI), 25 April 2022
