State must account for silly regulations

Almost three months later, government has abided by ridiculously patronising and unconstitutional actions and commentary

The rationality of the SA government’s decision to introduce a “hard lockdown” in March, to save lives in the face of the potentially devastating novel coronavirus spreading across the world, and because of the country’s woefully inadequate public health system, was readily apparent to almost all South Africans.

Most people realised there would be economic and social hardships, and were prepared to make sacrifices to safeguard the interests of the people of this country. Since then, many have been aghast with government’s paternalistic, irrational measures to try to control behaviour which, simply put, has nothing to do with limiting the spread of Covid-19.

North Gauteng high court Judge Norman Davis this week confirmed the constitutional validity of the declaration of a national state of disaster by co-operative governance and traditional affairs (Cogta) minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.

However, the court pronounced as unconstitutional most regulations promulgated under that declaration, a ruling which was suspended until government reviews, amends and republishes the regulations.

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s speeches at the beginning of the Covid19 crisis were factual, sober and sound, galvanising the country to stand together against the pandemic.

Almost three months later, government has abided by ridiculously patronising and unconstitutional actions and commentary.

Cogta DG Avril Williamson took the irrationality to farcical levels when she claimed in the North Gauteng high court that the means deployed by government justified the ends.

Accepting that her devising of the relation between means and ends was garbled and incorrect, that she intended to say the ends justify the means, such reformulation can never be government’s stated position in our constitutional democracy.

The case before Davis covered a broad sweep of government actions which have raised the hackles of South Africans, but he offered a less than rigorous judicial assessment of the failure to establish the essential rational link between each regulation and purpose for which it was introduced under the state of disaster.

This week’s case is one of a multiplicity of applications thrown up by Covid-19.

Other applications will examine the validity of the state of disaster’s empowering legislation and whether government in its various guises has acted lawfully.

There may well be a further opportunity to visit the issue of government’s irrational, patronising, illegal treatment of South Africans, in the country’s bid to get back on track.