Judgment reserved in City vs SAHRC

HUMAN right lawyers have argued for a cost order against the City of Cape Town after the withdrawal of the interdict case against monitors in the Western Cape High Court this week.

The City lodged an application against the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and its monitors questioning the appointment of the human rights defenders under the Covid-19 regulations for their work at the Strandfontein camp.

The SAHRC Act allows for the appointment of the monitors.

However, the matter had become moot after the camp was decommissioned on May 20.

Noting that the City’s application was targeted, not only at an organ of state with stretched resources and sought cost orders against all of the respondents, but counsel for the respondents argued that the case “sent a chilling message to human rights defenders”.

“If you seek to hold the City accountable, you will be dragged into expensive and time-consuming litigation and be left with no option but to respond or risk a personal costs order,” the counsel argued, adding that the attempt by the City to withdraw the application at the late stage would also “achieve the invidious purpose of all SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suits – to effectively gag criticism in such a way that the matter never goes to court where it can be corrected by judges alive to such oppressive conduct”.

“The City’s late withdrawal is to be deprecated and the court should either exercise its discretion to decline the City’s withdrawal or allow the withdrawal,

Application not only targeted a stated organ, but sent a chilling message to human rights defenders

but grant a cost order against the City to mark its displeasure with the City’s conduct in this matter,” counsel further argued.

In a virtual hearing on Zoom, counsel for the respondents, also argued that City’s application was without merit and the issue at the heart of the case was whether the court should be party to efforts by the City to “shield its activities from scrutiny and accountability” by local and international human rights monitors.

Judge Siraj Desai noted that it was unusual for an organ of state to seek an interdict against a Chapter 9 institution.

In its arguments, the counsel for SAHRC also submitted that the relief sought by the City would not only curtail the rights of human rights monitors, but also block access to justice for the people the monitors sought to protect.

In a statement issued by the City, Mayor Dan Plato noted: “While we value and respect the important role played by Chapter 9 institutions, we also have a responsibility to protect staff and NGO partners from abuse and harassment, as was the case with the misconduct of the monitors appointed by the SAHRC.”

Plato accused the monitors of blocking entrances at the temporary shelter, obstructing food and medical deliveries and attempting to incite violence.

But in its arguments in court, counsel for the monitors submitted that allegations made by the City against them were at times demonstratively false.

“We would ask for the cost order, the cost of two counsels,” they submitted.

Judgment will be passed after the court has considered the submissions.