President Cyril Ramaphosa and Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi have approached the Constitutional Court in an effort to overturn a ruling by the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, which declared that the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act is reviewable.
The dispute stems from a judgment delivered in May last year by Judge Mpostoli Twala, who found in favour of the Board of Healthcare Funders of Southern Africa (BHF) and the South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF). Twala ruled that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the president’s decision to assent to and sign the NHI Act could be subjected to judicial review. He further ordered Ramaphosa to provide the record of his decision within ten days.
Ramaphosa and Motsoaledi are now seeking leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court, asking that Twala’s ruling be set aside in its entirety. They want the apex court to replace the High Court’s orders with findings aligned to the BHF judgment delivered in November 2024, which dismissed the SAPPF’s review application with costs.
The government’s legal papers argue that the president’s assent and signature of legislation are constitutional obligations governed by sections 79 and 84(2) of the Constitution. They maintain that only the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the president has failed to fulfil such obligations, as outlined in section 167(4).
Ramaphosa contends that the High Court’s ruling carries significant implications for the country’s constitutional democracy, potentially reshaping the roles of both the presidency and the legislature. He further argues that requiring disclosure of his record of decision undermines the Constitutional Court’s rules and disregards the sensitive political considerations involved.
According to the president, questioning his decision-making process could have long-term consequences for the functioning of the Office of the Presidency and the principle of separation of powers. He warns that the precedent set by the High Court could affect not only the current matter but also future exercises of presidential authority.
Facebook Comments