Concourt to hear DA’s challenge against unconstitutional Covid-19 lockdown powers
Concourt to hear DA’s challenge against unconstitutional Covid-19 lockdown powers! The Democratic Alliance (DA) continues its legal battle against Covid-19-era lockdown regulations, with the Constitutional Court scheduled to hear the matter next month.
Despite the recent Government of National Unity (GNU) arrangement, which sees the African National Congress (ANC) in coalition with the DA, the opposition party remains resolute in contesting the legality of the regulations enforced under the Disaster Management Act.
Core of the Challenge
According to court papers, the DA argues that the Disaster Management Act grants excessive power to the executive, particularly the Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA) Minister.
The party claims this authority allows for drastic limitations on the basic rights of South Africans without adequate parliamentary oversight.
“The Covid-19 lockdowns illustrated the breadth and intrusiveness of the powers,” the DA stated.
The party emphasized that during the pandemic, the CoGTA Minister exercised sweeping powers to promulgate regulations without input, approval, or scrutiny from Parliament.
DA’s Constitutional Arguments
The DA maintains that the Act fails to uphold the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which requires a proper balance between the roles of Parliament and the executive.
“By affording the executive this extraordinary power – without subjecting it to input, approval, or scrutiny from Parliament – the section breaches the separation of powers, a fundamental constitutional principle,” the DA asserted.
Key criticisms raised by the party include:
- Parliamentary Oversight: Regulations enacted under the Act are not tabled in Parliament.
- Lack of Veto Power: The National Assembly cannot veto the declaration of a state of disaster or any Section 27 regulations.
- Unchecked Ministerial Power: The CoGTA Minister can significantly limit South Africans’ rights without parliamentary safeguards commonly seen in other legislation.
Government’s Response
In its defense, the government acknowledges that the DA’s challenge constitutes a constitutional critique of the Disaster Management Act. It contends that Section 27 of the Act provides the minister with broad powers to respond to national disasters.
However, the DA insists that these powers are too expansive and lacked appropriate checks and balances during the pandemic, allowing the executive to infringe on fundamental freedoms across various spheres of life.
Implications of the Act
The DA pointed out that while the pandemic and its accompanying lockdowns have ended, the Act itself remains in force and could be invoked again in the future.
“It is necessary for this court to declare that this is so – before the next disaster occurs and the executive can again invoke extraordinary Section 27 powers without parliamentary oversight,” the DA argued.
The party expressed concerns that similar unchecked powers could be exercised in response to future crises, potentially leading to abuses of authority and infringement on citizens’ rights.
Historical Context
During the height of the pandemic, the CoGTA Minister enacted numerous regulations under the Disaster Management Act to control the spread of Covid-19. These included restrictions on movement, bans on alcohol and tobacco sales, and limits on social gatherings.
While some praised the swift actions taken to protect public health, others criticized the measures as overly intrusive and lacking transparency.
The DA has consistently voiced opposition to these regulations, framing them as unconstitutional and an overreach of executive power.
Looking Ahead
As the Constitutional Court prepares to hear the case, the DA seeks a declaration that the Disaster Management Act is unconstitutional in its current form.
The party argues that reforms are necessary to ensure that any future declarations of a state of disaster include adequate parliamentary oversight and respect for the separation of powers.
While the court’s decision will not reverse the effects of the Covid-19 lockdowns, it could set a precedent for how South Africa navigates future emergencies, potentially reshaping the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for governance and the protection of constitutional rights during times of crisis.
