🔴 BREAKING: Minister of Health attempts to halt court challenges to NHI
The Minister of Health wants to pause all court challenges to the NHI Act while continuing to implement it.
Should the court process be paused, NHI implementation should also be paused.
Here's why 🧵
What's Happening?
The Minister of Health is trying to halt six constitutional challenges against the NHI Act, claiming it's to "conserve public resources"
They want to stop judicial scrutiny while NHI implementation continues unchecked.
This is an abuse of process.
Why This Is Dangerous:
The government's tactic would:
🚫 Shield the NHI Act from judicial constitutional review indefinitely
🚫 Allow implementation to proceed without accountability
🚫 Further the initial harms of the Act (e.g. doctors leaving, reduced investment in the sector)
🚫 Deprive citizens of their right to timely judicial review
Sakeliga's Two-Pronged Approach:
We are opposing the Minister's tactics with:
1️⃣ Opposition to the Minister's stay application
2️⃣ A conditional counter-application for an interdict to halt NHI implementation if the court grants a stay of the challenges
If the constitutional challenges are paused, implementation must also be paused.
The Irony:
The government claims it wants to "conserve public resources" by pausing challenges.
But allowing NHI implementation to continue would:
🔵Waste billions on a demonstrably unaffordable scheme
🔵Cause deterioration in healthcare access
🔵Risk unprecedented economic contraction
It is not the constitutional challenges that should be halted - it is the implementation of the NHI itself.
Faced with widespread resistance, the government is now resorting to procedural manoeuvres to delay resolution of the real issues.
Constitutional accountability cannot be suspended while the government proceeds with potentially unconstitutional conduct.
Sakeliga's broader case against the NHI is one of several major challenges brought by civil society, business organisations, and healthcare stakeholders to prevent catastrophic collapse of healthcare access and economic welfare.
🎥 Watch our 5-min NHI explainer:
Support:
This litigation protects what still works in South African healthcare and prevents an unprecedented economic disaster.
🔴 BREAKING: Sakeliga Launches Court Case to Stop BEE Requirements for International Airlines
The International Air Services Council (IASC) is unlawfully imposing race-based licensing conditions on international air carriers.
Here's why we're taking the IASC to court 🧵
What's Happening?
The IASC has been demanding B-BBEE credentials and transformation commitments from international airlines seeking to operate routes to and from South Africa.
This is unlawful, absurd, and threatening to isolate South Africa from travel and trade.
Why This Matters
International airlines have been discreetly resisting these demands, but the IASC's actions are still:
🚫 Discouraging airlines from expanding services to SA
🚫 Limiting passenger and cargo options
🚫 Driving up costs for travellers and businesses
🚫 Reducing international connectivity
🔴 BREAKING: SA's first case of expropriation without compensation for "social housing" is heading to court.
The City of Ekurhuleni expropriated a development property worth millions and paid "nil" (zero, R0.00) compensation.
Here's the details 🧵
Background:
In 2019, Portion 406 of the Farm Driefontein was expropriated on the grounds of being "in the public interest."
The former executive mayor of Ekurhuleni, Mzwandile Masina, said they were doing this to “test the limits of Section 25 of the Constitution”.
At the time of expropriation, the owner was applying for development rights and the property was valued at no less than R30m.
An independent valuation put the value as high as R64m.
The City of Ekurhuleni argued that "nil" compensation is just and equitable, because the
property was earmarked for "social housing"
The City alleges the owner experienced "no financial loss" from the expropriation, asserting that the land was held for speculation and therefore ineligible for compensation.
🔴UPDATE: Covid-19 Lockdown & Ministers Contempt of Court
Sakeliga is making progress in our five-year pursuit to obtain lockdown transparency from the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA).
During the lockdowns from 2020-2022, the government made decisions with far-reaching and devastating effects.
Many communities, families, individuals and businesses who were faced with total restrictions on their livelihoods require transparency about decision-making processes.
Why the Court Case?
We aim to obtain the records detailing and explaining the government's rationale (or lack thereof) behind its most far-reaching lockdown regulations.
This is important because:
➡️ The state is constitutionally obliged to provide policy transparency.
➡️ The public will benefit from such transparency.
➡️ Lockdown transparency is an important step in making it harder for the state to implement such harmful measures again.
🔴 UPDATE: BEE case against the Property Sector Regulator 🏢
In a significant development, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition has withdrawn his opposition to our court case.
What this means for the property sector… ⬇️
What Does This Mean? (2/7)
This now leaves the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) as the case’s only active opponent.
➡️ The Minister of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation has already indicated they will abide by the decision of the court.
Why This Matters (3/7)
Last year, the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) began denying operating licences to property businesses that did not meet the regulator’s stipulated BEE score.
A brazen effort to put people out of business unless they comply 🚫
🔴 UPDATE: Employment Race Quotas planned for end-March 2025
The state intends to force employers to hire according to its strict quotas based on race, sex, and disability.
This proposes absurd social engineering and micro-management.
What you need to know 🧵
The Department of Labour recently disclosed that the long-awaited Employment Equity Amendment Act quotas would be announced in March 2025
The first round of quotas are supposedly to be met progressively within five years.
After which, they will be made even more stringent.
The quotas apply to all employers with 50 or more employees - local businesses, non-profits and international businesses operating in South Africa.
But this threshold can be lowered in future.
When looking at similar legislation in Namibia - a country that often mirrors the SA regulatory framework - the threshold was lowered to just 10 employees late in 2022.
🔴 UPDATE: Is Minister Steenhuisen sticking to his predecessor’s AgriBEE policy or not?
The minister of agriculture finally held a press conference - but failed to clear up a critical question Sakeliga and others have put to him.
Sakeliga’s response 🧵
The Key Question: Will Mr Steenhuisen uphold his department’s existing AgriBEE policy, or will he withdraw it and set out a new, positive vision for his department?
The AgriBEE policy is a standing internal policy to expand BEE requirements with the explicit goal to make BEE compulsory across the agricultural sector.
Rather than clearing things up, Minister Steenhuisen:
➡️ sought ways to defend the continuation of his predecessors’ race-based statutory “transformation” levies as provided for in his department’s AgriBEE policies
➡️ erroneously pleaded that he has no say on AgriBEE — in what appears to be a confusion of his own department’s internal, official AgriBEE Plan and AgriBEE Enforcement Guidelines, with the AgriBEE Sector Codes of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition
➡️ somehow failed to acknowledge Sakeliga’s proactive engagement with him on AgriBEE since October 2024