Home News Government argues public interest in bid against lockdown regulations’ judgment

Government argues public interest in bid against lockdown regulations’ judgment

1132
SHARE

The government has asked the court to grant it leave to appeal the judgment that found level 3 and 4 lockdown regulations were unconstitutional and invalid in the SCA.

Advocate Wim Trengrove represented the State. Picture: Oupa Mokoena/African News Agency (ANA)

Johannesburg – The government has asked the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria to grant it leave to appeal the judgment that found level 3 and 4 lockdown regulations were unconstitutional and invalid in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

The State, represented by Wim Trengove SC, argued that Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma was not given reasons to justify the rationality of each regulation promulgated under the Disaster Management Act.

Earlier this month, Judge Norman Davis issued a ruling in a case brought by Liberty Fighters Network (LFN). He found that regulations promulgated under level 3 and 4 were irrational and unconstitutional. Norman gave the government 14 days to rectify the regulations. The government on Wednesday argued that it was possible that a higher court could come to a different conclusion on the judgment and find that it was incorrect.

Trengove argued the Norman had erred when he blanketly concluded that all the regulations were invalid when in actuality there were issues with some of the regulations and not all of them. He said this was unfair to the minister because she was never given a chance to argue the legality of each individual regulation stated under the Act.

He also argued that the court had overstepped when it ruled on level 3 regulations as those had yet to be gazzeted and had not offered the minister the time to argue for the regulations.

Trengove said it was in the public interest for the appeal to be heard at the SCA whether or not the higher court finds the judgment correct or not. He asked Norman to allow for an appeal to be heard on an urgent basis.

The legal team for LFN argued against the appeal being granted. Advocate Reg Willis said the case had not brought forward compelling arguments for why it should be allowed to appeal the ruling. Willis said regulations for level 3 and 4 were part of the same “DNA” and the state could not argue that they should not be looked at through the same lens.

Willis said the application should be dismissed with costs. Reyno de Beer from LFN pleaded with Norman to consider the interests of justice and the ordinary citizens that will be impacted by the judgment. He said the government had been allowed to justify the regulations. De Beer also called out the government for having taken no action to adhere to the 14-day deadline to amend the regulations as stipulated by the court.

Judgment has been reserved. Norman said he would deal with case speedily.

IOL