The Constitutional Court on Friday released a judgment relating to legislation governing national states of disaster and states of emergency.

A hearing related to a six-year-old application submitted over the 2020 national state of disaster were finally held on 6 February. The judgment dealt with the constitutionality of the Disaster Management Act (DMA), as well as any possible limitations on National Assembly’s role in providing oversight in such scenarios.

The Citizen reports that the DA in March 2020 submitted an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) challenging the constitutionality of section 27 of the DMA.

This after then Minister of Co-operative Governance & Traditional Affairs Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma declared a state of disaster in response to the Covid-19 outbreak.

President Cyril Ramaphosa forced a national lockdown the following week, beginning almost two years of mandates and restrictions.

The DA argued that section 27 unconstitutionally deferred Parliament’s authority to the Minister, removing Parliament's oversight role over the executive. 

The High Court ruled against the DA, stating the DMA had ‘sufficient restraints’ on executive power.

‘(The High Court) found that there is a fundamental distinction between a state of emergency and a state of disaster, and that ordinary provisions for parliamentary oversight remain operative in a state of disaster’.

The DA appealed the matter with the SCA, which was dismissed as the SCA agreed with the High Court’s view. The matter reached the Constitutional Court earlier this month, with two judgments differing in their assessments.

The Citizen reports that a dissenting judgment by Justice Zukisa Tshiqi stated that section 27 was unconstitutional, while the majority judgment delivered by Justice Leona Theron disagreed.

Tshiqi’s judgment stated that the DMA contained no specific mechanisms enabling the National Assembly to disapprove regulations issued by the Minister in a state of disaster.

Full report in The Citizen