The use of the emergency ‘baby savers’ – a safe box or cradle in which abandoned newborn babies are placed – is under the judicial spotlight this week, with the government claiming organisations that accept babies in this manner are acting illegally and that it is an offence under the Children’s Act.

The Star reports that the Department of Social Development (DSD) in Gauteng’s stance is ‘baby savers’ are illegal and has threatened to close organisations that use these aids.

These safe boxes are usually built into the outside wall of an organisation and trigger an alarm once a baby is placed inside.

This allows the baby to be immediately removed and taken to safety.

Baby Savers SA NPO and Door of Hope Children’s Mission NPO turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, for an order allowing them to continue using these ‘baby savers’ and to exclude providers of baby saver boxes from accomplice liability for the offence of abandonment.

The Centre for Human Rights (CHR), represented by Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR), has joined the proceedings as a friend of the court.

They argue that the law must draw a clear distinction between unsafe abandonment and the relinquishment (safe placement) of infants.

To treat these acts as identical is not only irrational but also potentially produces harmful consequences, the applicants argue.

According to The Star, they say mechanisms that allow for the relinquishment (safe placement) of infants are typically used in circumstances of crisis and desperation.

In such contexts, access to a safe alternative may mean the difference between life and death for a newborn child. Criminalising this conduct could create a dangerous deterrent.

When caregivers fear arrest or prosecution, they may resort to unsafe options that endanger infants’ lives.

The matter also raises important gender equality concerns. Although laws may appear neutral on paper, the burdens of pregnancy, childbirth, caregiving, and social stigma fall disproportionately on women amid cycles of poverty and violence.

CHR and LHR argue that abandonment and relinquishment of infants are morally and objectively distinct.

One act endangers life, the other seeks to preserve it. Labelling both as abandonment attaches stigma and blame, where it may be wholly unjustified, with consequences for dignity and the risk of arbitrary detention of those incorrectly labelled.

Full report in The Star