The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, today ruled that the lockdown regulations in response to Covid-19 are unconstitutional.
A voluntary group called the Liberty Fighters Network, who seek justice for all South Africans, had sought relief against Minister of Co-operative governance and Traditional Affairs, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma's Level 4 and 3 regulations under the Disaster Management Act and won a landmark decision. The Government has been given 14 days to rectify it,
The judgement did not deal with the prohibition of tobacco products as that is the subject of separate litigation.

And who is going to pay back all those who were affected?
Fscking clowns.

On 2020-06-02 22:28:40 Johnny English said:
The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, today ruled that the lockdown regulations in response to Covid-19 are unconstitutional.
A voluntary group called the Liberty Fighters Network, who seek justice for all South Africans, had sought relief against Minister of Co-operative governance and Traditional Affairs, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma's Level 4 and 3 regulations under the Disaster Management Act and won a landmark decision. The Government has been given 14 days to rectify it,
The judgement did not deal with the prohibition of tobacco products as that is the subject of separate litigation.

I read the whole 34 pages of this and I was gob smacked

Too late. All the damage has been done already. 2 weeks to rectify lol, we would probably have been going to level 2 in 2 weeks anyway.

It took so long to get this to court that no matter the ruling or the amendments made to regulations it won't rectify the damages done all ready.
That said it is awesome to see that our constitutional rights can be defended against perpetrators with positive outcomes. And that the courts can work free from government and is doing what they are meant to do, uphold the constitution.

But from what i understand is that whether a "state of emergency" or a "state of disaster" is decleared will determine how your constitutional rights can be over ruled. And on that basis the regulations have been ruled as irrational and unconstitutional by the court.

They have two weeks to amend regulations but if government choices to appeal this justment the regulations will stay in place and the judgment will have no effect until the appeal has been heard.

My feeling is they will appeal and will drag this out till we reach level 1.

Hell if they can come up with "regulations" that nobody is allowed to go on a beach but at the same time you are allowed to fish anywhere. Or only professional surfers can surf and not the rest. Or buying a t shirt if you wear it under a jersey. Or allowing alcohol before cigarettes when they said not allowing alcohol keeps the hospitals empty. Not surprising that the police struggle to keep in line sometimes, how are you supposed to police conflicting stuff like this, nevermind that it often changes and ministers contradict each other.

On 2020-06-03 07:01:11 Louise ( Miss Red) said:
It took so long to get this to court that no matter the ruling or the amendments made to regulations it won't rectify the damages done all ready.
That said it is awesome to see that our constitutional rights can be defended against perpetrators with positive outcomes. And that the courts can work free from government and is doing what they are meant to do, uphold the constitution.

But from what i understand is that whether a "state of emergency" or a "state of disaster" is decleared will determine how your constitutional rights can be over ruled. And on that basis the regulations have been ruled as irrational and unconstitutional by the court.

They have two weeks to amend regulations but if government choices to appeal this justment the regulations will stay in place and the judgment will have no effect until the appeal has been heard.

My feeling is they will appeal and will drag this out till we reach level 1.

Yeah, the appeal process will itself take time because if not granted leave to appeal by the Judges who granted the judgment, they will need to petition for leave to appeal to the SCA, so could go on for some time.

But they need valid grounds to be able to sustain a request for leave to appeal and/or petition for leave to appeal the judgment, so very difficult to say at this stage ...

We all (well, most of us) rightly feel aggrieved at how the government has trampled on our constitutional rights and effectively further increasing unemployment and poverty in our country. What is also very troubling is the meek and submissive fashion many of our people acceded to these constitutional breaches and deprivation of our human rights, some even cheering the state on and chastising those who questioned this unconstitutional lockdown.
Then there are those whose response was, smoking is bad for you, alcohol is bad so its ok to take away others' legitimate rights just because it doesn't 'affect' them. Actually it does ! What people fail to understand is that we are being manipulated and divided by those who seek control over our rights. The big test yet to come is when they demand that you get vaccinated or else ......
Have we learnt anything ?

Too early to rejoice.

Kopdoek's complacency lead to her downfall. She did not even warrant the case a proper response and delighted it to one of her sub-ordinates.

All the though process behind the initial lock-down is sound, the problem started when they started opening up some of the regulations. A proper thought process was not followed.

Let see how "Ms Kopdoek" will react to it in the next 2 weeks, but I am of the opinion we have not seen the end of it. Certain activities will still be seen as "illegal" once the new regulations are published in the Government Gazette.