The Constitutional Court has been asked by President Cyril Ramaphosa and Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi to overturn the Gauteng High Court judgment declaring that the National Health Insurance (NHI) is reviewable.
The President has also warned that questioning his decision-making has profound consequences for the exercise of the obligations he has, not only in the present matter, but in the future, as it engages issues regarding the Office of the Presidency as well as its ability to function, and the separation of powers, reports IOL.
Last May, Gauteng High Court Judge Mpostoli Twala ruled in favour of the Board of Healthcare Funders of Southern Africa (BHF) and the SA Private Practitioners Forum’s (SAPPF) case against Ramaphosa and Motsoaledi, ruling that the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter and that the President’s decision to assent to and sign the NHI Act was reviewable.
In addition, Ramaphosa was ordered to furnish the record of the impugned decision within 10 calendar days.
But Ramaphosa and Motsoaledi have now asked the Constitutional Court to grant them leave to appeal directly to the apex court against the whole of Twala’s judgment.
They also want the High Court orders to be set aside and substituted with orders stating in the BHF judgment handed down in November 2024, and the review application by the SAPPF is dismissed with costs.
Additionally, they want their appeal to be upheld, as well as Ramaphosa’s points of law.
The BHF and SAPPF launched separate review applications at the High Court seeking to review and set aside Ramaphosa’s decision to assent and sign the NHI Bill.
“The Presidential assent and signature are constitutional obligations … and therefore, any allegations of a failure to comply …only the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction in terms of Section 167(4) of the Constitution,” reads the government’s papers filed at the apex court.
Ramaphosa wants the country’s highest court to determine whether he enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction, or whether he failed to fulfil his constitutional obligations, which is divested from the High Court’s jurisdiction.
The idea that his record of decision of assent and signature must be disclosed is at odds with the text and purpose of the Constitutional Court rules, he believes, and it also ignores the politically sensitive issues this entails.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Ramaphosa granted ConCourt hearing for NHI appeal
President seeks top court intervention over NHI Act ruling