Organisations questioning President Cyril Ramaphosa’s assent to the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill heard this week that the Constitutional Court first wants to hear from those challenging Parliament’s public participation process on the contentious legislation.
Business Day reports that this pivots the spotlight away from whether Ramaphosa made a rational decision in signing the NHI Act almost two years ago, to the extent to which MPs considered input from stakeholders when they processed the law.
Eight organisations have launched legal action against the Act since it was signed into law in May 2024.
Originally, the Constitutional Court was intending to hear an appeal from the President and Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi on 26 February seeking to overturn a Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) judgment upholding challenges brought by the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) and the South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF).
Last May, Judge Mpostoli Twala ruled that Ramaphosa’s decision to sign the NHI Act was reviewable and ordered him to furnish the record of his decision. That ruling was suspended, pending the outcome of the appeal.
The Constitutional Court also has two cases before it challenging Parliament’s public participation process on the NHI Bill, brought separately by the BHF and the Western Cape Government.
Earlier this month the Constitutional Court wrote to the parties involved, saying the challenge to the President’s assent to the Bill would become moot if the public participation challenge succeeded.
It asked for input and then issued a directive this week, striking the assent matter from the court roll pending the outcome of the public participation challenge, which it set down for 5-7 May.
Western Cape Health & Wellness MEC Mireille Wenger welcomed the Constitutional Court’s decision.
“Our position is that the NCOP failed to meet its constitutional obligation to facilitate meaningful public participation when it considered the Bill. The views of Western Cape residents and the implications for provincial health services were not adequately considered, even though the Act fundamentally reshapes healthcare delivery and directly affects a constitutionally protected right (to healthcare),” she said.
Charlton Murove, BHF head of research, said the board responded to the Constitutional Court’s letter this month, opposing its plan to strike the presidential assent cases from the roll.
The BHF had hoped its case would be dealt with expeditiously, he said, as no litigants wanted delays, which could escalate costs.
SAPPF CEO Simon Strachan said the potential mootness of its attack as a result of the public participation challenge was speculative, and the SAPPF has raised independent constitutional questions that warrant scrutiny.
The SAPPF also objected to its case being taken off the roll when asked for input by the Constitutional Court this month, arguing that further delays are not in the interests of justice.
It launched its challenge to the NHI Act more than 16 months ago.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Ramaphosa seeks Constitutional Court intervention on NHI ruling
Ramaphosa granted ConCourt hearing for NHI appeal
BHF’s legal challenge to NHI taken to ‘wrong court’, says Presidency