The president says the high court erred in ruling that his decision to sign the NHI Act into law was reviewable.
President Cyril Ramaphosa is pushing back against a court ruling that found his decision to sign the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law could be reviewed.
Ramaphosa has filed a notice with the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, indicating his intention to appeal the judgment.
Ramaphosa’s NHI Act enactment reviewable
The case had been brought forward by the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) and the South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF).
This follows the high court ruling in favor of the applicants earlier this month, confirming that it did have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
ALSO READ: SAMA launches most comprehensive constitutional challenge yet to NHI Act
At the time, Judge Mpostoli Twala ordered Ramaphosa to submit documents explaining the reasoning behind his decision to enact the NHI Act in 2024.
Twala also instructed the president to comply within 10 days, setting a deadline of 16 May.
However, Ramaphosa has since chosen to appeal the decision.
Ramaphosa to appeal to ConCourt over NHI Act ruling
In his application for leave to appeal, Ramaphosa notified the court of his intention to approach the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) directly by 27 May.
He stated that if the Constitutional Court agrees to hear the case, the proceedings in the high court would be halted.
READ MORE: Health minister slammed for exorbitant spending on NHI advertising while doctors and nurses are unemployed
However, if the apex court declines to hear the appeal, the matter would then proceed before a full bench of the high court or the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
Ramaphosa argued in the application that the appeal has “reasonable prospects of success” and claimed the court had made “errors of law and fact.”
He maintained that the high court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place.
High court ‘erred’
The president further said the court did not properly account for his constitutional powers to sign a bill into law after applying his judgment.
“Having failed to find that this matter was politically sensitive which meant the Constitutional Court enjoyed exclusive jurisdiction, the court also erred in failing to take into account the breadth of the discretion enjoyed by the president,” the court papers read.
“Even though the court appeared to have been alive to the fact that the president would decide for himself how to exercise his constitutional obligation, it sought to itself define how that power should be exercised.”
READ MORE: Government reassures private sector on NHI engagements
He also argued the court erred in ruling that his decision to sign the NHI Act into law was reviewable.
“First, it did so by assuming for itself a role that the Constitution gives to the Constitutional Court.
“Second, and on the substance, our law does not recognise a ground of review based on whether the president ‘properly’ applied his mind nor the basis on which such ‘propriety’ would or should be assessed.”
Outrage over NHI Act
Ramaphosa officially signed the NHI Act into law on 15 May last year, triggering strong criticism from some political parties and the public.
Those opposed the legislation have argued that the Act, in its current form, is unconstitutional and would be unaffordable and impractical to implement.
They maintain that substantial amendments are needed, and warn that the NHI Act will fail to achieve its stated goal of delivering universal health coverage for South Africans.
NOW READ: NHI regulations ‘prematurely’ published with legislation not proclaimed yet
