By Staff Reporter
Solidarity has welcomed a high court ruling on the reviewability of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s signing of the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act.
The Board of Health Funders (BHF) and the SA Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF) challenged the president’s signing of the Act shortly before last year’s national election.
The court has ruled that Ramaphosa’s signing or approval of the NHI Act must be subjected to a review. He is also required to provide reasons or information explaining how he arrived at the decision to sign the legislation.
“Solidarity is delighted with this ruling. It is an important and significant judgment that is undoubtedly consistent with our court challenge that deems the NHI Act in its entirety is unconstitutional, illegal and irrational,” Solidarity Research Institute economic researcher Theuns du Buisson said in a statement on Tuesday.
Solidarity has also gone to court over the signing of the law.
Since then, the courts have declared certain sections of the National Health Act – specifically those granting the government the authority to prescribe where doctors may work – as unconstitutional.
The union then challenged these provisions, particularly the so-called certificate of need, which is regarded as a central component of the NHI framework.
“The NHI is continually being challenged in court, and each time it is confirmed just how unworkable this system is. The government, and now specifically the president, has made no effort to demonstrate its rationality.
“This latest ruling is, therefore, a major victory and ensures that the president can be held accountable, both now and in the future, for his decision to approve the NHI,” Du Buisson said.
He said it was becoming increasingly clear that the NHI would not survive legal scrutiny.
Solidarity’s network coordinator for the medical professions, Peirru Marx, sad that in this case, the state had failed to heed the concerns of medical professionals who also did not support the NHI.
“The government will have to listen to their input and consider alternatives that are both workable and implementable. Action must be taken in the interests of patients and professionals who are expected to deliver these services – not out of self-interest,” said Marx.
INSIDE POLITICS