Pretoria - The judgment declaring Home Affairs Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi’s decision to terminate the Zimbabwe Exemption Permit as unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid not only upholds and safeguards the rights of the holders, but of every South African.
This is according to Nicole Fritz, the executive director of the Helen Suzman Foundation, who launched the application.
The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, on Wednesday remitted the decision to terminate the permits to the minister for a fresh decision, following a fair process compliant with the requirements of administrative justice.
Fritz said the judgment, issued by a full Bench (three judges), made it clear matters both of enormous consequence and striking ordinariness. were at stake
“The judgment is of huge significance for the approximately 178 000 permit holders who have lived in South Africa perfectly legally for almost 15 years. It found that they are entitled to fair process, due consultation and clear reason, demonstrating good cause, when decisions of calamitous moments are made regarding their lives and livelihoods.”
Frits said that the decision was also one of ordinariness because our laws and Constitution have long been clear on these issues.
“Where the exercise of public power will have a drastic effect on the rights, lives and livelihoods of any persons, it cannot rationally be made without affording the affected persons an opportunity to make representations.”
She said that in its restatement of this fundamental principle of our law, the court upheld and safeguarded the rights not only of the holders but of every South African. The foundation meanwhile welcomed the judgment.
In terms of the permit programme, qualifying Zimbabwe nationals have been granted permission by the minister to live, work and study in South Africa for the past nearly 15 years. He subsequently decided to terminate the programme and to refuse any further exemptions.
Motsoaledi, however, later extended the grace period by six months until the end of June. It was argued by the applicants that the decision to terminate the programme was made behind closed doors and without any public consultation. The court was also told that no participation by holders occurred before the decision was made by the minister.
In overturning the decision and sending it back to the minister, the court said the inescapable conclusion was that the minister had failed to consider the impact of his decision on the holders, their families and their children.
“Before the court there is simply no admissible evidence from the minister on whether he took these considerations into account, and how,” said Judge Colleen Collis, who wrote the judgment.
The minister’s failure to conduct any prior consultations before announcing the decision rendered the decision procedurally irrational, given the far-reaching implications. The minister’s decision was also an unjustifiable limitation of rights, which was unconstitutional and invalid in terms of the Constitution, the court found.
The government of Zimbabwe welcomed the ruling, but said it was ready and willing to welcome its citizens back.
Pretoria News