Lobby group Doctors for Life International are taking four health bills, including one on abortion, to the Constitutional Court next week.
The group want to see the speaker of the National Assembly, the chair of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and the Minister of Health in court on Tuesday.
A explanatory note from the Constitutional Court on Friday explained that the lobby group’s complaint related to four Bills, namely: the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Bill; the Traditional Health Practitioners Bill; the Sterilisation Amendment Bill; and the Dental Technicians Amendment Bill.
Since the application was made, some of these Bills have been signed into law by the President and at least one has been brought into operation.
The applicant is arguing that the NCOP and the nine provincial legislatures failed to properly facilitate public involvement in respect of the bills, as they were obliged to do under certain provisions of the Constitution.
The applicant is therefore seeking an order declaring that Parliament has failed to fulfil its constitutional obligations.
They also joined the Minister of Health to the proceedings as the Bills relate to health.
”The Chief Justice has directed the parties at this stage to present argument on whether: (a) the application should be dismissed because Doctors for Life have not joined speakers of provincial legislatures in the proceedings; (b) whether the complaint by the Doctors for Life amounts to failure by Parliament to fulfil a constitutional obligation; and (c) whether the Court has the power to make an order relating to the proceedings of Parliament,” the media summary said.
The applicant will argue that it is not necessary to join the speakers of the provincial legislatures; the failure further by the NCOP to involve the public in relation to the Bill, constitutes failure to comply with a constitutional obligation and that the Court has the power to grant them an order declaring that Parliament has failed to comply with its obligation.
The respondents oppose the application.
They argue that the NCOP has complied with its constitutional obligations by making provision in its rules, to facilitate public involvement in the legislative and other processes of the NCOP and its committees; and that in terms of the separation of powers doctrine, it would not be competent under South Africa’s constitutional order for declaratory relief to be granted by this Court.
The respondents will also argue that the applicant should not be allowed to continue with this application because they have failed to join the speakers of provincial legislatures. – Sapa