Government in fact knows NHI is shaky after ruling on certificate of need

26 July 2024 

Solidarity wants to remind the government of its own statements regarding the strong connection between the National Health Insurance Act (NHI) and sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Act, which have now been declared unconstitutional. 

After Wednesday’s judgment in the High Court, Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi denied that this judgment leaves the NHI Act vulnerable, and he denied the connection with the NHI Act while accusing pressure groups of spreading “toxic propaganda”.

And yet his own department’s spokesperson, Foster Mohale, had been quoted repeatedly in the past where he came to exactly that same conclusion when the sections had been declared invalid for the first time in 2022.

“The ruling has serious implications for the implementation of National Health Insurance (NHI), and the department of health will seek a rescission of the judgment and challenge the matter in the Constitutional Court,” spokesperson Foster Mohale said at the time.

Theuns du Buisson, economic researcher at the Solidarity Research Institute (SRI), said Dr Nicholas Crisp, deputy director-general of the Department of Health, also considered the first judgment on the relevant sections as critical to the NHI system. 

“All these comments are merely anxious observations. The department would very much like to portray yesterday's judgment as an attack on the less fortunate, when in truth it has nothing to do with a battle between the rich and the poor.

“In reality, health practitioners’ freedom under the Constitution is guaranteed and protected with this ruling. If a doctor wants to be able to choose where and for whom he wants to work after years of training, it must be respected like any other person’s career choice,” Du Buisson said.

Solidarity believes the court ruling highlights how these sections are contrary to the values of the Constitution. According to Judge Anthony Millar’s ruling, the directives in these sections amount to expropriation of property and services in order to incorporate the medical industry under the banner of the state.

Du Buisson said the Minister is grasping at straws by labelling it a class struggle.

“What happened here is that the court forestalled the state’s attempt to abuse power. It is unacceptable that a government can trample on its own constitution in this way by claiming that health practitioners do not have the right to such basic freedoms.

“This direct centralisation of human lives has now been warded off. Although we know a great battle still lies ahead, we are nonetheless delighted that this pillar of the NHI has toppled. We will continue and ensure that the others are also knocked down in court,” Du Buisson said. 

Solidarity also knows that medical professionals are strongly opposed to the certificate of need and the NHI Act, and this can clearly be seen from the great deal of support pledged to Solidarity’s litigation process from this sector.

Issued by Theuns du Buisson, Economic Researcher: Solidarity Research Institute (SRI), 26 July 2024