SAHRC faces sharp criticism amid debates over healthcare access for foreign nationals
The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) is facing backlash over its recent reaffirmation of the right to access healthcare services as a universal right for everyone within the Republic, a principle enshrined in the South African Constitution.
The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has come under fire for asserting the universality of healthcare access within the country's borders, a stance that has spurred heated debate among political parties.
In its recent communication to stakeholders, the SAHRC reaffirmed that every individual, including illegal foreign nationals, is entitled to healthcare services as enshrined in the South African Constitution.
This position, however, has led to criticism from various corners, including the political party ActionSA.
The party vehemently opposes what it terms the 'abuse' of the public healthcare system by illegal foreigners, arguing that this influx strains an already overburdened system. It claims that Section 27 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to access healthcare, has been misapplied, creating a scenario where the rights of South African citizens are compromised.
The statement also details that this misinterpretation not only places pressure on healthcare resources but also dilutes the quality of care available to law-abiding South Africans.
In May, ActionSA took a proactive step by proposing a set of constitutional amendments aimed at reforming these provisions, which they believe have been exploited to exacerbate the crisis of illegal immigration.
The party also highlights that while the intentions of the Constitution are noble, its current application leads to an untenable situation where hospitals are overwhelmed and lacking essential resources.
It further questioned why healthcare responsibilities seem to fall disproportionately on South Africa, suggesting that other nations enforce stricter regulations regarding medical insurance for incoming foreigners.
'No South African can enter another country legally without providing proof of medical insurance. This is because responsible governments do not budget to provide public services to foreign nationals without limits. Yet in South Africa, we are expected to carry this burden indefinitely,' argued ActionSA.
Adding to the chorus of criticism, local activist and politician Anele Mda voiced concerns on social media, suggesting the SAHRC's actions represent an unconstitutional infringement on South Africans' rights.
'We definitely need to petition Parliament to address the unconstitutional infringement of SAHRC on the rights of South Africans, acting as an unrepentant demagogue to consistently use its power as a Chapter 9 institution to advance/conceal acts of criminality by foreigners,' said Mda.
The SAHRC says it is engaging with healthcare administrators and relevant departments to foster better conditions for all healthcare users. In a public statement, the SAHRC urged both the Department of Home Affairs and the South African Police Service (SAPS) to fulfil their roles diligently to prevent citizens from taking matters into their own hands.
[email protected]
Saturday Star
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
3 hours ago
- eNCA
SAHRC concerned as foreigners get denied healthcare
JOHANNESBURG - A new form of xenophobia over access to public healthcare has led to reports of foreign nationals being chased away from clinics and hospitals. The South African Human Rights Commission says this violates the Constitution, which guarantees the right to healthcare for everyone within the country's borders.
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
How South Africa fell into the dull political loop of becoming boring
The death of meaningful political advancement means that South Africa has become stuck in a rut of its own carving. Is there a way forward? Remember when South Africa used to be fun? Remember when the memes slammed into each other like neutrons and electrons, causing small explosions every 15 seconds or so? Remember when there was a fancy term for corruption? Remember when optimism and pessimism cycled around each other in an endless loop, and didn't always land on 'this sucks'? Yeah, me neither. South Africa has become boring. I'm not talking about a lack of political spectacle — there is still Floyd Shivambu scurrying around the kleptocratic wilds looking for a political party to hide behind, and the general idiocy at MK, which is eating itself, like faecal parasites. There is still President Cyril Ramaphosa trying to assert himself on the local stage while playing a pliant mouse in the White House. There's still the alleged drama within the alleged GNU, really just a coalition government and horse-trading forum where the Ramaphosa wing of the ANC and the house-trained wing of the DA bargain on behalf of their backers. Nor am I using 'boring' as a simile for 'blandly functional' — a sort of Scandinavian or Botswana-ish plodding along that results in something akin to stability. What I mean is boring in the true sense of the term — an endless drilling down into the depths of utter nothingness. Is anything happening in South Africa that could be meaningfully termed progress? If you're a capitalist, is the economy growing? If you're a socialist, is the economy becoming fairer? If you're a communist, is anyone at all being sent to the gulag? I'd wager no. Apologists for the coalition government point out several areas where something seems to be moving. The Hawks, South Africa's crack cops, appear to have pulled the proverbial thumb out, and have made some big arrests. The National Prosecuting Authority sort of/kind of won a case. The Transnet baddies have finally been arrested, even though most South Africans (outside of Cape Town) have forgotten what a train looks like. But even with these dogged, incremental improvements, crime and corruption are so embedded in the South African political, economic, social and cultural space that it hardly touches sides. Always accomplished sports-washers, South Africans can point to the excellent performance of our major teams in international competitions, but it's worth remembering that tiny East Germany cleaned up at the Olympic Games during the Cold War, and no one in West Germany was risking their life to hop the wall into the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Culturally, the music and movie booms teased during the 90s and noughties have stalled out. There is no meaningful support of artists in this country, which means talent gets strangled at birth. The Sports and Culture minister can't do sport and wouldn't know culture if JM Coetzee's entire bibliography was tattooed on his butt cheeks. The DTIC under Parks Tau has become exclusively focused on ensuring that American preferential trade deals remain in place, despite the fact that America thinks it's being screwed by Lesotho. The department no longer assesses applications for film industry tax rebates, a standard industry stimulus that pertains in any market that hopes to draw filmmaking talent. Tau has single-handedly killed the industry, through sheer ignorance and lassitude. (There are also those sweet sweet Lotto tenders, which may or may not have cost deputy minister Andrew Whitfield his gig.) Sure, there are individual politicians who are truly gifted—I'm thinking Geordin Hill-Lewis in Cape Town, and perhaps a handful of other players here and there. But Helen 'Supreme Karen' Zille has auditioned for the role of Johannesburg Executive Mayor, a role that has not been blessed with talent of late. Zille, a vet of State Capture and Ramaphosa's first-term Race Grift Wars, feels like an absurd anachronism at this point. And the only people keeping Julius Malema alive are her allied American race warriors, who don't seem to understand — because they don't understand anything — that Malema has no constituency, and no power base. So what's next? Zuma for president? Sort of. Deputy President Paul Mashitile, at this point a shoe-in for the ANC's next leader, did state capture before there was State Capture. As a ranking member of the Gauteng ANC mafia, he is adept at taking a piece of the action, and will only entrench and deepen South Africa's kleptocratic tendencies. It's all so boring. So where is the pushback? Part of the problem is that most people seem to be waiting for the coalition to click, and have deferred the responsibilities of citizenship to their proxies inside government. (See: the VAT fight.) But the coalition won't click, as should be perfectly plain now. As this suggests, the bigger problem is an existential exhaustion. First, there was the fight against apartheid. Then, there was the fight against State Capture. Now, there is the fight against reverse anti-white apartheid. (I'm kidding, I'm kidding.) The population of this country has been stirred up into a big mound of lukewarm mieliemeal — cheap carbs, hold the gravy. So much of it comes down to the fact that the dispensation just hasn't served the majority, not even close. I'm going to quote Peter Thiel here. Yup, Peter 'I Pull The Heads Off Babies' Thiel: 'When one has too much student debt or if housing is too unaffordable, then one will have negative capital for a long time … and if one has no stake in the capitalist system, then one may well turn against it.' No shit, homie. Most South Africans have tacitly turned against the system. The MK party's surge at the polls was a protest vote that functioned as a large raised middle finger at the establishment. And so downward we bore, deeper into the Earth's core than our defunct gold mines. It is perhaps ironic that South Africa's most interesting politician just won the Democratic primary for mayor in New York City. I know, calling Zohran Mamdani South African is a stretch, but he was educated here, and one imagines part of his world-view was formed here. Maybe that's why he can so clearly see through the guff, and understand that a politics of fairness, driven for and by the majority, is the only way forward. It's telling that both Republicans and Democrats are flipping out over the guy, as of course would any South African politician. Mamdani's platform leaves no room for grift, for the double-dealing and self-enrichment that has become the hallmark of postmodern politics. That's why we're boring, and why we'll keep digging our own deep graves. And why Mamdani presents a way forward that South Africans would do well to consider. DM
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US participation in G20 Summit in Johannesburg ‘remains very important and critical', says Lamola
Most observers and analysts seem less optimistic than Lamola that the Trump administration can be kept fully on board the G20. They fear that if Trump does attend the summit, he won't sign the declaration. The South African government is still pinning its hopes on full US participation at the G20 Summit, despite intermittent attendance of US officials in the meetings preparing for the summit in Johannesburg in November. International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola said on Thursday that the US participation 'remains very critical and important' as the G20 is a consensus-based organisation and all of its members had to agree on the outcome document from the summit. The US does 'participate … fully in the finance track. And in the sherpa track, not fully; and recently, not at all,' Lamola replied to questions at a press conference in Cape Town. He added that the US had sent an apology for its sherpa not attending last week's third sherpa meeting at Sun City. Lamola's spokesperson, Chrispin Phiri, told Daily Maverick that the reason the US gave was that its sherpa was attending the Nato summit that was taking place in The Hague at the same time. Lamola said that as the G20 had to adopt its summit declaration by consensus, it needed the US vote. 'We continue to call … on the US as a member country of the G20 … to participate and make a contribution,' he said. 'Their participation remains very critical and important.' Lamola has just returned from attending the International Conference on Financing for Development in Spain, which adopted a declaration on increased financing for development, even though there was no consensus because the US didn't support it. Lamola said the difference between this and the G20 Summit was that the Financing for Development conference was not a consensus-based forum. Earlier on Thursday, Alvin Botes, the deputy minister of international relations and cooperation, said: 'It's imperative for the success of the G20 that the US, as the incoming presidency, are part of the November summit.' He appeared to be suggesting it would be critical for the US to attend the November summit to provide some continuity in the G20 agenda. He noted that SA was the last of a group of developing countries — after Indonesia, India and Brazil — that had been chairing the G20 in succession and which together had driven a developmental agenda. He suggested the US's attendance or non-attendance at the Johannesburg summit would define the US outlook for the next few years — through its presidency next year and beyond, when it is part of the troika of present, past and future presidents that helps manage the G20. He echoed Lamola in saying that the US had participated in the finance track, which was encouraging. 'But we require them to engage more deeply in the shepa track, and that is a critical issue.' The sherpa track deals with all G20 issues other than financial ones. Botes was the keynote speaker at a seminar on financial inclusion organised by the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation. Less than wholehearted Some analysts have pointed out that the US attendance even at finance track meetings has been less than wholehearted. Though the Federal Reserve has attended most meetings, the US Treasury's participation has been patchy. The analysts said it would be interesting to see if the US Treasury attends the meeting of the deputy finance ministers and central bank governors in the week after next. Most observers and analysts seem less optimistic than Lamola and Botes that the Trump administration can be kept fully on board the G20. They fear that if Trump does attend the summit, he won't sign the declaration. This seems a logical prediction, given that SA's G20 themes of equality, inclusiveness and sustainability seem diametrically opposed to Trump's philosophy, as his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, pointed out earlier this year when he refused to attend a G20 foreign ministers meeting. If the US doesn't sign the declaration, that would force SA to either drastically dilute it to get the US in or issue a 'chairperson's statement' on the summit rather than a consensus declaration, diluting the impact of any decisions made. A foreign diplomatic source told Daily Maverick, 'We cannot stop working, or adopt the agenda to the US needs. Thus, we — SA and almost everyone else — want to continue the work, and that is happening. I think the ultimate loser of this strategy is the US. 'They also withdrew from the Financing for Development process in the 11th hour. If you are not around the table, you do not have a voice … the rest of the world moves on.' Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, the national director of the SAIIA, said at the financial inclusion seminar that even if SA could not get all that it wanted at the summit, 'What is critical is to make sure that these things are on the agenda, because they can be picked up at another time. 'We have a responsibility to drive some of these issues forward, to put some interesting ideas and perspectives on to the table and then work towards seeing them actualised, even if they do not actualise by the 30th of November [the summit date].' SA's agenda includes debt relief, reducing the cost of capital for developing countries and providing more financing for climate adaptation and disaster relief. DM
