Gauteng High Court dismisses Labour Party's bid to halt National Dialogue

IOL News

5 days ago

The Labour Party representatives packed the Pretoria High Court earlier with its urgent application opposing next month's proposed National Dialogue.
Image: Zelda Venter
The Labour Party of South Africa failed in its urgent legal bid for an interim interdict to halt the National Dialogue set to commence on August 15.
The party turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, to urgently halt the President's decision to convene a National Dialogue and two related conventions.
At the heart of its objections were the costs associated with this. It argued that the National Dialogue is not a genuine democratic exercise, but a costly and dangerous duplication of the national legislature.
It argued that the National Dialogue Preparatory Committee estimates that the initiative will cost over R700 million, according to an announcement dated June 12. Government, however, in its argument to court, denied this amount. According to the State respondents, a final budget will only be developed following engagements with the National Treasury and other potential partners.
The Labour Party's approach to the court was motivated by constitutional concerns. It questioned what power the President has to establish a National Dialogue. It argued that if its ultimate aim is to ensure public participation, create policy and make binding decisions, this is a duplication of the functions of Parliament. It also questioned whether it would be lawful to attach a R 700 million price tag for a part of this endeavour.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
They ask the court to halt the National Dialogue, pending an opportunity to later review the President's decision. Acting Judge I de Vos said the Constitution mandates the President to promote national unity and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court has repeatedly asserted this process is ongoing and that this duty falls to the President.
'The court is not, based on the text of the Constitution and the jurisprudence from the Constitutional Court, persuaded that the President is acting outside his powers,' she said. The judge added that the court is not persuaded that the applicant has made out a prima facie case on this basis or that it bears strong prospects of success in the review on this ground.
'The court is not empowered to determine if a National Dialogue is the best method for promoting national unity. Or if the same people that have been invited to the table to do the preparatory work are the ones the court would have chosen. Or even if it would rather spend money on a National Dialogue or on health care or some other issue.'
Judge de Vos added that the goal of the National Dialogue, which consists of public participation and engagement, is to promote national unity. 'There is a rational link between the National Dialogue, particularly one premised on public participation, and the promotion of national unity,' she said.
In turning down the application, she concluded that the Labour Party has failed to meet the threshold to show irrationality in the method employed in announcing the National Dialogue. 'The court is not convinced that the Labour Party has proven a prima facie right in this regard and is doubtful as to its prospects of success at the hearing of the final relief,' she said.
As to the money involved, the judge said the court is not empowered to ask whether this is the best use of money. That is the domain of the executive.
[e-mail]