BHF, SAPPF given green light to challenge NHI Act
The Gauteng High Court has given the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) and the South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF) the green light to challenge the president's signing of the legislation just before last year's election.
FILE: President Cyril Ramaphosa poses after signing the National Health Insurance Bill into law at the Union Buildings in Pretoria on 15 May 2024. Picture: Picture: GCIS
CAPE TOWN - The private health care sector has scored a first victory in its legal battle against the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act.
The Gauteng High Court has given the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) and the South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF) the green light to challenge the president's signing of the legislation just before last year's election.
They had argued that the president assented to the legislation despite the objections and concerns over funding raised during the parliamentary process.
The Gauteng High Court found in favour of the applicants that the court did have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
It said that President Ramaphosa's decision to assent to and sign the National Health Insurance Act into law was reviewable.
"It is my respectful view that this court has the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate this case for the conduct of the president complained of does not involve sensitive political issues or political-laden nor does it implicate the separation of powers," reads the judgment.
Judge Twala has now given the president ten calendar days to furnish the court with the record of his decision.
The Board of Healthcare Funders instituted proceedings in May last year to have the president's decision reviewed and set aside after he signed the bill into law in the same month, just two weeks before the general election.
The president and health minister had argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate these proceedings and was incapable of review.
Alternatively, it claimed that if the court was capable of review, the president was under no obligation to produce a record of the decision in terms of the rules of court.
The court found it noteworthy that neither the finance minister nor the Treasury, which were also cited as respondents, responded to the case.
The BHF, which represents private medical schemes, appealed to the president in December 2023, soon after Parliament passed the bill to reconsider implementing it, because it believes it to be financially impractical.