READ | Here's what the courts said about govt's lockdown regulations

"The starting point was not 'how can we as the government limit constitutional rights in the least possible fashion whilst still protecting the inhabitants of SA?'

"The main problem with the judgment is that while there was an attack on the regulations as a whole, the judge only looked at specific regulations, the regulations dealing with curfews on exercise, and the regulations dealing with visitations of families and regulations dealing with funerals."

ALSO READ | Court rules patients cannot be forced into state quarantine

Chauke said after the judge looked at specific examples and found there were no rational links to the purpose of the national state of disaster, he declared all the regulations in terms of levels 3 and 4 unconstitutional and invalid and "that is where the main problem is".

De Vos said despite its many flaws, the judgment "raises important questions of constitutional principle regarding the government's management of the lockdown and its belief that as long as it pursues the laudable goals of saving lives for the public good, the regulations will be constitutionally compliant".

"To make things worse, and this is the second problem, the court discusses specific regulations [some that applied at alert Level 4 and some that apply at alert Level 3] and concludes that these regulations are irrational," De Vos said.

BlackFacts Details

Summons

Random Facts

Education Facts

Southern United States Facts

Facts About Women

Women Facts

Spirituality Facts

Sports Facts