Media Statements
This page is a collection of official statements released by the Centre for Child Law to the media. These statements address important issues, events, litigation, research publications and advocacy campaigns related to our work. They serve as a public record of the Centre’s stance on various topics and provide information to journalists, the public, children and other stakeholders.
CENTRE FOR CHILD LAW JOINS THE #DEADLYAIR APPEAL HEARING AS AMICUS AT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
28 August 2024
On 28 August, at the appeal hearing of Minister of Environmental Affairs v Trustees for the Time being of GoundWork Trust and Others, “Deadly Air”, the Centre for Child Law (“the CLL / the Centre”) will make oral submissions before the Supreme Court of Appeal as amicus curiae in Bloemfontein. As a friend of the court, the CCL will provide insights into children’s environmental rights and the State’s obligations in fulfilling those rights.
Background
The case was launched in 2019 by several community-based environmental rights organisations, to challenge the State’s failure to enforce regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act (NEMAQA), concerning the dangerous levels of air pollution in the Highveld Priority Area (HPA), spanning parts of Gauteng and Mpumalanga provinces. This area had been declared a priority area by the Minister of Environmental Affairs (the Minister).
The issues before the Pretoria High Court were:
-
- Whether there had been a breach of Section 24(a) of the Constitution – the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
- Whether the regulation-making power in section 20 of NEMAQA bestows discretion on the Minister to make regulations or whether it places a legal duty on the Minister to make such regulations.
High Court’s Finding
Per Collis J, the Court declared that the poor air quality in the HPA is a breach of section 24(a) constitutional rights to an environment that is not harmful to the residents’ health and well-being, including children and other vulnerable groups such as the elderly and persons with disabilities. This right was found to be an immediately realisable and unqualified right; thus, the State should take immediate measures to safeguard against any violation of the right.
The High Court found that the regulation-making power in section 20 of NEMAQA places a legal obligation as opposed to a discretionary power on the Minister to make and enforce regulations in relation to the HPA Quality Management Plan.
The Appeal
The Minister appeals the order of the High Court on principles of interpretation insofar as section 20 of NEMAQA is concerned.
The Minister contends that Section 20 of NEMAQA does not create a legal duty, but rather confers on him a discretion to do so only when he determines it to be appropriate or necessary, arguing that:
-
- the use of the word “may” instead of “must” indicates that the power to prescribe regulations is permissive as opposed to mandatory; and
- it would be constitutionally irregular to interpret the word “may” as creating an obligation on the Minister to prescribe regulations as this interpretation would undermine the principle of separation of powers.
The Respondents oppose the Minister’s appeal and contend that the provision does create a legal obligation to promulgate the regulations. Arguing that:
-
- when properly interpreted, section 20 of NEMAQA places a discretion to promulgate regulations coupled with a positive duty to do so where the objective condition of the provision is satisfied. In this case, where they a necessary for implementing and enforcing approved priority air quality management; and
- the interpretation offered by them is reinforced by reading the provision together with the constitutional duties of action as well as principles imposed by sections 7(2), 24(b) and 39(2) of the Constitution.
Submission by the Centre for Child Law
The HPA: Air Quality Management Plan notes that children and those with respiratory diseases such as asthma, are most vulnerable to air pollution. The CCL aligns itself with the findings of the High Court and will advance the following submissions:
The international and regional legal framework regarding children and the environment, including the best interests of the child. The paramountcy of the best interests of the child is not only a right but it further serves as fundamental and interpretative legal principle.
In light of the above, an interpretation that promotes and protects the best interests of the child insofar as section 20 NEMAQA is concerned is that the regulation-making power is that the Minister has a legal obligation and not a discretion to promulgate regulations in relation to the HPA Quality Management Plan.
Such an interpretation is in harmony with the immediate realisability of children’s constitutional rights under section 24 of the Constitution and it accords with the paramountcy principle which demands the State to create positive conditions and avoid conduct of its agencies which may have the effect of placing children in peril.
Importance of this case
The implications of this case are far-reaching. The outcome of this appeal will be crucial in determining whether the State will be compelled to take more stringent measures to protect the health and lives of millions of children.
This case is part of the Centre’s broader efforts to advance children’s environmental rights. In light of the recent UNCRC General Comment 26, to which CCL submitted comments, it is imperative that children’s rights and interests are at the centre of environmental rights discourse.
This case is one of many significant developments domestically and internationally that highlights the importance of children’s environmental rights. By advocating for stronger protections, the Centre is working to create a more equitable and sustainable future for all.
The matter will be heard at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein on 28 August 2024 from 09h00 to 12h00 SAT.
End.
Access the High Court Judgement here.
DeadlyAir #GeneralComment26 #CancelCoal #Section24 #ClimateJustice
For more information and media queries, please contact:
|
Karabo Ozah Director, Centre for Child Law
|
Stanley Malematja Attorney, Centre for Child Law 012 420 4502
|
Launch of research reports on improving government accountability to advance the right to basic education: School Infrastructure
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 31 MAY 2024
On 17 May 2024, the Centre for Child Law (Centre) hosted a hybrid launch event of the first two reports in a series of four linked papers on ‘Improving Government Accountability to Advance the Right to Basic Education’ as part of a project in partnership with SECTION27.
The research reports launched at the event are titled:
Paper 1: Unequal Access to School Infrastructure and Litigation to Force Change, and
Paper 2: Implementation of Norms and Standards for School Infrastructure.
The project aims to enhance government accountability in advancing the constitutionally guaranteed, and immediately realisable right to basic education for all through equitable measures particularly targeted at vulnerable populations in South Africa where schools are characterised by inadequate school infrastructure that is inconducive to learning in a dignified environment.
The launch event was attended by education experts, educator representative organisations, researchers, school infrastructure advocates, child law experts, child protection professionals and representatives from diverse civil society organisations who participated in the deliberations on the research findings.
Discussants included representatives from partner organisations including SECTION27, Legal Resource Centre (LRC), Equal Education Law Centre (EELC) and Equal Education (EE) who engaged in the research findings and proposed further reflections, approaches and interventions to strengthen what has already been done through litigation and advocacy.
Key findings as presented by CCL Director, Karabo Ozah, emphasised the need for continued child protection efforts against the observed general regression in school infrastructure funding, lagging policy implementation and lack of accountability.
Tsukudu Moroeng, Attorney at LRC, contextualised the research findings within the doctrinal development of infrastructure litigation and the development of norms and standards founded on advocacy, policy development and jurisprudence emanating from litigation while Matshidido Lencoasa, Budget Researcher at SECTION27 assessed school infrastructure funding challenges and the role of civil society in demanding accountability and policy development.
Noncedo Madubedube, General Secretary at EE, addressed the need for active participation of children and affected communities, through a ‘nothing about us without us’ approach toward accountability. She discussed child-led grassroots activism, galvanisation, and noticeable achievements in securing government accountability, policy change, and paradigm shift due to EE’s work to ensure sustainable systemic change. Reflecting on the journey towards the Norms of Standards policy, Noncedo highlighted the need for a ‘long-game approach’ through engaging stakeholders, learner mobilisation and empowerment, policy education and awareness, research, advocacy and innovative activism.
Tshegofatso Phala, Director of EELC, closed by highlighting the general takeaways discussions, she emphasised the need for organisations to continue in their sectoral partnerships to support continued strategic interventions to ensure that children can learn in safe schools.
(Also, see the interview about the BELA Bill and research findings by the Centre’s Director).
* The European Union funding supports the Centre for Child Law and SECTION27’s work in enhancing accountability in health and education in South Africa.
ENDS
For more information and media queries, please contact:
Karabo Ozah
Director, Centre for Child Law
karabo.ozah@up.ac.za
Moyahabo Ozah
Researcher, Centre for Child Law
moyahabo.thoka@up.ac.za
012 420 4502