ConCourt to decide if state can tell doctors where to practise

The court is hearing an appeal against a ruling that sections of the health act which would require healthcare practitioners to obtain a 'certificate of need' in order to work are unconstitutional. By Tamsin Metelerkamp

- 

On 9 September, the Constitutional Court heard a case that trade union Solidarity and other groups have brought against the National Health Act, challenging health legislation that would require doctors and health practitioners to obtain a “certificate of need” before being allowed to practise in a particular area.

The proceedings follow a ruling of the High Court in Pretoria in July 2024, which made findings in favour of Solidarity and declared that sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Act were invalid in their entirety and should be severed from the act. These sections establish and regulate the certificate of need scheme.

The Department of Health, along with Minister of Health Dr Aaron Motsoaledi and its director-general, Dr Sandile Buthelezi, are appealing against the high court ruling in the Constitutional Court, seeking for the order of constitutional invalidity in respect of the sections of the act to be set aside.

The act has been in operation since May 2005, except for the five sections in which the certificate of need scheme is set out.

Solidarity represents more than 200,000 members, according to its website. It has been joined in the case by the South African Private Practitioners Forum and the Hospital Association of South Africa, among other groups. It is seeking an order from the Constitutional Court confirming the high court order.