Search results

It is trite to say that the adjudication of socio-economic rights is a new enterprise in South African jurisprudence, as it is to the jurisprudence of many other jurisdictions. Professor van Rensburg's paper seeks to analyse the influence of political, socio-economic and cultural considerations on the interpretation and application of socio-economic rights in the Bill of Rights. The pivots for discussion are the decisions of the Constitutional Court in the Soobramoney,1Grootboom2and Treatment Action Campaign3cases which, thus far, are the only cases in which the Constitutional Court has substantively determined the nature and parameters of socio-economic rights and obligations under the South African Constitution. My response is somewhat deferential in that I largely concur with many of the observations that Professor van Rensburg makes. In some respects, however, I have attempted to bring into the analysis of Soobramoney, Grootboom and Treatment Action Campaign not so much new insights, but rather different emphases. Likewise, my response is constructed around the three cases. I begin with Soobramoney.

Este trabalho discute como as cortes sul-africanas têm interpretado e aplicado o artigo 27 da Constituição da África do Sul, que garante a todos o direito de acesso aos serviços de saúde, incluindo cuidados reprodutivos. A extensão da judicialização do artigo 27 é analisada, considerando a possibilidade de interpretação judicial e aplicação prática. Destaca-se a abrangência e os limites das competências constitucional e institucional dos tribunais para julgar uma ação relacionada ao direito à saúde. A judicialização deste direito na Constituição da África do Sul é investigada por meio de uma análise crítica de três casos decididos na Corte Constitucional do país: (1) Soobramoney versus Secretaria de Saúde de KwaZulu-Natal; (2) Ministro da Saúde e Outros versus Campanha de Tratamento e Outros; e (3) Governo da República da África do Sul e Outros versus Grootboom e Outros, tendo como pano de fundo a transformação do quadro constitucional sul-africano na era pós-apartheid. ; Section 27 of the South African Constitution guarantees everyone a right of access to healthcare services, including reproductive healthcare. This paper discusses how domestic courts have interpreted and applied section 27. It explores the extent to which section 27 is justiciable in the sense of being amenable to judicial interpretation and application in practice. The paper highlights the scope as well as the limits of the constitutional and institutional competences of the courts to adjudicate a claim relating to the right to health that is guaranteed by section 27. The justiciability of the right to health under the South African Constitution is interrogated through a critical appraisal of three cases decided by the South African Constitutional Court, namely, Soobramoney versus Minister of Health KwaZulu-Natal, Minister of Health and Others versus Treatment Action Campaign and Others, and Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others versus Grootboom and Others against the backdrop of the transformation of the South African constitutional landscape in the post-apartheid era.

Poor health, social exclusion, and stigma are usually associated with adolescent pregnancy and parenting, resulting in girls' suspension and, in some instances, expulsion from school. While most African states, including Lesotho, have laws and policies protecting the rights of all children, including adolescents, to enroll and be retained in school, implementation is lagging behind. Using a socio-legal approach, the article explores the challenges in implementing policies and guidelines on school re-entry following pregnancy and/or parenthood, with particular reference to Lesotho. It argues that, despite the adoption of enabling laws and policies protecting sexual and reproductive health rights, and the right to education of pregnant and parenting adolescent girls, punitive and discriminatory practices continue to serve as barriers that undermine countries' human rights commitments. The barriers are attributable to the influences of family, societal, religious and cultural beliefs and practices. To address these barriers, this article proposes comprehensive, innovative, gender-transformative, targeted and rights-based interventions, and supportive policies and strategies, to facilitate continuous awareness-raising, social and attitudinal change, and social justice.