Zuma's sick health act

President Jacob Zuma's decision to sign a proclamation that forces healthcare workers to obtain government permission to work in their preferred location was "irrational and invalid".

This was the ruling of the Constitutional Court yesterday when it nullified those provisions of the National Health Act, sections 36 to 40, affected by the presidential proclamation.

Zuma signed the National Health Act into law in March last year.

The nullified sections would have forced all healthcare workers - including doctors, occupational therapists and optometrists - to apply for a "certificate of need" that would give them permission to work in their chosen location.

Doctors and other healthcare workers were outraged, arguing that the restrictions on their freedom of movement amounted to "social engineering".

The Dental Association of SA and the Hospital Association of SA last year told Zuma that they would challenge the law on two fronts:

That there were no regulations indicating how the law would be applied; and

That preventing health workers from operating in the location of their choice would be a serious infringement of their constitutional rights.

Zuma tried to withdraw the proclamation but could do so only by asking the Constitutional Court to invalidate it.

Yesterday, the court ruled that the proclamation had been signed "prematurely".

The court found that the president's decision to sign was "irrational and invalid" because no regulations had been drafted to accompany the law.

It found that the law led to what it called an "untenable and unintended situation" that turned healthcare workers into criminals for working without a certificate that was not available to them.

The unanimous judgment said Zuma been "led astray by his advisers' mistaken counsel".

SA Dental Association CEO Maretha Smit said the certificate's purpose was to ensure equitable access to healthcare workers.

She said there were better ways to deal with access to health than "moving people around like pawns on a chessboard".

Neil Kirby, a medical law expert at Werksmans, said the court found that healthcare practitioners might be reluctant to provide their services because they could be acting illegally.