Andrew Stegmann

SA Has No Nuclear Deal with Russia: Energy Minister

South Africa has no nuclear deal with Russia, the Minister of Energy Jeff Radebe said on Sunday.

Radebe was a guest on eNCA’s “The Fix” with Karima Brown.

“The submission of that intergovernmental agreement of Russia, US and South Korea was put to test in the High Court in South Africa where the court decided that the submission of those was unconstitutional and unlawful and we are back to square one… which has now been set aside by the court. The submission of that agreement into Parliament as you know will require a ratification by our Parliament in order to have an agreement to be valid.”

Radebe also said he is determined to rid the Central Energy Fund of corruption.

He said the process of turning the organisation around is in its final stages.

“Well it is true that there are challenges in PetroSA, not just PetroSA, the whole holding group of the Central Energy Fund and I am deeply concerned about it. That’s why we appointed the Boston Consulting Group to help us to turn around that entity.

“We are in the final stages of taking decisions about the turnaround of the whole group in SA today. After that, we will be filling positions because as you know there are many Hollywood actors in CEF, in PetroSA, in Strategic Fuel Fund and so on. That situation cannot go forward unattended, so it is one of my priorities in the next few weeks to ensure there is stability in the CEF.”

 

For information as to how Relocation Africa can help you with your Mobility, Immigration, Research, and Remuneration needs, email marketing@relocationafrica.com, or call us on +27 21 763 4240.

Sources: eNCA [1]. Image sources: [1].

Andrew Stegmann

SA Constitutional Court Rules on Extension of Temporary Permits

In an important victory for the rights of asylum seekers, the Constitutional Court has found that their temporary permits must automatically be extended while their case is under judicial review.

South Africa is home to at least 400,000 asylum seekers and refugees. An asylum seeker is someone who claims, in an application to the Department of Home Affairs, to have fled from a place where they have been persecuted or where they are in danger. A refugee is someone who has been granted asylum either by government or a court.

Before asylum seekers get official refugee status they are granted a temporary permit which allows them to remain in the country until their application has been dealt with. Official refugee status can often take time and many applications are rejected.

When an application is rejected, an asylum seeker can go through an internal appeal, up to the Refugee Appeals Board. If that too fails, he or she can take the matter on judicial review in the High Court. During this time, the Refugees Act allows a Refugee Reception Officer to extend the asylum seeker’s temporary permit from time to time.

The question that arises is: up to what point is such an extension allowed? And is the extension automatic or does a Refugee Reception Officer have the discretion to refuse an extension?

The case before the Constitutional Court was brought by several asylum seekers from Cape Town whose applications for official refugee status had been rejected. They were represented by the Legal Resources Centre. After exhausting internal appeals, they applied for an extension of their temporary permits pending judicial review. The extension was not granted.

The High Court found that a Refugee Reception Officer does have the discretion to extend a permit pending judicial review. However, the Court found that the extension is not automatic but at the discretion of the officer.

The Supreme Court of Appeal largely upheld the decision of the High Court.

Home Affairs appealed to the Constitutional Court to rule that a Refugee Reception Officer can only extend a permit until internal remedies in terms of the Act have been exhausted.

The asylum seekers cross-appealed and wanted the Constitutional Court to go further than the Appeal Court decision and find that an extension is not only permitted but also automatic.

The Constitutional Court explained that two legal issues had to be addressed:

Whether a Refugee Reception Officer has the power to extend a permit pending judicial review; and

If so, whether an extension is automatic or whether the Refugee Reception Officer must exercise discretion.

At issue was the interpretation of the word “outcome” in the Act. Home Affairs argued that this referred to “the final administrative outcome” in terms of the act.

The act provides for two layers of appeal if an application for official refugee status has been rejected: first, asylum seekers may approach the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs, and if this fails they may approach the Refugee Appeals Board. According to this logic, once this outcome is reached no further extensions are permissible. For this reason, the outcome of a judicial review of the decision of the Appeals Board wouldn’t qualify as an “outcome” in terms of the act.

The court rejected this approach. Firstly, it emphasised that when courts interpret legislation they must do so in order to fulfil the key purpose of a piece of legislation.

And one of the key purposes behind refugee law, the court said, was to ensure that refugees are not returned to the circumstances from which they were seeking refuge. This means that “no one shall expel or return a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom.”

Adopting the Home Affairs approach would mean that asylum seekers who have exhausted internal remedies in terms of the Act would be at risk of being deported, even if they were seeking refuge for valid reasons. It would be “cold-comfort” to argue that an asylum seeker would still have the option of approaching a court for interim protection: this could be unsuccessful for technical reasons, and anyway it would be expensive and impractical for an asylum seeker to institute legal proceedings once he or she had already been deported.

The Constitutional Court also emphasised that courts must prefer an interpretation of legislation that protects fundamental rights in terms of the Bill of Rights. If Home Affairs’s interpretation were adopted an asylum seeker’s rights to just administrative action, access to courts, life, human dignity, and freedom and security could be infringed.

For all these reasons, the court rejected Home Affairs’s interpretation and found that a Refugee Reception Officer does have the power to extend a permit, pending judicial review.

Here, the court found that the principle of “non-refoulement” — not sending a person back to a place where he or she would be in danger — would suggest that an extension must be automatic.

The court also said that if a Refugee Reception Officer did have discretion to refuse to extend a permit this would create a discrepancy in the Act. This is because the act enables the minister in certain prescribed circumstances to withdraw a permit but does not prescribe the circumstances under which a decision not to extend a permit may be made. Yet a refusal to extend a permit and the withdrawal of a permit have the same effect. The court found that it would not make sense that the Act gives more discretion to the Refugee Reception Officer than to the minister. So the court found that the only interpretation that would make sense is that an extension is automatic and the Refugee Reception Officer has no discretion at all.

The court declared — with a minority of judges dissenting — that a Refugee Reception Officer does have the power to extend a permit pending judicial review and that such an extension is automatic. The court awarded costs against Home Affairs.

The case will strengthen the situation of thousands of asylum seekers who are in a precarious position without official refugee status. It reduces the possibility of unjustified deportations and ensures that South Africa complies with its international obligations to protect refugees from persecution and threats to their life and safety.

 

For information as to how Relocation Africa can help you with your Mobility, Immigration, Research, and Remuneration needs, email marketing@relocationafrica.com, or call us on +27 21 763 4240.

Sources: GroundUp via Daily Maverick [1]. Image sources: [1].

Andrew Stegmann

South Africa Tightening its Tobacco Legislation

South Africa’s Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has published a new tobacco control bill which, if passed into law, will tighten the grip on how cigarettes and other tobacco products are sold, marketed and regulated in the country.

Health and Medicine Editor Candice Bailey asked Catherine Egbe about what it means for tobacco control.

What’s significant about South Africa’s pending tobacco control legislation?

There are five key areas of tobacco control that the new bill seeks to address:

  • A smoke-free policy,
  • Plain or standardised cigarette packaging,
  • Regulating e-cigarettes,
  • Points of sale marketing, and
  • Removing cigarette vending machines.

Some are addressed in South Africa’s current tobacco control law. But the country still doesn’t fully comply with the standards set by the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. South Africa signed the convention in 2005.

Smoke-free public places is one example. The current law bans smoking in public places but allows for designated smoking areas in places like bars, taverns and restaurants provided that they do not take up more than 25% of the venue.

The WHO’s convention calls for 100% smoke-free public places to protect non-smokers fully.

In line with this, the new bill calls for a 100% ban on smoking in public places. It will also ban the advertising of cigarettes and other products at tills or selling them in vending machines.

The health warnings on cigarette boxes and other tobacco product packages is another example. The current law allows for text health warning on 20% of the package. But the convention calls for a minimum of 30% and encourages countries to have the more effective plain or standardised packaging with graphic and textual warnings in place.

So the new law mandates standardised packaging with graphic health warnings to make tobacco packages less attractive to new smokers and to discourage old smokers from continuing to smoke.

The bill is also significant because it attempts to regulate e-cigarettes for the first time in South Africa. To date e-cigarettes have been freely marketed and sold anywhere to anyone, including children.

Is there evidence that the planned interventions will work?

There’s a great deal of evidence from the rest of the world.

Let’s start with smoke-free policies. In countries like South Korea and the US where they are in place, research shows that they led to an overall improvement in health, particularly children’s health.

Incidents of smoking-related cancers went down and there was a reduction in childhood smoking. There was also an increase in the number of smokers saying they want to quit.

When it comes to packaging, studies show that it encourages smokers to quit and discourages young people from wanting to start smoking. Plain packaging was first introduced in Australia in 2012.

E-cigarettes are still a relatively new factor. But research is already casting doubts on various claims made about them. First introduced in China in 2004 they were initially mooted as an aid to quit smoking. But research shows that they in fact encourage young people to start smoking cigarettes. And 18 studies have shown that e-cigarettes do not reduce quit rates. Instead, the latest research shows that they do the reverse – they reduce the quit rates of smokers intending to quit by about 66%.

There are 83 countries that regulate e-cigarettes and about 27 that have completely banned their sale. These include Brazil, Singapore, Uruguay, Seychelles and Uganda.

The advertising, promotion and sponsorship of e-cigarettes are regulated or prohibited in 62 countries.

Why is it important to have a legislation like this?

Tobacco smoking is the single most preventable cause of death in the world. Smoking also worsens TB and HIV treatment outcomes. Yet 37% of South African men and 6.8% of South African women aged 15 years and older use tobacco.

Before the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, South Africa was a leader in tobacco control in Africa and across the world because of strong tobacco control legislation it had put in place. But the laws weren’t updated according to current WHO’s standards and the country now lags behind some other African countries.

The new legislation will place South Africa on the right path. Apart from saving millions of lives, it will ensure that South Africa fulfils its obligation as a party to the WHO convention.

There are several benefits to having strong legislation.

Firstly, it will protect millions of South Africans who don’t smoke but take in secondhand smoke from those who do. They face the same health risks as active smokers.

Secondly, it will also help encourage people to quit and live healthier lives and discourage young people from starting.

And thirdly, the tobacco industry views young people as replacement smokers. Strong legislation will prevent young people from being manipulated by the tobacco industry.

What are the next steps?

Once the bill becomes law, the health minister will have to draw up several regulations to guide its implementation. These will ensure that the law is interpreted correctly and not manipulated by the tobacco industry and that the potential gains of the legislation are not watered down.

Catherine O. Egbe is a PhD specialist scientist, Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drug Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council.

 

For information as to how Relocation Africa can help you with your Mobility, Immigration, Research, and Remuneration needs, email marketing@relocationafrica.com, or call us on +27 21 763 4240.

Sources: The Conversation via EWN [1]. Image sources: [1].

Andrew Stegmann

KZN’s North Coast Becoming Increasingly Popular for Relocating SA Families

Increasing numbers of Joburg families are swapping their chaotic city lifestyles for estate living on KwaZulu-Natal’s North Coast.

According to Gareth Bailey, Pam Golding Properties area principal for Durban Coastal on the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) North Coast, an increasing number of people are relocating their families from Gauteng to secure estates on KZN’s North Coast, where they can enjoy the sub-tropical climate, warm ocean, an abundance of top schools, new shopping centres and restaurants.

Bailey said another trend is that the breadwinner often travels to Gauteng during the week and returns on a Thursday or Friday.

These homeowners achieve their primary goal of living in a quality environment and, given the 10 minute trip to the airport and one hour flight to Gauteng, they don’t have to sacrifice much more than the average commute times experienced in the major cities.

“While this semigration trend was initially most prevalent along the Atlantic Seaboard in Cape Town, there has been a significant shift toward the North Coast of KwaZulu-Natal. Two of the main factors affecting Cape Town include the city’s traffic congestion and, most recently, its water shortage.”

“It seems that KZN’s road infrastructure is pre-empting demand with the completion of three massive new interchanges at Umgeni, uMhlanga and Ballito within just a few years of each other. In addition, it seems that the relocation of the international airport to the North Coast has ultimately been a significant enabler of the semigrant trend in our area,” said Bailey.

“While many people still think that it is necessary to sacrifice preferred location to live closer to work and reduce commute times, a new breed of… semigrants are choosing to live in their ideal location and travel to their workplace during the week.”

“I think we will see this trend increasing as congestion in cities increases and people seek to prioritise quality of life over the hum-drum of big city living.”

 

For information as to how Relocation Africa can help you with your Mobility, Immigration, Research, and Remuneration needs, email marketing@relocationafrica.com, or call us on +27 21 763 4240.

Sources: BusinessTech [1]. Image sources: Jason Briscoe on Unsplash [1].