Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic presented governments worldwide with unprecedented challenges, requiring swift legal and administrative measures to contain the spread of the virus. In South Africa, the Disaster Management Act (DMA) served as the primary legislative framework to introduce and enforce regulations aimed at mitigating the pandemic’s impact. Among these regulations were criminal provisions enacted by the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (hereafter “the minister”), raising significant legal questions about their validity, reasonableness, and proportionality.
This article investigates the legal validity of the criminal provisions contained in the COVID-19 regulations, assessing whether the minister acted within her powers in enacting such provisions and whether these measures complied with administrative justice principles under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) and the South African Constitution. Although the COVID-19 pandemic is over and steps have been taken to pardon individuals convicted under these regulations, the inquiry remains crucial for future governance in disaster management scenarios.
The DMA was enacted to provide a comprehensive framework for disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. Section 27 of the DMA empowers the minister to declare a national state of disaster and to issue regulations necessary to address the disaster’s effects. However, the power to create criminal offences and impose penalties within delegated legislation remains contentious, particularly when measured against statutory limitations and constitutional principles.
A crucial interpretative distinction exists between section 27(4) and section 59(3) of the DMA. While section 59(3) explicitly authorises the prescription of penalties, including imprisonment, for contraventions of regulations, section 27(4) does not expressly provide for imprisonment, merely stating that penalties may be prescribed. This distinction raises the question of whether the minister had the authority to create statutory offences and impose custodial sentences under regulations enacted pursuant to section 27(2).
Under established legal principles, where legislation is silent on the ability to create criminal offences, courts have generally held that such power cannot be inferred. The doctrine of prohibiting ultra vires government action, which prohibits government officials from acting beyond their statutory mandate, is particularly relevant in this analysis. The jurisprudence in Rex v Magano and Madumo 1924 TPD 129 and Rex v De Beer 1930 TPD 329 underscores the principle that a delegated authority cannot create criminal offences without clear legislative authorisation.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, South African courts were called upon to assess the constitutionality of various lockdown regulations. In Esau v Minister of Cooperative Governance 2021 3 SA 593 (SCA), the court affirmed that regulations issued under the DMA constitute administrative action subject to judicial review under PAJA. This ruling reinforced that such regulations must comply with principles of legality, reasonableness, and proportionality. The principle of legality, a cornerstone of constitutional governance, mandates that state action must be rationally connected to a legitimate governmental purpose and must not exceed the legal limits imposed by enabling legislation. In Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council 1999 1 SA 374 (CC), the Constitutional Court emphasised that all government actions, including those taken under delegated legislative authority, must be confined to the powers granted by law. The imposition of criminal penalties under the COVID-19 regulations, without explicit statutory authority, raises concerns about compliance with this principle.
Additionally, the COVID-19 regulations introduced criminal offences for conduct such as failure to wear masks, violating curfews, and purchasing alcohol during restricted periods. The broad scope of these offences and the severe penalties attached to them prompted criticism regarding their proportionality. The application of criminal records for these offences exacerbated socio-economic hardships, as individuals faced employment and travel restrictions due to convictions stemming from regulatory infractions rather than inherently criminal conduct.
South Africa is not unique in grappling with the legality of COVID-19-related penalties. In Australia, similar issues arose in cases where the courts scrutinised the validity of fines issued under COVID-19 public health orders. The Australian courts found that penalty notices failed to specify statutory provisions underpinning the alleged offences, rendering them procedurally defective.
Unlike South Africa, where courts focused on the substantive legality of criminal provisions within delegated regulations, Australian jurisprudence primarily examined procedural deficiencies in the issuance of fines. This distinction highlights a fundamental divergence in legal approaches: South African courts have assessed the minister’s authority to create offences, whereas Australian courts have concentrated on ensuring that enforcement mechanisms comply with due process requirements.
A critical aspect of the inquiry into the validity of the COVID-19 criminal provisions is their proportionality. PAJA requires that administrative actions be reasonable, rational, and proportional to the objectives they seek to achieve. In Affordable Medicines Trust v Minister of Health 2006 3 SA 247 (CC), the Constitutional Court emphasised that laws and regulations must be clear, accessible, and minimally restrictive of fundamental rights.
In Khosa v Minister of Defence, [2020] ZAGPPHC 147, the court highlighted the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 enforcement measures, noting that over 400 000 people had been arrested for regulatory infractions, often leading to unjustified criminal records. The judgment reinforced the necessity of adopting the least restrictive means in enforcing public health measures. The disproportionate impact of criminal penalties under the COVID-19 regulations is particularly concerning, given the socio-economic context of South Africa. Many individuals affected by these regulations belonged to marginalised communities with limited access to legal recourse. The imposition of criminal records for relatively minor infractions further entrenched socio-economic inequalities, contradicting the constitutional commitment to fairness and justice.
The analysis conducted in this article demonstrates that the criminal provisions in the COVID-19 regulations were enacted beyond the minister’s legal authority and failed to meet the constitutional and administrative law requirements of reasonableness, rationality, and proportionality.
Firstly, the minister acted ultra vires by creating statutory offences and prescribing custodial penalties without explicit authorisation in the DMA. South African jurisprudence confirms that delegated legislation cannot create new criminal offences unless expressly permitted by enabling statutes. The lack of clear legislative authority renders these criminal provisions legally questionable.
Secondly, the enforcement of these regulations disproportionately impacted vulnerable communities, imposing unnecessary hardship through the application of criminal records. The principle of proportionality, a key component of administrative justice, necessitates that regulatory measures be appropriately tailored to achieve their intended objectives without unduly infringing on fundamental rights.
Lastly, while the COVID-19 regulations are no longer in force, their legacy highlights the importance of ensuring that future disaster management frameworks adhere strictly to constitutional principles. Governments must balance emergency powers with the rule of law, ensuring that regulatory measures remain within legal limits and do not impose undue burdens on individuals.
The lessons learned from the COVID-19 regulatory response underscore the necessity of clear legislative drafting, robust judicial oversight, and adherence to administrative law principles to prevent overreach in times of crisis.
Keywords: administrative law; COVID-19 regulations; criminal provisions; Disaster Management Act; legal validity; legality; PAJA; proportionality; rationality; rule of law
- This article’s featured image was created by Nandhu Kumar and obtained from Pexels.
Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans
Die regsgeldigheid van strafbepalings in die COVID-19-regulasies: ’n akademiese ondersoek