no, the constitution clearly states that no-one shall be permitted from barring your movement within our borders, or stop you from leaving.
The SANDF going into a rural area and beating on people is profoundly worrisome and should enrage us all - New years, we all saw the vids of the people standing in their own yards, being yeld at by police to go inside. The one lady was just chilling on her doorstep, 10m from her gate, in her PJs and the police yelled at her. Then the lighter, stupidity of people being pulled out the water for surfing, chased down like thugs.
Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected.
It also states that we may not be stopped from trading and earning a legal wage.
It also states that we have autonomy of our bodies, freedom of choice how to manage our own health and that we will not be subjected to medical experiments.
Under the disaster act, our constitution, in the eyes of the ncccc does not exist. Regardless if I agree or disagree about the restrictions and levels. The fact about lawfulness is that almost every single restriction is a clear violation of our bill of rights/constitutional rights. Heck, even their meetings fall short on the tests.
Everyone has the right of access to any information held by the state, and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.
Therefore, the court cases, that are being dismissed, on whatever grounds, need to be heard by our constitutional court judges, they are there to interpret the LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN. Those judges are the ones that have studied the constitution and have the scope and knowledge to rule on cases pertaining to the supposed infringements of such rights. None of the lower courts can override the most important law of our land. Not one person is above it, including the NCCC. Currently, the NCCC has no oversight.
As to the rational for any more lockdowns
It's an established principle, then, that rights can be limited. The challenge, though, is to allow them to be limited only under strict conditions. If the Bill of Rights simply allowed any kind of restriction, its very purpose would be undermined.
As a result,
section 36 of the Constitution, known as the limitation clause, lays down a test that any limitation must meet. The two central concepts in this test are reasonableness and proportionality. Any restriction on a right must be reasonable and must be proportional in that the impact or extent of the restriction must match the importance of the aim served by the limitation of the right.
It is my opinion that the NCCC is using section 36 as a sledgehammer with no end in sight. Sure, lockdown for 30 days, then we see-saw into lower numbers, open up, then lockdown again? Where is the line? When is the line? I don't know, I don't have any answers. I am just observing. Right now, I see the main argument is, if you do not support lockdowns and restrictions (not talking about sanitise and mask), then you are a COLD HEARTED SELFISH ******* who wants everyone to die. The other extreme is, if you do support all this, then surely you have given in to a nanny state and do not care about economics nor do you understand them.
I think the truth is somewhere in between. Many of us, feel a hybrid of emotions. Today, I am scared. I am scared that our economy will collapse and we will be run to the borders like zim ran to us. But when my dad was lying in icu with covid, I was scared of the virus. Two things may be true at the same time. Two things may be false, even if contradictory, at the same time.
EDIT/ easy to digest read about the bill of rights
linky