Durban attorney distances himself from SAHRC's court battle with Operation Dudula and March and March movement

Durban attorney Xolani Zuma has questioned the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) on why it included him as a respondent in its urgent application to interdict the March and March movement and Operation Dudula from blocking illegal foreign nationals from accessing public healthcare facilities.  

On Friday, the Durban High Court dismissed the urgent application of the SAHRC, finding it lacked urgency, and ordered costs. This is despite the SAHRC arguing that the two groups were still denying foreign nationals access to healthcare. In their affidavit, incidents that took place during July were attached. 

The SAHRC also sought an order from the court to direct the police to maintain public order and that the Department of Health, CEO of Addington Hospital, is to protect and were asked to secure the rights of persons seeking access to healthcare services at any healthcare facility. 

Zuma, who is the husband of former Vuma FM presenter and founder of the March and March movement, Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, said his inclusion as the twelfth respondent in the proceedings is a misjoinder. 

In his affidavit before the court, Zuma said SAHRC cited him as a respondent without any evidence that he is a field activist and organiser of the March and March.

“This is false. I am a practicing attorney who is a managing director of a busy practice,” he said. 

Zuma said the SAHRC has failed to state what interest he has in the proceedings. 

“It is trite that for a party to be joined in the proceedings either of necessity or convenience, it must be shown that he had a direct legal interest in the proceedings. Mere commercial interest is not sufficient,” advocate Griffiths Madonsela SC argued on behalf of his client Zuma. 

The senior counsel who is also representing March and March, its founder, and others said that to join a party in legal proceedings, it must be shown that a party has a direct and substantial interest in the matter of the proceedings or a legal interest in the subject matter of litigation which might be affected prejudicially by the judgement of the court. 

“In the premises, any relief sought by the applicant against the twelfth respondent (Zuma) should be dismissed with an appropriate order as to costs,” Madonsela SC said. 

Although Friday's arguments focused on urging the court to strike the urgent application off the roll, Madonsela took the opportunity to emphasise the position of March and March by stating that it had no problem with people accessing healthcare services. 

“Our gripe with the current state of affairs is against people of SA being constrained to access healthcare services where the undocumented exhaust resources of the state. We can't have a state that does not take care of its citizens but does that for the undocumented. Charity begins at home,” Madonsela SC stated. 

nomonde.zondi@inl.co.za