The application for leave to appeal the ruling on the Zimbabwe Exemption Permit (ZEP) by Home Affairs Minister Aaron Motsoaledi was dismissed by the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria. In June, the court declared that Motsoaledi’s failure to engage in consultation with ZEP holders, relevant non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the general public violated the law, unconstitutional, and without validity. Furthermore, the court ordered that Motsoaledi bear the costs associated with the dismissal of his application.

By Staff Reporter

The application for leave to appeal against a ruling on the termination of Zimbabwean Exemption Permits (ZEPs) by Home Affairs Minister Aaron Motsoaledi was dismissed by the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria.

In June, the court made a ruling declaring that Motsoaledi’s failure to engage in consultation with ZEP holders, relevant non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and the general public was in contravention of legal provisions and constitutional principles.

At the time, the court extended the permits for a year, beginning on June 28, pending the completion of a “fair process” that included an adequate public participation process, which the court found had not been completed before the 7 June gazette for the ZEP termination.

The court’s decision ruled that individuals in possession of ZEP must be granted the freedom to enter or exit South Africa without being subjected to detention based on their status as ZEP holders, as outlined in sections 29, 30, and 32 of the Immigration Act.

The minister had previously requested leave to appeal the judgements, which he claimed set “dangerous precedents.”

The findings of the court on the applicability of certain sections of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), according to the department, were “highly questionable, particularly the requirement for public participation when a decision of this nature is taken, affecting a specified category of persons only. In this instance, the affected Zimbabwean nationals.”

Motsoaledi’s appeal was also predicated on his belief that the case pertained to the principle of separation of powers. However, the court deemed his grounds for seeking leave to appeal to be flawed.

In its ruling delivered on Monday, the High Court determined that Motsoaledi’s application was fated to be unsuccessful due to his failure to submit an answering affidavit in the review proceedings.

“Only the minister, as the decision maker, could give evidence as to what passed through his mind and how his mind was exercised,” the judgment read.

“The rest of the minister’s grounds for leave to appeal are not necessary to traverse. It is enough to conclude by pointing out that the court was at pains to explain that its order under Section 8 (1)(e) of PAJA was temporary relief, which is distinct from a substitution order under section (8)(1)(c)(ii)(aa) of PAJA and is just and equitable remedy in terms of Section 172 (1)(b) of the Constitution.”

The minister’s application was dismissed with costs by the court.