, FUR2601 Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026 - DUE 27 March 2026
Question 1
The decision by the Gauteng Department of Health to reduce
treatment provided to non-citizen AIDS patients raises serious
constitutional concerns. The Constitution guarantees everyone the
right of access to health care services and protects against unfair
discrimination. The constitutionality of the decision must therefore be
assessed in light of sections 27 and 9 of the Constitution, as interpreted
by the courts.
Section 27(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right
to have access to health care services. The use of the word “everyone”
has been interpreted by the Constitutional Court to include both
citizens and non-citizens. However, section 27(2) qualifies this right by
requiring the state to take reasonable legislative and other measures,
within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of
the right.
In Soobramoney v Minister of Health (KwaZulu-Natal), the
Constitutional Court held that where resources are severely limited, the
state may lawfully restrict access to certain forms of medical treatment,
provided that the decision is rational, reasonable, and made in good
faith. The Court accepted that scarcity of resources may justify difficult
choices in health care allocation.
However, the Court later adopted a more protective approach towards
non-citizens in Khosa v Minister of Social Development. In this case,
the exclusion of permanent residents from social assistance grants was
held to be unconstitutional. The Court emphasised that non-citizens are
entitled to fundamental socio-economic rights and that exclusion based
Question 1
The decision by the Gauteng Department of Health to reduce
treatment provided to non-citizen AIDS patients raises serious
constitutional concerns. The Constitution guarantees everyone the
right of access to health care services and protects against unfair
discrimination. The constitutionality of the decision must therefore be
assessed in light of sections 27 and 9 of the Constitution, as interpreted
by the courts.
Section 27(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right
to have access to health care services. The use of the word “everyone”
has been interpreted by the Constitutional Court to include both
citizens and non-citizens. However, section 27(2) qualifies this right by
requiring the state to take reasonable legislative and other measures,
within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of
the right.
In Soobramoney v Minister of Health (KwaZulu-Natal), the
Constitutional Court held that where resources are severely limited, the
state may lawfully restrict access to certain forms of medical treatment,
provided that the decision is rational, reasonable, and made in good
faith. The Court accepted that scarcity of resources may justify difficult
choices in health care allocation.
However, the Court later adopted a more protective approach towards
non-citizens in Khosa v Minister of Social Development. In this case,
the exclusion of permanent residents from social assistance grants was
held to be unconstitutional. The Court emphasised that non-citizens are
entitled to fundamental socio-economic rights and that exclusion based
