ACTION FOR FREEDOM VS THE MINISTER OF HEALTH SOUTH AFRICA PART THREE ADVOCATE SABELO SIBANDA ARGUES – CONTINUED

Advocate Sibanda: If your Ladyship could kindly indulge me to assist with the last aspect that the court was able to glean from what I was saying so that I can continue from there.

Hey LadyShip:  I think you were dealing with the second bullet point of the (…inaudible) Act, and you were saying that any interpretation that runs away from the people’s right to enjoy the (…inaudible) cannot be sustained, and I’m plagiarising in saying that.

Advocate Sibanda: So your Ladyship, this is still in the principle of interpretation, where we are interpreting, looking at the entire document. So bullet Number 2 addresses that aspect. And then, bullet point number 3. The preamble says that among other imperatives is the need to improve the quality of life, of all citizens. So your Ladyship, when we look at Section 94 A, again, within the context of the third bullet point, that at least 3 months are being afforded to the people of South Africa speaks to the improvement of the quality of life because we have already seen in the act that the important thing for people to have is democratic engagement with legislation. Why a democratic engagement with legislation? So that the need to improve the quality of life…