Media Statements

The Helen Suzman Foundation welcomes the announcement that the President will appoint an inquiry into allegations of wrongdoing in the Arms Deal.

The mission of the Helen Suzman Foundation is to defend the values that underpin our liberal constitutional democracy and to promote respect for human rights. The Foundation works from the premise that health provision represents one of South Africa’s key human rights issues. Section 27 of the Constitution states that “Everyone has the right to have access to health care services, including reproductive health care; […and that] no one may be refused emergency medical treatment”.

The Helen Suzman Foundation welcomes the judgement in the case of Glenister v the President of the Republic of South Africa and Others. The Helen Suzman Foundation was admitted as an amicus curiae in this matter.

It is with great regret that we have heard of the death of Vernie Petersen, Director General of the Department of Sport and Recreation.

Minister Gordhan’s second Budget confirms his status as a pragmatic realist. The Budget contains no major shocks, but there are some surprises. It is a prudent budget insofar as there is full recognition that the effects of the Great Recession are still with us. There is also a recognition that the global economy is changing and that South Africa needs to align its national interests to these changes.

On 17 April 2009, Mr Hugh Glenister launched proceedings out of the Western Cape High Court, challenging the constitutionality of the 2008 Amendment Acts – which disbanded the Directorate of Special Operations, the “Scorpions” - on the grounds that the Amendment Acts breached a number of constitutional obligations. That application was dismissed. Mr Glenister subsequently appealed to the Constitutional Court.

The Helen Suzman Foundation notes with concern the introduction of the Protection of Information Bill. While we concede that every state needs to maintain its national security, the Bill’s understanding of the “national interest” is so broadly defined as to raise questions about the intention of the Bill.