Home Affairs Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi has defended its decision to scrap the Zimbabwean Exemption Permits (ZEP) arguing that it was a policy decision and “there was no legal obligation” on his part.
The North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria is on its second day of hearing the application brought by the Helen Suzman Foundation challenging the decision to terminate the ZEPs on June 30 this year. The foundation said the decision to terminate the permits was procedurally irrational and unfair because there was no consultation.
“The decision to have each of these regimes in place and a decision to have a new dispensation when each of them ended, each of those was a policy decision. There was no legal obligation and I stress the word legal. There was no legal obligation for the government to introduce any of these regimes[the Dispensation of the Zimbabwean project and the Zimbabwean Exemption Permits.
“There might have been a moral decision. There might have been a political reason. There might have been social economic reasons etc. And clearly there were some reasons for the introduction. But one can’t say there was a legal obligation,” said the ministry’s legal representative SC Ismail Jamie.
Jamie argued that the decision to terminate the ZEPs was rational and proper processes were followed. And neither were the rights of the permit holders and their children violated by the termination because ‘temporary limits can’t give you the rights that were never intended’
On Tuesday, All Truck Drivers Forum and Allied South Africa also argued that the ZEPs are unlawful and should have never been granted these permits from the beginning.