DONE DAY 1 in the ConCourt (5 May 2026)
Focus on NHI funding and transparency in ConCourt
5 May marked the first day of a 3-day hearing in the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) during which the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) is requesting the Court to set the NHI Act aside on procedural grounds, arguing that the public participation process was defective. Business Day (6 May 2026)
Bruce Leech, appearing for the BHF, said lawmakers did not know the true costs of implementation, nor did they have enough detail on what benefits the universal health coverage scheme would include.
He stressed that the BHF is not challenging the substance of the Act’s provisions. Instead, the application targets the process that preceded the President’s signing the Act into law.
Ngwako Maenetje, representing Parliament, argued that the public was given sufficient information to participate. He said it was not possible to estimate the true costs with precision because NHI could take up to 10 years to implement and would depend on shifting economic conditions.
If the BHF succeeds, the Court could set aside the NHI Act and direct Parliament to remedy the shortcomings in public participation.
DONE Day 2 in the ConCourt (6 May 2026)
ConCourt hears there was “overwhelming support” for NHI Act
SA’s NHI legislation faced renewed scrutiny in the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) focusing on whether Parliament’s public participation process met constitutional standards, reported Daily Maverick (6 May 2026).
Western Cape Premier, Alan Winde, claimed that the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) rushed key hearings in Gauteng and the Western Cape, leaving “meaningful engagement” impossible.
Advocate Geoff Budlender SC, said the timetable for public participation was too rigid and should not have overridden people’s rights to be heard.
According to Winde’s papers, Gauteng’s public participation reports were not submitted to the select committee at all.
Meanwhile, the Western Cape’s report was allegedly provided only after decisive stages had passed.
“Budlender argued that even where reports were available, they were not meaningfully engaged with.”
According to Ngwako Maenetje SC, Parliament spent R14m on public participation. He claimed that there was “overwhelming support” for the legislation.
The ConCourt reserved judgment in both this matter and the
Board of Healthcare Funders’ (BHF) request on 5 May that the Court set the NHI Act aside on procedural grounds.