"I am certain, from what I have seen in the papers filed in this matter and from a mere reading of the regulations - even including the alert level 3 regulations - that there are many instances of sheer irrationality included therein."
Not all rules irrational
"Despite these failures of the rationality test in so many instances, there are regulations which pass muster. The cautionary regulations relating to education, prohibitions against evictions, initiation practices and the closures of nightclubs and fitness centres, for example, as well as the closures of borders, all appear to be rationally connected to the stated objectives.
"The clear inference I draw from the evidence is that once the minister [Dlamini-Zuma] had declared a national state of disaster and once the goal was to ‘flatten the curve’ by way of retarding or limiting the spread of the virus - all very commendable and necessary objectives - little or in fact no regard was given to the extent of the impact of individual regulations on the constitutional rights of people and whether the extent of the limitation of their rights was justifiable or not.
"Insofar as the lockdown regulations do not satisfy the rationality test, their encroachment on and limitation of rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights contained in the constitution are not justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, as contemplated in section 36 of the constitution."