The Constitutional Court has upheld a prohibition that bars foreign nationals, locally trained lawyers who are legally in South Africa, but do not hold citizenship or permanent residency, from being enrolled for practice.
A group of foreign nationals, who were fighting to be legal practitioners, but lacked permanent residency, lost their case at the apex court on Tuesday. The court dismissed the groups leave to appeal a judgement from the Free State High Court.
In September 2012, the Bloemfontein High Court declared section 24(2) of the Legal Practice Act (LPA) as unlawful and unconstitutional as it states that “a person may only practise as a legal practitioner if he or she is admitted and enrolled to practise as such in terms of this act, and that the High Court must admit to practise and authorise to be enrolled as a legal practitioner, conveyancer or notary or any person who, upon application, satisfies the court that he or she is a South African citizen; or permanent resident in the republic”.
One of the applications was brought by two Lesotho nationals Relebohile Cecelia Rafoneke and Sefoboko Phillip Tsuinyane, who both wanted to practice in South Africa.
The other application was brought by Zimbabwean nationals Bruce Chakanyuka, Nyasha James Nyamugure and Dennis Tatenda Chayda, as well as an asylum seeker refugee and migrant coalition, who were all facing the same issues as Rafoneke and Tsuinyane.
The Constitutional Court ruling has now confirmed the February High Court ruling.
Justice Zukisa Tshiqi- who penned the unanimous decision found that while the right to choose your trade, occupation and profession freely was enshrined in section 22 of the constitution, the right was only extended to South Africa citizen. “Section 22 is silent regarding non-citizens and, consequently, does not afford that right to them,” she said.
“The legislation is therefore at liberty to decide how far to extend admission into the legal profession to non-citizens and it has chosen to draw the line at permanent residents. That the legislature has not gone further to include refugees and asylum seekers cannot be challenged by non-citizens under section 22. They do not enjoy a section 22 right,” Tshiqi added.
Source: News24, Eyewitness News, Mail&Guardian image from Mail&Guardian
