Pretoria – After not paying subsidies to Early Childhood Development centres (ECDs) during lockdown, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on Monday ruled that there had been no violations of constitutional rights on the part of Social Development Minister Lindiwe Zulu and the MECs.
Zulu and MECs in her department had to fight an application brought by SA Childcare and civil society groups.
The organisations had initially brought an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court seeking a wide range of demands against the minister and the MECs, including subsidies to be released to ECD centres.
The subsidies had been designated long before Covid-19 and were meant to assist children from low-income homes with food and care.
However, Zulu closed ECD centres upon the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, and kept them closed even after the minister of basic education had reopened schools.
Zulu was eventually taken to court and the Gauteng High Court ordered her to open the centres.
The court also found that the minister and the MECs had violated constitutional rights by withholding the subsidies. The minister and the MECs were ordered to remedy the infringements and to pay costs.
Zulu and the MECs appealed against these orders at the SCA.
During the appeal, evidence was brought that Zulu had undertaken to pay the subsidies of ECDs during the lockdown and had instructed the MECs to do so. The MECs partially paid the subsidies – they decided to pay only 60% of each subsidy. They said this was to cover administration costs and salaries.
They withheld the 40% that was intended to cover the cost of nutrition for children attending ECDs. They argued that during the lockdown, ECDs could not operate and the children who had attended them were not permitted to leave their homes.
Zulu said part of the subsidy was then redirected and used to increase child support grants, and to fund food parcels for distribution to those in need.
The MECs also indicated that as soon as the children returned to the centres, the full subsidy was paid again.
On these facts, the SCA found that there had been no violations of constitutional rights on the part of the minister and the MECs.
IOL