LEGABIBO judgment reserved
Mpho Mokwape | Wednesday March 19, 2014 14:58
In the case, the defence lawyer for members of LEGABIBO, Unity Dow has described the Minister of Labour and Home Affairs, Edwin Batshu’s decision to decline the association’s registration as a violation of their constitutional rights.
During the heads of argument submission yesterday at the High Court, Dow argued that the minister together with the Director of the Department of Civil and National Registration’s refusal to register LEGABIBO is in contradiction with the country’s laws.
In March 2014, 20 individuals of LEGABIBO filed a case before the High Court asking the court to review the decision by the Director of Civil and National Registration and the Minister of Labour and Home Affairs to refuse to register the organisation, LEGABIBO.
Once registered, LEGABIBO aims to provide an opportunity for lesbians, gays and bisexuals to form part of an association which will provide them with information on human rights and advocate for their rights, particularly the right to access health services.
Dow said the refusal to register an organisation violates the right of freedom of association, which is a right regarded as supremely important by the country.
She explained that Section 7(2) of the Societies Act, which allows the refusal of registration under certain circumstances, should accordingly be interpreted strictly to avoid unjustified infringement of the right to freedom of association.
Dow said had the director and the minister applied their minds to the application, they would have sought to confirm the assumptions about whether Section 7 (2) was applicable, by requiring additional information in terms of Section 6 (3) of the Societies Act.
“We are making an application for a group of individuals to have an association to share their opinions in a collective manner not for people to go have sex which seems to be the state’s arguments for this case,” submitted Dow.
She further told court that the state has an obligation to support the exercise of rights, especially in the case of minority groups emphasizing that in the context, it cannot be said that an organisation which aims at promoting the universality of human rights and aims to deal with prejudice is not for the common good.
Advocate Moatlhodi Marumo, representing the state denied that LEGABIBO’s rights have been violated and argued that Section 7 (2) of the Societies Act in any event constitutes a justifiable limitation of the applicant’s constitutional rights.
He told court that some of LEGABIBO’s mandate is not in the public interest stressing that it only wants registration so it can uphold and re-enforce illegal and criminal activities.
“We all ought to know that LEGABIBO was not registered because homosexuality acts are illegal in the country according to the Penal Code and that the court does not make laws as it stands,” said Marumo.