dlamini-zuma court haridressing

Photo: Flickr / GovernmentZA

Dlamini-Zuma: Minister faces another court battle for ‘violating Constitution’

A row over hairdressing has caused more litigation for Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, after legal papers were filed against the minister on Monday.

dlamini-zuma court haridressing

Photo: Flickr / GovernmentZA

The DA has officially acted on a promise to take Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma to court over the current ban on hairdressing and personal care. Shadow trade minister Dean Macpherson described the ban as ‘unconstitutional’ and said it unfairly hindered thousands of professional workers.

Why the DA have filed court papers against Dlamini-Zuma

At Level 3 of lockdown, all forms of hairdressing businesses remain off-limits. Unless you live with someone who’s a dab-hand with the scissors – or you’ve been forced to pick up the graders yourself – South Africans are now into week 11 without being able to get a haircut.

The DA’s argument isn’t a cosmetic one, however. They are more concerned about the people whose livelihoods depend on our trims and styles. Last week, Macpherson gave Dlamini-Zuma a deadline to explain why personal care services must remain closed. She missed the cut-off point, and it’s lead to more litigation.

“Hairdressing should be allowed at level 3”, Macpherson argues

On Monday morning, Macpherson filed the DA’s case at the Western Cape High Court. He and his colleagues want the ban on the hairdressing industry set aside and declared unconstitutional – in the same manner the Pretoria High Court ruled last week that ‘all lockdown laws’ violate the Bill of Rights.

“Dlamini-Zuma’s indefinite ‘ban’ violates section 22 of the Constitution which allows citizens the right to practice their trade, occupation or profession freely which may be regulated by law. It is simply unjustifiable that almost every other industry is allowed to operate subject to health projects except the personal care industry.”

“The blanket prohibition on the entire personal care industry is irrational and arbitrary, which is prohibited from operating indefinitely subject to the whims of some unidentified Minister that should provide ‘directions’ for the industry. This ban can’t be considered constitutional if ‘regulated law’ undermines a right to trade indefinitely.”

Dean Macpherson on the DA’s battle with Dlamini-Zuma