South African Court Upholds COVID-19 Ban Over Objections of Mosque and Its Imams

Challenges to COVID-19 Orders by houses of worship are not limited to the United States.  In Mohamed v. President of the Republic of South Africa, (SA High Ct., April 30, 2020), a South African trial court judge rejected a challenge to the country's lock down order brought by a mosque and two of its imams and worshipers. The Order, issued under the Disaster Management Act 2002, effectively required all houses of worship to be closed down. The court described the claims being asserted:

According to the applicants, they believe it is obligatory to perform the five daily prayers in congregation and at mosque. Although they admit that their views are not held by the majority of Muslims throughout the country, they claim that the Lockdown Regulations violate their constitutional rights to freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of association (including religious association) and the right to dignity....

... [A]pplicants seek, not just an order exempting them from the restrictions placed on congregational worship, but all persons. 

Section 36 of South Africa' Constitution provides:

The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors....

The court concluded:

This pandemic poses a serious threat to every person throughout South Africa and their right to life, dignity, freedom of movement, right to access healthcare and their right to a clean, safe and healthy environment. In a country where we are dominated by so much poverty, where people don’t have access to basic amenities such as clean running water, housing, food and healthcare, the potential risk to those households poses a further threat which places an additional burden on the Government to combat – the risk then, in light of those circumstances rises exponentially....

To the extent that the Government has put together its Task Team, has consulted exhaustively with them to ensure the safety of its citizens in order to “flatten the curve” and prevent an already fragile health system from being overwhelmed, I cannot find that the restrictions imposed are either unreasonable or unjustifiable and thus the application must fail.

GroundUp reports on the decision.

South African Court Invalidates Dutch Reformed Church's LGBT Policy

In South Africa, a 3-judge panel of the North Gauteng High Court set aside as unlawful and invalid a decision on same-sex relationships made by the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church during the Synod's November 2016 meeting. That decision reversed a 2015 policy that recognized same-sex civil unions and allowed the ordination of gays and lesbians.  In Gaum v. Van Rensburg, S.A. High Ct., March 8, 2019), the court said in part:

The Church denied that the 2016 decision prevents the participation of the LGBTQIA+ community in the church community, or that it impedes their private lives, or that the decision violates their constitutional rights.... On behalf of the Church it was submitted that the 2016 decision did not restrict Gaum’s right to freedom of association; Gaum is free to join another Church that interprets the Bible in the way that Gaum does....

The differentiation caused by the 2016 decision does inherently diminish the dignity of Gaum because same-sex relationships are tainted as being unworthy of mainstream church ceremonies and persons in a same-sex relationship cannot be a Minister in the Church....

There is an argument to be made that a Court cannot prescribe who must be appointed as a Minister in a Church. But, if a member of the Church is permitted to study to become a Minister in that Church, but disallowed to engage in his or her profession only due to the fact that he or she would be in same sex relationship there is an inherent contradiction in the conduct of the Church....

The threshold requirement in section 36 of the Constitution is that any limitation of a fundamental right must be “law of general application …” Where a church discriminates, it constitutes private discrimination, with the law of general application not likely to apply.

eNCA reports on the decision.

In South Africa, Funeral Homes Sue Church Over Fake Resurrection

In Johannesburg, South Africa, three funeral parlors have filed suit for reputational damage against Alleluia Ministries International leader Prophet Alph Lukau claiming that he used their hearse to carry out a hoax in which he purported to resurrect a dead person. According to news reports yesterday, church representative tricked the funeral homes into providing a coffin and transportation for the supposed body.  Video of the purported resurrection went viral after it was placed on the church's social media sites. The Star further reports:

Lukau had claimed that a man, whom he referred to as Elliot, died on Friday, and was on his way to Zimbabwe on Sunday before the pastor brought him back to life.

Meanwhile, snaking queues of people from as far as the US and the Caribbean waited to buy “holy oil” and “prophetic salt”....

The funeral parlors have also filed police complaints.

South African Court Finds Online Postings To Be Hate Speech

In South African Human Rights Commission v. Khumalo, (S. Africa Equality Ct, Oct. 7, 2018), a South African Equality Court held that anti-White statements made on through Facebook and Twitter by Velaphi Khumalo, a youth sports officer, qualify as Hate Speech under Sec. 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act of 2000.  One of Khumalo's posts read in part: "I want to cleans this country of all white people. we must act as Hitler did to the Jews." The court summarized its holding:

[S]ection 10 must be understood as an instrument to advance social cohesion. The "othering" of whites or any other racial identity, is inconsistent with our Constitutional values. These utterances, in as much as they, with dramatic allusions to the holocaust, set out a rationale to repudiate whites as unworthy and that they ought deservedly to be hounded out, marginalised, repudiated, and subjected to violence in the eyes of a reasonable reader, could indeed, be construed to incite the causation of harm in the form of reactions by Blacks to endorse those attitudes, reactions by Whites to demoralisation and rachet up the invective by responding in like manner, and thus by such developments, on a large enough scale, derail the transformation of South African Society.

The court enjoined Khumalo from repeating his speech and ordered him to apologize to all South Africans, ordered him to pay costs, and referred the case to the public prosecutor for possible further action. Another action in a different court had already ordered the payment of damages. News24 reports on the decision.

South African Court Reconciles Marriage Law With Gender Identity Change Statute

Under South African law, marriages may be performed only for heterosexual couples; however civil unions, which create the same legal rights as a marriage, may be performed for either heterosexual or same-sex couples.  South Africa also has a statute which allows transgender individuals to register their gender transition with the government if they have undergone medical or surgical treatment to alter their sexual characteristics. Registration leads to a change in the gender listed on birth certificates and in the population register. In KOS v. Minister of Home Affairs, (S.A. High Ct., Sept. 6, 2017), a South African trial court was faced with the question of how to treat couples who had entered a heterosexual marriage (not a civil union), where subsequently the husband underwent gender transitioning and registered the change in gender identity with the government.

The government argued that in such cases, a gender change should not be able to be registered since it would result in a same-sex marriage, which the law does not recognize. In one of the cases, the government had instead cancelled the couple's marriage record and insisted that they enter a civil union.  The court however, disagreed concluding that the couples must be allowed to register the gender reassignment and remain married.  Refusing to do this, the court said, violates the rights under the South African Constitution to administrative justice and to equality and human dignity. GroundUp reports on the decision.

South Africa's Jewish Community Creates Internal Body To Regulate Ritual Circumcision

According to yesterday's Jerusalem Post, South Africa's Jewish community is setting up its own Committee to oversee and regulate the practice of ritual circumcision in the nation.  The Committee will set requirements for circumcisions based on Jewish law and the highest standards of professionalism, health and safety.  The decision by Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein and the Beth Din (rabbinic court) implements the recommendations of a commission of inquiry set up by the Jewish community after a serious malpractice incident by an elderly mohel last June.  In order to practice, a mohel will need to be accredited by the new committee, and have the accreditation renewed every two years. The country's Chief Rabbi has already imposed a lifetime ban on the mohel whose malpractice triggered the new recommendations.

South African Court Awards Maintence and Child Support To Woman Divorced Only Under Islamic Law

A South African court has issued a precedent-setting ruling by awarding interim maintenance to a woman who was married and divorced under Islamic religious law, but without precedures required by South African civil law. Her husband divorced her by pronouncing a single valid talaq.   IOL News reports that in a ruling from the bench, a Durban High Court judge ruled that the cournty's Marriage Act applies.  Judge Fikile Mokgohloa awarded the woman the equivalent of $1650 (US) per month as maintenance for her and the two children and ordered the husband to pay reasonable education cost for the children not to exceed $400(US) per child per month.  The husband was also ordered to pay the equivalent of $1225(US) toward the wife's legal costs. The husband argued that under Islamic law, he was only required to pay maintenance for the wife, and then only for approximately three months (the mandatory waiting period of iddah).  The wife is now proceeding with a full civil divorce action.

Top South African Judges Speak At Law and Religion Conference

IOL News and Ecumenical News report on a controversial speech by South Africa's Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng at the University of Stellenbosch's second Annual African Law and Religion conference earlier this week. According to IOL:

Mogoeng decried the levels of maladministration, crime and corruption, and “the extremely low levels to which morality has degenerated… the dishonesty as well as the injustices that have permeated all facets of society - price-fixing and fronting included”.

These, he argued, “in my view would effectively be turned around significantly if religion were to be factored into the law-making process”.

Here is a video of his entire speech. Mogeng, a lay preacher in the Pentecostal Winners' Chapel, has been controversial since his appointment in 2011. (See prior posting.)

Former South African Constitutional Court Judge Albie Sachs also spoke at the Conference, emphasizing the need for different worldviews to co-exist.  Here is a video of his full speech.