Mthokozisi Maphumulo
With a significant decline in Covid-19 cases in recent weeks, the government has naturally decided to lift some of the restrictions to allow for more economic activity and allow people to get as close as possible to their normal lives.
This is, of course, necessary and critical considering the impact that the pandemic has had on peoples’ well-being and the concomitant psychological impact.
In the most recent “family meeting”, as the president’s Covid-19 addresses and updates have become known, he lifted several restrictions. One of these was the lifting of political restrictions – the announcement of which has been warmly welcomed by many political parties.
This warm welcome was expected considering the storm that had started to brew among One of these was the lifting of political restrictions – the announcement of which has been warmly welcomed by many political parties.– for obvious reasons with the elections not very distant. While there are many applaudable reasons for the lifting, there are equally relevant inherent legal perils that should be borne in mind by all the relevant role players – political parties, their members, etc.
Significantly, these legal risks exist in law, ie, independently of the Covid-19 regulations. As with the superspreader events, where organisers can be held legally liable if the attendees or anyone in close vicinity to the event contract the virus and die or develop serious health complications, it becomes necessary to consider if similar legal principles can be adopted in the context of political gatherings.
The pertinent questions are, inter alia: Can the gathering members of political parties sue anyone if they contract the virus? If a member dies from Covid-19 contracted at such a gathering, can the dependants claim for loss of support? If so, who can they sue? What about the bystanders – those who are in close vicinity but not necessarily part of the gathering – but get infected by the virus.
These are all questions which are worth discussing and considering, particularly for political party leaders; members who attend such events; and the general public who come into contact with political party members who attend such events.
At this stage, the regulations do permit gatherings of a certain number of attendees. As stated above, the legal risks of holding gatherings during the Covid-19 storm exist independently of the regulations. The applicable legal principles are trite. In cases where it is legally justifiable, political party members may be held criminally guilty.
A befitting example would be where a member attends a political gathering knowing that he is Covid-19 positive and thereafter does not adhere to protocols and infects others. In such a case, there may be charges of assault, attempted murder or murder – depending on the facts and circumstances.
Further, gatherings of such nature may attract civil claims against political parties or any other relevant interest group.
In this regard, there may be room to claim in delict – the success of which is strictly based upon the evidence and facts brought forward. In delict, five natural elements will need to be proven on a proverbial balance of preponderance standard.
Thus, the claimant will have to prove that wrongful and negligent/ intentional conduct of a person (natural/juristic) has caused him/her harm.
* Mthokozisi Maphumulo is an Associate and Litigation Attorney at Adams and Adams.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of The Star or IOL.
The Star