The country is just months away from passing the two year mark in its continued Covid pandemic lockdown, but experts suggest government’s recent 22nd extension of the national state of disaster might be totally unnecessary, and its sole purpose being the imposition of regulations that make no medical sense.
With the country going into the festive season under adjusted level 1 lockdown, the state of national disaster is now in its 31st month since the declaration was first made in March 2020.
While current regulations include compulsory wearing of masks in public places, and permitting up to 2000 people for outdoor gatherings, regulations such as the four-hour curfew make no sense, said Stellenbosch University epidemiologist Dr Jo Barnes.
The system of quarantining is also “outdated” as many people who show no symptoms continue to spread the virus either way, she said.
ALSO READ: Here’s why the MAC says SA should stop tracing, quarantining of Covid contacts
“What on earth is a curfew between midnight and 4AM going to help with the pandemic? What does it stop? It makes no scientific or medical or health sense to have a curfew from midnight to 4am.”
“To have regulations in place to cope with something like a pandemic is not irrational. I understand this [Omicron] virus is spreading quite fast and the symptoms are mild, but you don’t need a state of disaster for that. It can be managed in another way,” she said.
Unlike a state of emergency, a state of disaster does not require any parliamentary oversight or approval. This means that those making decisions on Covid regulations can not be held accountable, which leads to an abuse of power.
Currently, the ‘disaster’ is coming to an end, said Accountability Now’s director Advocate Paul Hoffman.
“It suits them to have the executive running the show rather than running the country with parliamentary oversight and a more accountable sort of arrangements. There is a lack of accountability going on there. That is part of the problem with the disaster management. The normal parliamentary oversight of what they are doing is bypassed because there is alleged to be a disaster.”
In his view, a state of emergency should have rather been declared to treat the “emergency” which was the sudden pandemic, said Hoffman. A state of emergency is referred to in the Bill of Rights and the state of disaster is not.
“A state of emergency can only be declared when the procedures of the Bill of Rights are complied with. You have to place it all before Parliament before you get your state of emergency up and going, whereas a state of disaster is a matter of proclamation and they have simply done that.”
Barnes and Hoffman were both of the view that power is being abused as the pandemic has now simply become part of normal life, which could be managed without the country still being under a state of disaster.
“A disaster is not a permanent state of affairs and when it comes to a new normal, you don’t have to use the disaster management act.”
“It seems a lot of the decisions have to do with an obsession about control than with actually bringing down the numbers. Our hospitals have a working system and a system of field hospitals if they are required. We have a lot of vaccinations going on. So what do they want to control?,” said Barnes.
ALSO READ: Omicron: New Covid-19 cases soar but hospitalisations ‘not as dramatic’
Hoffman said the ‘disaster’ was becoming history and had to be managed within normal legislative frameworks.
“This abuse is ongoing. There is litigation about the use of the disaster management system and certainly the continuation of the state of disaster long after a disaster has come and gone is an abuse of power in my book.
“I think this disaster is in the process of becoming history. I don’t believe it cannot be managed within the normal framework of the law and that you need either a disaster or an emergency declared,” he said.
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.