So...
The Government has now made it illegal for you to earn a living. You have thought that being a beautician or a hair stylist was a safe bet in making sure that you always had work.
After all- it is a useful skill. It is always in demand. You will always have work, right?
Or maybe you have counted on the fact that there will always be a market for booze. Or maybe that your tobacco farm shall always have a market to which to sell...
Recently it has become illegal for people in these sectors of the economy to make any kind of living.
Sure- we may debate whether the COVID-19 pandemic has actually made these restrictions on commerce necessary, but we cannot deny: our Government has now made it illegal for many of us to work...
To make matters worse- we now also know that the High Court has ruled that racial criteria may be used in determining whether financial relief is to be given to applicants or not. That particular case dealt with the relief scheme that is in place for the Tourism sector. I can invite you, dear reader, however, to apply to any of the relief schemes that I have discussed in my previous blog post and see for yourself whether you qualify to even apply in the first place...
So we know that our Government has clearly created a situation in which it is illegal for you to work and, although you may have been paying your taxes every year, you won't receive any financial help from them at all.
So- what will you do.
I say: Whatever it takes to survive.
Even if it breaks the law?
Yes. Because survival will always trump the Law.
This is not delusion talking. This is- well- the Law as it currently stands.
A short while ago many of you have heard the term force majeure being thrown around lately. If you arr fortunate you may have heard the term vis major being used. These terms both mean the same thing. They refer to circumstances beyond your control that prevent you from honouring your contractual obligations- or as it applies in most circumstances at the moment- to pay your debts.
I have noticed how many landlords have started sending out letters of demand in desperation, threatening of legal action that will follow as soon as the President remembers to put the Sheriff back to work (I know the Sheriff is still authorised to serve COVID-19 related warrants and such, but he is not going to evict anyone or serve any summonses for a long time...). The fact remains, however, that many of those tenants are unable to pay their rent because the Government told them to stop working. And- they cannot get money from anywhere else.
So- you now at least know that debt collection is on hold. So- less money can go out now. But- how about getting money in...?
Well- if you are able to take up a business that is permitted during the current alert level- then by all means do that.
If you can obtain financial help or essential items by any other means- then do so.
If your options have run out, however and the only means for you to survive is to contravene any of these regulations well-
A lawyer can never advise you to embark on any course of action that is likely to put you at odds with law enforcement and that is illegal, but-
If you had to break the law in any way in order to survive- you have a defense that should prevent you from getting convicted as long as the Rule of Law still applies to our country.
That is the defense of emergency.
In this context emergency is a circumstance or circumstances beyond your control that threatens your life or any legally recognised interest or right that you may have. Such rights and interests include livelihood, health and of course- your life.
Having to break a rule to protect any of these interests is not that new in our law.
In the matter of the State versus Rabodila
1974 3 SA 324 (O) (please forgive me for having to cite actual case law on this blog) this defense was applied in a matter where the accused had entered the country illegally. Well... nowadays we have a thing such as asylum, but we can see how a defense like this can be raised in your run-of-the-mill immigration matter.
In Pretorius 1975 2 SA 85 (SWA) the illegal conduct with which the accused was charged was exceeding the speed limit. We all know about the stories of rushing to hospital with a wife about to give birth and such... This matter was decided in 1975, however, and I think that an accused who wants to apply it today will have to forego paying the cold drink money so that he can end up in court to raise it.
It is interesting to note that the Court had recognised in The State v Alfeus 1979 3 SA 145 (A) that the government of its time was oppressive and that the accused's contravention of the Terrorist Activities Act at the time could not be held against him.
This defense has not yet been tested in our courts and our Government has not yet passed any special acts or regulations to nullify this defense. I think, however, that it is clear that the Government is no longer acting with our best interests at heart and we shall soon see whether we are still a democratic country or not.
To all of you in this time: Do what you must. Do what you can.
Godspeed.
