SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.44 número1Teaching human rights in commonwealth university law schools: approaches and challenges, with passing references to some south african experiencesPutting the relationship between states and the icc into perspective: the viability of national courts in driving complementarity in Africa índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Em processo de indexaçãoCitado por Google
  • Em processo de indexaçãoSimilares em Google

Compartilhar


Obiter

versão On-line ISSN 2709-555X
versão impressa ISSN 1682-5853

Resumo

NEWAJ, Kamalesh. A critical evaluation of whether benefits provided for in COIDA fall within the ambit of the constitutional right to access social security protected in Section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution. Obiter [online]. 2023, vol.44, n.1, pp.122-138. ISSN 2709-555X.

The right to access social security is a constitutionally entrenched right. Section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance. Apart from the concept of social security being inclusive of social assistance, neither the term "social security" nor the term "social assistance" is defined. Conventionally, social security has been regarded as a broad term comprising two primary pillars, namely social insurance and social assistance. Social insurance takes the form of earnings-based insurance schemes, which provide protection against risks such as unemployment and employment injuries. On the other hand, social assistance is synonymous with social grants, which are non-contributory and are provided by the State to categories of society that are in need. Notwithstanding this conventional understanding of social security, the recent Constitutional Court decision in Mahlangu v Minister of Labour found it necessary to engage with the question of whether compensation payable in terms of the Compensational for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) fell within the ambit of the constitutional right to access social security. The majority and minority judgments differed in this respect. The majority found that COIDA benefits constituted a form of social security, but that they fell within the ambit of social assistance. The minority contrarily held that such benefits were not encompassed within the constitutional right to access social security. As both the majority and minority deviated from the conventional understanding of the definition of social security, the focus of this article is to evaluate the ambit of the constitutional right to social security, specifically whether it encompasses benefits payable in terms of COIDA. The conclusion reached is that COIDA benefits are encompassed within the constitutional right to access social security, as it constitutes a form of social insurance. Therefore, as highlighted in this article, the legal principles articulated by both the majority and minority were flawed.

        · texto em Inglês     · Inglês ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons