The Universities Alliance South Africa (UASA) received written judgement in its case against the University of the Free State (UFS) concerning the tertiary education institution’s Covid-19 policy.
The UASA is a community of individuals of the UFS, the North-West University (NWU), the University of Pretoria (UP), and the Rhodes University opposed to these policies on the premise that the role of vaccines only have limited benefits and serve no practical purpose, and are harmful according to the alliance.
Established in December 2021, this non-profit entity defends the rights of university students, staff, and stakeholders nationwide.
They filed against the UFS after the university had implemented a mandatory vaccination policy on 14 February 2022.
Judge Seef Hefer declined in a written judgement on Friday, 15 March, to rule on the lawfulness of the policy and declared the matter moot.
Nathan Pillay, chairperson of the alliance, said in a media statement on Monday, 18 March, that it is dissapointing that although the judges recognised the strength of their case, they did not rule one way or another on the lawfulness of the policy.
“In their view, it no longer presents a live controversy or is of practical importance – and claimed that we had not proven that the UFS intended to reimplement its policy in future.
“This was in spite of us submitting ample evidence in the form of official statements and correspondence from the UFS in which the university clearly stated that it had retained the policy for future implementation as it sees fit.”
In reply to the judgement, Lacea Loader, spokesperson for the UFS, said that the management of the UFS is aware that the application by UASA was recently dismissed with costs and that the judgement or the court order was in favour of the UFS.
“The UFS Covid-19 regulations and required vaccination policy was suspended by the university and as such the matter is now moot because the said policy is no longer applicable.
“Should there be any Covid outbreak, the UFS will thoroughly consult with all the stakeholders – both internal and external. The university cannot predict how it will react to the future application of the policy as that will depend on future circumstances.”
Pillay says to dismiss the negligence and irrationality in the policy’s formulation and implementation as merely historical and suggest that a ruling regarding the policy’s legality would have no practical effect, also fails to take into account the rights of thousands of stakeholders who have suffered on its account.
“This ruling has then, in effect, set an expiry date to harm and prejudice those on the policy’s receiving end simply for lacking the means to pursue their rights timeously.”
