South Africa’s landmark law creating the National Council on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (NCGBVF) now faces a constitutional challenge. Campaigners argue that lawmakers weakened key provisions during the process, undermining the law’s ability to protect women and girls.
The Initiative for Strategic Litigation in Africa (ISLA) brought the legal challenge. It targets the National Council on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide Act, which President Cyril Ramaphosa signed in May 2024.
Years of advocacy after the 2018 #TotalShutdown protests led to the Act. Lawmakers intended it to give legal force to the National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (NSP), adopted in 2020.
Civil society organisations hoped the law would create a coordinated, well-funded national response to gender-based violence. ISLA argues that the final version lacks critical safeguards for funding, accountability, and public participation.
The case raises broader questions about freedom in democratic South Africa and whether the state meets its constitutional duty to protect women from violence. A key challenge focuses on the law-making process itself.
After the Total Shutdown movement, civil society organisations helped draft the National Strategic Plan. ISLA says lawmakers altered several important provisions during the parliamentary process without enough public consultation.
Court papers state that Parliament classified the Bill as a Section 75 measure, treating it as affecting only the national government. Lawmakers removed provisions like the Inter-Ministerial Committee and reduced civil society representation on the Council from 7 to 5 seats.
ISLA argues that these changes were introduced after the public consultation period closed in 2023 and were not subjected to a further round of hearings.
The organisation relies on past Constitutional Court judgments, including Doctors for Life and Matatiele. These rulings say public participation must be meaningful, not just procedural.
Legal experts supporting the challenge say lawmakers must consult the public again for major legislative changes, especially if they alter the structure or function of a proposed institution.
For campaigners, the issue extends beyond legal procedure.
They argue legislation to address gender-based violence will fail if lawmakers silence survivors and civil society during the process meant to create protections.
ISLA also contends that the Act fails to provide a sustainable funding framework for the Council.
The National Strategic Plan originally proposed the establishment of a dedicated National GBVF Fund to support prevention programmes, shelters, survivor services and legal assistance. The final legislation does not include such a provision.
Instead, funding remains dependent on allocations from government departments, a model critics argue could leave the Council vulnerable to shifting political priorities and budget constraints.
The legal challenge says this approach fails to meet both international and domestic obligations.
ISLA points to guidance from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and to South Africa’s Constitutional Court ruling in the Glenister case, which emphasised the importance of adequately resourced oversight institutions.
Without guaranteed funding, the Council may struggle to conduct research, monitor provinces, or support survivor programmes. The challenge also targets the Council’s design.
The National Strategic Plan included an Inter-Ministerial Committee and provincial mechanisms for coordination and oversight. Lawmakers removed both from the final legislation.
Civil society representation was reduced, while oversight responsibilities were concentrated within the Ministry of Women.
Critics argue that these changes weaken the Council’s independence and reduce its ability to hold government departments accountable.
The Act also does not prescribe timelines for finalising regulations, raising concerns that implementation could be delayed.
ISLA argues that effective institutions require authority, resources and operational independence. Without those elements, campaigners fear the Council could become symbolic rather than transformative.
The case forms part of ISLA’s wider strategy of using litigation to strengthen protections for women across Africa.
Through the Feminist Litigation Network and other legal programmes, the organisation links domestic challenges with regional and international human rights frameworks.
In this case, ISLA relies on South Africa’s Constitution and international instruments like CEDAW and the Maputo Protocol.
The organisation says the outcome could affect countries beyond South Africa, especially those seeking to strengthen legal responses to gender-based violence. Supporters of the challenge say the case ultimately asks whether constitutional rights can translate into practical protection for women and girls.
As South Africa reflects on its democratic legacy, the case has reignited debate about the meaning of freedom in daily life. Survivors of the #TotalShutdown movement express frustration that years of advocacy have not delivered the promised protections.
ISLA says a successful challenge could force Parliament to revisit funding, governance, and the participation of civil society in the law. For the organisation, the issue is not just institutional design but also whether freedom means living free from violence.
The court’s ruling may decide if South Africa’s response to gender-based violence becomes a model of accountability or just another unfulfilled promise.
