Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign
South Africa Constitutional Court
2002 (5) SA 721 (CC) (2002)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 2000 the South African government declared that curbing the HIV/AIDS pandemic was a top priority for the country. The government entered a deal with the pharmaceutical company that manufactured Nevirapine, a drug that reduced mother-to-child HIV transmission. The pharmaceutical company agreed to provide the government with the drug at no cost for five years. The government implemented pilot programs at various sites to study the benefits of Nevirapine. However, the government refused to make Nevirapine available in the public health sectors, which resulted in individuals of lower socioeconomic status being unable to access Nevirapine. In response, the Treatment Action Campaign and other public health organizations (collectively, TAC) (plaintiffs) filed an action in the South Africa High Court in Pretoria against the minister of health and other government entities (collectively, the government) (defendant). TAC claimed that the government’s unreasonable actions of restricting the accessibility of Nevirapine and failing to create a comprehensive treatment program for all individuals violated the South African Constitution. The court found that the government had violated the constitution and returned a verdict in TAC’s favor. The matter was appealed to the South Africa Constitutional Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.