Section 27 Explained: Access to Healthcare, Food, Water, and Social Security
Section 27 Explained: Access to Healthcare, Food, Water, and Social Security Section 27 protects access to healthcare, food, water, and social security — fundamental socio-economic rights that are e...
Section 27 Explained: Access to Healthcare, Food, Water, and Social Security
Section 27 protects access to healthcare, food, water, and social security — fundamental socio-economic rights that are essential for human dignity and survival.
The Text of Section 27
Section 27(1): The Rights
"Everyone has the right to have access to—
(a) health care services, including reproductive health care;
(b) sufficient food and water; and
(c) social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance."
Section 27(2): The State's Obligation
"The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights."
Section 27(3): Emergency Medical Treatment
"No one may be refused emergency medical treatment."
What Does Section 27 Guarantee?
"Access to" — Not Provision Itself
Like Section 26 (housing), Section 27 guarantees access, not immediate provision.
What this means:
- The state must create conditions that enable access
- The state must implement reasonable programs
- The state does not have to provide everything immediately to everyone
But: The state must show progressive realisation and make provision for those in desperate need.
Section 27(1)(a): Health Care Services
"Everyone has the right to have access to health care services, including reproductive health care."
What does "health care services" include?
- Primary healthcare (clinics, community health centers)
- Hospital care
- Emergency treatment
- Preventive care (vaccinations, screenings)
- Reproductive healthcare (contraception, maternal care, safe abortion)
- Treatment for chronic illnesses (HIV/AIDS, TB, diabetes)
Reproductive Health Care
Includes:
- Family planning
- Contraception
- Safe and legal abortion (Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act)
- Maternal healthcare (antenatal, childbirth, postnatal care)
Key case: Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (2002) — ARVs to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission are part of reproductive healthcare.
Section 27(1)(b): Sufficient Food and Water
"Everyone has the right to have access to sufficient food and water."
What does "sufficient" mean?
Food:
- Enough to maintain health and prevent malnutrition
- Regular access (not just occasional)
Water:
- Safe, clean drinking water
- Sufficient quantity for personal and domestic use
Key case: Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg (2010)
- Issue: Is 6 kilolitres of free water per month sufficient?
- Holding: The city's policy is reasonable given resource constraints.
- Principle: "Sufficient" does not mean a specific quantity. It depends on what the state can reasonably provide.
Section 27(1)(c): Social Security
"Everyone has the right to have access to social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance."
What is "social security"?
Social insurance:
- Unemployment insurance (UIF)
- Retirement funds
- Compensation for injuries on duty
Social assistance (grants):
- Old age pension
- Disability grant
- Child support grant
- Foster care grant
- War veterans grant
Who qualifies?
Social assistance is for those "unable to support themselves and their dependants."
Key case: Khosa v Minister of Social Development (2004)
- Issue: Can permanent residents be excluded from social grants?
- Holding: No. Excluding permanent residents who cannot support themselves is unfair discrimination (Section 9).
- Principle: Section 27(1)(c) protects all people lawfully in South Africa, not just citizens.
The Reasonableness Test (Again)
Like Section 26, Section 27(2) uses the reasonableness test from Grootboom.
A reasonable program must:
- Be comprehensive and coherent
- Be balanced and flexible
- Make appropriate provision for those in desperate need
- Be transparent and involve meaningful engagement
- Allocate adequate resources and be implemented
Landmark Case: Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (2002)
The landmark case on Section 27(1)(a) (healthcare).
The Facts
- The government refused to provide nevirapine (an ARV drug) in public hospitals to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission
- The drug was available and affordable
- The government argued it needed more time to roll out the program
The Issue
Does the government's refusal to provide nevirapine violate Section 27(1)(a)?
The Holding
Yes. The government's policy was unreasonable.
The Court's Reasoning
1. The policy was inflexible
The government's policy restricted nevirapine to 18 pilot sites, even though many hospitals had the capacity to administer it.
2. It failed to provide for those in desperate need
HIV+ pregnant women outside the pilot sites had no access to life-saving treatment. This violated Grootboom's requirement to provide for those in crisis.
3. Less restrictive means existed
The government could have expanded the program to all hospitals with capacity, without waiting for a national rollout.
4. The limitation on resources was not justified
The drug was donated (free) and did not require expensive infrastructure. The government's resource argument failed.
The Remedy
The court ordered the government to:
- Remove restrictions on nevirapine
- Make it available at all public hospitals with capacity
- Provide counselling and testing to enable informed use
Significance
Strong enforcement of socio-economic rights:
Unlike Grootboom, where the remedy was a declaratory order, TAC resulted in a specific order requiring the government to provide treatment.
Why the difference?
- The remedy was feasible (the drug was available and affordable)
- The issue was urgent (preventing HIV transmission in newborns)
- The government's refusal was arbitrary (not based on genuine resource constraints)
Section 27(3): Emergency Medical Treatment
"No one may be refused emergency medical treatment."
What is "emergency medical treatment"?
Treatment required to:
- Save a life
- Prevent serious harm or disability
- Alleviate severe pain or suffering
Examples:
- Treatment for a heart attack
- Stabilizing a trauma patient
- Emergency surgery
Who is protected?
Everyone — citizens, non-citizens, documented, undocumented, insured, uninsured.
Section 27(3) is absolute. There are no exceptions.
Who provides emergency treatment?
All healthcare facilities:
- Public hospitals
- Private hospitals (if the patient arrives at their facility)
Private hospitals cannot refuse emergency treatment even if the patient cannot pay.
Key legislation: National Health Act 61 of 2003 — gives effect to Section 27(3).
Positive Obligations Under Section 27
The State Must:
- Provide healthcare facilities (clinics, hospitals)
- Employ healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, support staff)
- Procure medicines and equipment
- Implement public health programs (vaccinations, disease prevention)
- Provide social assistance to those unable to support themselves
These are positive obligations — the state must take action, not just refrain from interference.
Progressive Realisation and Resource Constraints
Section 27(2): "The state must take reasonable measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights."
What this means:
The state does NOT have to:
- Provide everything immediately
- Provide the best possible healthcare to everyone
- Ignore budget constraints
The state MUST:
- Take reasonable steps toward full realisation
- Show progress over time
- Prioritize those in desperate need
- Allocate adequate resources to healthcare, food, water, social security
Key Cases on Section 27
Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (2002)
Right: Section 27(1)(a) — Healthcare
Holding: The government's refusal to provide ARVs to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission was unreasonable.
Principle: Programs must provide for those in desperate, immediate need.
Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg (2010)
Right: Section 27(1)(b) — Water
Holding: The city's free basic water policy (6 kilolitres/month) is reasonable given resource constraints.
Principle: Courts defer to government on policy choices if the policy is reasonable.
Khosa v Minister of Social Development (2004)
Right: Section 27(1)(c) — Social security
Holding: Excluding permanent residents from social grants is unfair discrimination.
Principle: Section 27 protects all people lawfully in South Africa, not just citizens.
Soobramoney v Minister of Health (1998)
Right: Section 27(1)(a) — Healthcare
Facts: Soobramoney had chronic renal failure and needed dialysis. The hospital refused because resources were limited and his prognosis was poor.
Holding: The hospital's decision was not unreasonable. The state cannot provide all healthcare to everyone. Hard choices must be made.
Principle: Section 27 does not guarantee unlimited healthcare. Resource constraints are real.
Comparing Grootboom, TAC, and Mazibuko
| Case | Right | Outcome | Why? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grootboom (2000) | Housing (Section 26) | Unreasonable | No emergency relief for homeless families |
| TAC (2002) | Healthcare (Section 27) | Unreasonable | Arbitrary restriction on ARVs; no resource justification |
| Mazibuko (2010) | Water (Section 27) | Reasonable | Policy balanced needs and resources; city showed constraints |
Lesson: Reasonableness is fact-specific. Courts assess whether the state's program is reasonable in the circumstances.
Practical Application: How to Use Section 27
Step 1: Identify Which Right
- Healthcare (27(1)(a))?
- Food/water (27(1)(b))?
- Social security (27(1)(c))?
- Emergency treatment (27(3))?
Step 2: Has the Right Been Infringed?
For 27(1)(a)-(c):
Apply the reasonableness test:
- Is the state's program comprehensive, balanced, transparent?
- Does it provide for those in desperate need?
- Is it implemented with adequate resources?
For 27(3):
Was emergency treatment refused? If yes, this is a violation (no exceptions).
Step 3: Consider Remedies
- Declaratory order (program is unreasonable; state must fix it)
- Specific order (provide specific treatment/service — rare, only if feasible and urgent)
- Structural interdict (ongoing court supervision)
Common Exam Issues
Issue 1: Access ≠ Provision
Section 27 guarantees access, not immediate provision of healthcare, food, water, or grants.
Issue 2: Emergency Treatment is Absolute
Section 27(3) has no exceptions. Emergency treatment cannot be refused for any reason (inability to pay, immigration status, etc.).
Issue 3: Progressive Realisation is Not an Excuse
The state cannot hide behind "progressive realisation" to justify total inaction or ignoring those in crisis.
Issue 4: Resource Constraints Are Real, But...
Courts acknowledge budget limits, but the state must still:
- Allocate adequate resources
- Prioritize vulnerable groups
- Show genuine constraints (not arbitrary decisions)
📚 Study Tips: Mastering Section 27
1. Know the Four Rights
(a) Healthcare
(b) Food and water
(c) Social security
(3) Emergency medical treatment (absolute)
2. Memorize TAC (Treatment Action Campaign)
This is the Section 27(1)(a) case. Know:
- Facts (ARVs for HIV+ pregnant women)
- Holding (government's refusal unreasonable)
- Why (inflexible policy, no genuine resource constraint, failed to provide for those in need)
3. Link to Grootboom
Both cases use the reasonableness test. TAC builds on Grootboom but results in a stronger remedy (specific order to provide treatment).
4. Understand Section 27(3) is Different
Section 27(3) (emergency treatment) is directly enforceable. It's not subject to the reasonableness test or resource constraints.
5. Compare TAC and Mazibuko
- TAC → Government lost (policy unreasonable)
- Mazibuko → Government won (policy reasonable)
Lesson: Courts assess each case on its facts.
6. Link to Dignity and Life
Section 27 rights (especially healthcare and food/water) are essential for dignity (Section 10) and life (Section 11).
7. Know Khosa
Section 27 protects all people lawfully in SA, not just citizens. Khosa extended social grants to permanent residents.
8. Practice Application
For every Section 27 question:
- Which subsection? (27(1)(a), (b), (c), or (3)?)
- Apply reasonableness test (if 27(1)) or absolute protection (if 27(3))
- Consider remedies
The Brief is your companion for mastering South African law. Check back weekly for new breakdowns, case summaries, and exam strategies.
Enjoyed this piece?
Subscribe to get more case analyses and study tips like this — delivered occasionally, never spam.