The IPA Foundation (NPC) v South African Pharmacy Council

The Independent Practitioners Association Foundation (IPA), representing private medical practitioners, sought to review and set aside two decisions of the South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC). The first was the SAPC’s decision to approve the implementation of pharmacist-initiated management of antiretroviral therapy (PIMART), expanding the scope of practice of specially trained pharmacists to initiate and manage first-line antiretroviral therapy, including PrEP and PEP. The second was the publication of Board Notice 101 of 2021, which formally implemented PIMART and set out competency standards and training requirements. The SAPC had published Board Notice 71 of 2021 for public comment, inviting representations over 60 days. The IPA did not submit comments within that period but later objected after implementation. The IPA alleged that the notice and decision-making process were procedurally unfair and irrational under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA), alternatively unlawful under the principle of legality. The High Court dismissed the review and struck out new material introduced in the IPA’s replying affidavit. The IPA appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

This judgment affirms the broad constitutional approach to standing in administrative law challenges, particularly in matters of public health. It clarifies the standards for procedural fairness in policy-oriented administrative action, confirming that Gazette publication and a reasonable comment period may suffice. The case also confirms the SAPC’s regulatory authority to expand pharmacists’ scope of practice through rational, consultative processes aimed at addressing pressing public health needs such as HIV/AIDS.