Excerpt: What started as an urgent case to stop court staff from quietly rewriting judges’ rulings has now turned into a masterclass in delay tactics — conveniently choreographed to suit the likes of the South African Reserve Bank and SAHPRA. While we, the public, are told to wait patiently until 28 October 2025, the very institutions under fire get to call the shots — even when they’re not the Respondents! Apparently, when Werksmans Attorneys whisper to the Registrar, court orders can magically fix themselves. But if I — as a self-represented “layperson” — dare to question it? I’m treated like I snuck into the judge’s chambers with a Sharpie and a dream. This isn’t just about our case. It’s about a justice system that seems to work better for those who sign the cheques than for those who carry the Constitution. But we’re not going anywhere. Not today, not in October, not ever. The people are watching — and so are we.
If you like our work, why not consider a donation of your choice?
Let me start by saying that if court drama were a stage production, I’ve somehow become for LFN the lead actor, director, usher, and – let’s be honest – the guy cleaning the popcorn after the curtain falls.
On Thursday, 12 June 2025, we finally had our first case management hearing before Justice Ledwaba DJP in a matter that, to most ordinary South Africans, should’ve been a constitutional no-brainer. We’re simply asking the Court to stop the Registrar from issuing court orders that don’t reflect the actual decisions of judges. That’s it. No revolution. No riots. Just… basic legality. Or, as some of our opponents apparently see it: “heresy”.
Now, let me paint the scene for you: This case was lodged as urgent. Urgent, as in: the court system is spitting out fake orders, and unless someone presses the red button, we’ll soon have parties enforcing ghost rulings signed, sealed, and delivered by administrators playing judges. Yet, instead of a speedy hearing to fix this mess, the two only parties who decided to oppose us – the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) and the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), both with direct ties to the state – were seemingly given the red carpet treatment. Voilà! Suddenly, our supposedly urgent hearing has been nudged, pushed, and politely rescheduled… all the way to 28 and 29 October 2025.
Yes, you read that correctly. October. It seems the calendar bends for those with the right connections – or at least with the Governor of SARB whispering instructions to its internationally acclaimed, and expensive legal team, Werksmans Attorneys, like a backstage choreographer.
And in case you’re wondering: no, the Registrar and Court Manager – the very stars of this administrative horror show – have not opposed our application as the only two Respondents. They’ve stayed comfortably silent, probably enjoying their popcorn in the back row while SARB’s legal team (who are not a Respondent, I remind you) jump into the spotlight with jazz hands and all. Their lead attorney from Werksmans has been especially proactive – going so far as to get a Registrar for a senior judge to unilaterally “fix” a sealed court order with fatally incorrect information. That’s right. Not a typo. A sealed court order. Probably altered. Quietly. No judge involved.
Now ask yourself – if I did that as a self-represented “layperson” (hopefully such derogatory term will be stopped being used sooner rather than later), I’d probably be frogmarched into the dungeons of the Union Buildings labelled a constitutional terrorist. But when the attorneys of SARB do it? Well, apparently it’s just “administrative housekeeping”.
Even more realistic – the court orders in question are prejudicial to us! In the format they are in, we are conveniently prevented to pursue our appeals against the real court orders. They were so poorly documented by the Registrar that we couldn’t act on them. Probably Intentional, who knows? So we end up in this bizarre Twilight Zone where we have victories looming, but we can’t proceed to claim them. The Court’s administrative wing decided to play arts and crafts with the order templates.
And here’s the kicker – this affects every single South African. I may be the loud one raising the issue, but make no mistake: if court orders can be quietly fiddled with behind the scenes, justice becomes not only delayed but entirely rewritten.
Yet here we are, told to wait until spring while the two state-linked institutions opposing our application essentially enjoy priority boarding. It’s like standing in the Home Affairs queue and watching someone cut to the front because they’re mates with the printer technician.
I’ve spent the better part of my adult life reminding this country that the Constitution isn’t a suggestion pamphlet. I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t pretend to be one (in fact, I’m delighted not to be one. Wink, wink). But I represent Liberty Fighters Network – a voluntary association that has helped countless people walk into courtrooms they were told they didn’t belong in. We’ve taken on banks, the state, and even entire legislative frameworks. We’ve been mocked, dismissed, and underestimated – usually in that order. All this without expecting anything in return and merely trying to make a living with ever-decreasing funds.
But we’re still standing. And we will keep standing, even if that means I have to sit in yet another court session where I get told that a public interest matter must wait its turn… behind those defending the “right” of the Registrar’s office to make it up as they go along.
So, to the public watching: this fight isn’t mine alone. It’s yours. Because if they can bend the rules for themselves and delay justice for people like us, what will they do when you ask for help?
My name is simply Reyno De Beer. I may not wear a robe, often reprimanded by judges for not wearing a jacket, or hold a title, but I carry the Constitution and my Christian belief in my back pocket – dog-eared, coffee-stained, but fiercely alive. And until the courts remember they serve the People, not the powerful, I’ll keep turning up, case after case, to remind them who the real boss is.
If you believe in our journey, and what we stand for, kindly consider making a voluntary donation — no matter how big or small. Every little bit helps. Maybe, just maybe, I’ll finally be able to fix my only transport (a 20-year-old car that decided two days ago it’s had enough of this revolution), and make a dent in our long-overdue rent and other running costs that keep us alive.
(See the “Donations” tab in the top menu bar — your support truly makes the fight possible.)
To be continued in October, apparently…
Kindly consider supporting our work by giving a donation of your choice.
Reyno, even though we have clashed in the past, I do respect what you are doing.
Its a funny thing that you mention Werksmans, as I have encountered a similar tactic being used by Discovery Medical Scheme. I too with by older brother and a friend of his went to see Werksmans in a case involving (Medical Emergency) in Oct 2018, where the Medical Scheme has ignored statutory law to which it had agreed when it registered as a medical scheme. The registrar approved them as a medical scheme under the MSA. In a consultation the Werksmans attorney we consulted agreed my case had merit. He told us to declare that we had been to Werksmans and to arnsure there was no Werksman attorney at the Dispute Resolution hearing to avoid any conflict of interest in our matter. In a long story cut short, it has taken me as a layman over six years to eventually advance the case to a Section 50 appeal after the Registrar had ignored statutory law and found against me in a number of approaches to resolve and used delaying tactics. I am awaiting the outcome 11 June 2025, where I challenged them in the aspect relating to public interest law. I had a precedent in case law as defence which was a landmark case. So, as you say they are quietly rewriting judges’ rulings.
I have too experienced the contempt of the registrar and Discovery attorneys, simply because I am an open scheme member. It looks like Discovery Lawyers are embedded at the CMS and write the findings for the scheme who copy and paste them as those of Committee findings. The lie of the CMS is astounding where they make a claim “Protecting the Interest of Medical Scheme Members”. This claim even appeared on a proforma invoice that was used so I could pay for the Section 50 Hearing.
I am not familiar with your pseudonym at all, but take note of your comment. It would be great if you could keep us informed about the progress in your case.