If you like our work, why not consider a donation or gift of your choice?
or make Quick donation… MobiPaid
Excerpt: Liberty Fighters Network exposes how the Minister of Basic Education planned a mandatory vaccination policy for public schoolchildren without evidence, without lawful authority, and without health expertise. Through the Minister’s own Rule 53 record in the High Court, LFN reveals that a DA-led ministry did exactly what it once accused the ANC of doing — forcing policy by decree, sidelining parents, and threatening children with exclusion from education to compel medical compliance. This is not public health. It is unconstitutional coercion.
When the DA does exactly what it accused the ANC of doing
For years, the Democratic Alliance (DA) built its political brand on a single promise: we are not the ANC.
We were told the DA stood for:
- constitutionalism over cadre deployment;
- evidence over ideology;
- accountability over executive arrogance.
Yet now, with DA deployees sitting in Cabinet — the Minister of Basic Education, alongside John Steenhuisen, Dion McPherson, and Leon Schreiber — the mask has slipped.
Because when real executive power arrived, the behaviour did not change.
Only the colour of the rosette did.
LFN now exposes, through the Minister’s own Rule 53 record, how criticism of the ANC turned out to be little more than opposition theatre, while the same constitutional violations quietly continued under a different logo.
The law requires reasons — not narratives
Under South African law, when a Minister takes a decision that affects fundamental rights, especially a child’s right to basic education, that decision must be supported by a proper administrative record.
That record must show:
- what information was considered,
- what alternatives were weighed,
- why objections were rejected, and
- how the decision is rationally connected to its stated purpose.
In this matter, LFN compelled the Minister to produce that record.
What was produced speaks volumes.
No health evidence. No expert advice. No justification.
Despite the seriousness of excluding children from public schools, the record contains:
- no health risk assessments;
- no medical or scientific reports;
- no advice from the Department of Health;
- no consultation with public‑health or paediatric experts;
- no evaluation of less restrictive alternatives.
In short, there is no evidence that mandatory vaccination was necessary, proportionate, or even effective.
Policy assertions replaced evidence.
That is unlawful.
NEDLAC is not a health authority
One of the most disturbing features of the record is the role played by NEDLAC, a socio‑economic consultative forum.
NEDLAC is:
- not a medical body;
- not a health regulator;
- not a scientific authority.
Yet the record shows that the mandatory vaccination narrative was driven almost entirely through the NEDLAC process, without parallel engagement with competent health institutions.
This is not consultation.
It is policy capture.
A Minister may consult broadly — but she may not outsource health judgment to non‑health bodies.
The public objected — and was ignored
The record openly admits that:
the majority of public comments were opposed to mandatory vaccination.
Parents raised objections based on:
- religion,
- conscience,
- parental responsibility,
- medical uncertainty, and
- the best interests of their children.
Yet the record contains no explanation as to why these objections were dismissed.
Acknowledging opposition is not enough.
The law requires reasons.
A condition not found in the law
Perhaps most alarming is this: no Act of Parliament authorises the Minister to require proof of vaccination as a condition for access to basic education.
The Schools Act does not say it.
The National Education Policy Act does not say it.
The Constitution certainly does not say it.
What the Minister has done is introduce a new compulsory requirement through policy, something the law simply does not permit.
That is the definition of acting ultra vires — beyond lawful power.
Public school children are treated differently — without reason
The record also fails to explain why:
- children in public schools are subjected to exclusion;
- while children in independent (private) schools are not.
If this is truly a health imperative, the distinction makes no sense.
If the distinction is about control rather than health, it becomes deeply troubling.
Unequal treatment without rational justification is unconstitutional.
Parents sidelined. Children weaponised.
Parents have a constitutional duty to act in the best interests of their children.
That includes making informed medical decisions.
The record shows no respect for this responsibility.
Instead, vaccination is enforced through coercion — by threatening exclusion from education.
This is not consent.
It is compulsion by deprivation.
Why LFN took this to court
LFN does oppose vaccination.
We oppose it precisely because, despite decades of repetition and political insistence, there is no credible, transparent, independently verifiable evidence demonstrating that compulsory vaccination is superior to other available remedies, preventative measures, or individualised medical decision‑making.
Opposing vaccination does not make one anti‑science. It makes one pro‑evidence.
It makes one pro‑choice, pro‑consent, and pro‑constitutionalism.
And when the state cannot prove necessity, proportionality, and superiority, it has no business forcing medical interventions on children — least of all by threatening them with exclusion from education.
This court case is therefore not merely about unlawful power. It is about medical authoritarianism disguised as policy.
Independent schools are quietly exempt — and that matters
The record further reveals a deeply uncomfortable truth.
The mandatory vaccination regime is aimed at ordinary public schools, while independent schools are left untouched.
This is not a trivial distinction.
Independent schools educate thousands of South African children. If vaccination were truly a public‑health emergency of the magnitude claimed, every learner would be treated the same.
Instead, the policy targets those who are most dependent on the state, while those with financial means or alternative schooling options are spared.
That is not health policy.
That is social engineering through administrative power.
The DA’s constitutional credibility problem
The uncomfortable truth is this:
When DA ministers are placed under the same constitutional microscope they once aimed at the ANC, the results are indistinguishable.
In this matter, and in a parallel Rule 53 review involving Minister Steenhuisen, the pattern is the same:
- Thin records;
- No expert evidence;
- No lawful authority;
- No appreciation of constitutional limits.
The Constitution does not recognise political branding.
It recognises conduct.
And conduct is now indicting the DA itself.
Power does not corrupt principles — it reveals whether they ever existed.
This article ends where accountability begins
If this article feels uncomfortable, it should.
Children are being used as leverage.
Parents are being sidelined.
The Constitution is being treated as an inconvenience.
LFN exists precisely for moments like this.
Not to please.
Not to posture.
But to confront unlawful power — whoever holds it.
Read the court papers. Share this article. Support LFN.
Because constitutional rights do not enforce themselves.
What happens next
The Minister will deliver her answering affidavit, followed by our replying affidavit. A special motion request will be submitted to the Judge President for the High Court to assess the Minister’s own record.
Not opinions.
Not rhetoric.
Her documents.
If the record is what it appears to be, the consequences are unavoidable.
Lawful government requires accountability.
LFN will see this through.
Stand with us. Share this. Support LFN.
Because when the state forgets its limits, the people must remind it.
If you like our work, why not consider a donation or gift of your choice?
or make Quick donation… MobiPaid
One response to “LFN Lifts the Curtain on the DA’s School Vaccination Scandal”
-
“The citation of indirect observations such as clinical conditions, apparent clusters of illness, antibody assays, genomics, proteomics and tests such as the polymerase chain reaction cannot stand as evidence of viruses because the claimant is starting within a loop of circular reasoning in which they have already assumed virus existence. None of these observations can possibly provide the required evidence to verify the virus model. The original sin involved the reification fallacy.” Dr MJ Bailey -Vorology’s Event Horizon
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.