Legislation

LFN Goes to Court: The Battle Over Your Personal Information Has Begun

LFN has officially taken South Africa’s identity-data battle to the High Court in Cape Town. What began as scrutiny of the proposed Digital ID system has now exposed a much deeper constitutional question: on what lawful terms may the State allow banks, insurers, public bodies and other institutions to access or verify information from the National Population Register? LFN is challenging the legal framework, the current regulations and the way systematic real-time and batch verification may be implemented, while calling for the full Rule 53 record to reveal how access to our personal information is actually authorised and controlled. The case also places the actions of DA Minister of Home Affairs Dr Leon Schreiber under direct judicial scrutiny, following the 2025 amendment to the verification-fee regime and the later 2026 Digital ID proposals. The full article explains why this case may reach far beyond Digital IDs — and why every South African should be paying attention.

An Unfinished Brief: LFN Renews the Abortion-Law Challenge in Memory of Judge Eberhard Bertelsmann

Before becoming a judge, Eberhard Bertelsmann SC stood as senior counsel in the 1998 constitutional challenge to South Africa’s abortion law. Almost three decades later, while terminally ill, he joined LFN in rethinking how that unfinished constitutional battle could return to court upon a stronger evidential and legal foundation. Following his passing, LFN reaffirms its commitment to pursue that challenge — and will dedicate it to the memory of the man who spent his final months helping us prepare to ask the questions he believed South African law had never fully answered.

LFN TAKES BABOON BATTLE TO CONSTITUTIONAL COURT: “WE HAVE RUN OUT OF ROAD WHILE THE AUTHORITIES KEEP MOVING”

LFN has taken the Cape Peninsula baboon battle to the Constitutional Court after months of urgent litigation failed to secure effective protection against potentially irreversible sanctuary relocation. The breaking point came when all three pending High Court leave-to-appeal applications were set down for 18 September 2026 on extremely short notice, only for the hearing to be postponed into the fourth term because final typed judgments and professional transcripts were still unavailable, while no corresponding protection was put in place to preserve the baboons’ free-ranging status. With the authorities still able to move ahead while the appeals remain unresolved, LFN says it has “run out of road while the authorities keep moving”, and has now launched two urgent Constitutional Court applications seeking direct appellate relief and temporary protection to prevent the baboons from being irreversibly captured, removed and permanently confined before the constitutional and legality disputes are finally decided.

How the Baboons Exposed the DA — and Put South Africa’s Legal Fraternity Under the Microscope

What began as a fight to protect Cape Peninsula baboons has exposed something far bigger: a constitutional environmental watchdog left vacant for decades, DA-led government structures pressing ahead with irreversible measures, a court case trapped in procedural battles, allegations of ‘litigant profiling’, punitive costs, and judicial conduct now before the JSC. The baboons did not create these problems — they merely led LFN far enough into the system to expose them.

LFN Exposes the Fine Print: South Africa’s Affidavits Are Heading into the Digital Unknown

LFN has formally objected to South Africa’s proposed new oath and affirmation regulations — and what appears at first to be a routine legal update could fundamentally change the reliability of sworn evidence. Remote commissioning, pre-signed affidavits, typed names treated as signatures, undefined electronic platforms and inadequate identity safeguards are only some of the concerns. As South Africa moves deeper into the age of digital identity, LFN asks the question nobody should ignore: if the commissioner and deponent no longer need to be in the same room, how do we prove who actually swore to what?

Scroll to Top