In its application papers, Fita argued that the court erred in applying the rationality test that imposing the ban on tobacco products was rationally linked to the purpose of the gazetted regulations in terms of section 27 of the Disaster Management Act.According to the South African Drug Policy Initiative , the court’s basis of legal rationality is a “narrowly defined minimum threshold” for government’s decision-making.
“Before implementing any public health policies, the authorities are obliged to consider both the potential benefits versus the countervailing risks and costs of those policies. Fita’s medical experts pointed out that neither of these assessments was carried out and provided evidence to show how the harms and costs of the banning far outweighed any of its purported benefits.
But it was not for the court to decide whether the smoking policy was good or bad, but instead to apply the rationality test, said De Vos.