In the Western Cape High Court, a Cape Town woman’s successful attempt to compel her husband into involuntary drug rehabilitation was invalidated due to his lack of legal representation, as ruled by Judge James Lekhuleni on Monday.
Also read: Global chocolate supply at risk as cacao disease spreads
According to News24, the woman had originally sought to have her husband committed for six months in a bid to address his excessive marijuana use, along with issues of excessive sleeping, irritability and an inability to perform household tasks or hold employment.
The judgement revealed that she applied to the magistrate’s court for this intervention, citing her husband’s chronic marijuana consumption, depression, and occasional psychotic episodes.
The woman, who described her husband as a qualified engineer with above-average intelligence, expressed her inability to manage both her responsibilities and her husband’s condition any longer. She hoped that the structured support of a rehabilitation facility would benefit him. However, past attempts at shorter voluntary treatment had ended with relapses or early departures.
In response, the husband argued that his marijuana use was a cost-effective alternative to medication and expressed a desire for supervised withdrawal in a controlled environment.
He expressed a preference to be committed for a duration not exceeding three weeks.
During the proceedings for his commitment, the magistrate inquired if he had any queries for the social worker who had presented her findings to the court. At this juncture, he voiced his concerns regarding the length of time he would be separated from his home.
Initially, he had waived his entitlement to legal representation. However, during the proceedings, he addressed the magistrate, expressing his unease with the intense legal interrogation. He requested a postponement until he could secure legal counsel, fearing that his lack of legal expertise might lead him to say something regrettable.
He added, ‘I have got experts, doctors who could testify to my condition and to my needs, and right now, I feel as if I am in danger of having myself incarcerated for six months or a longer period. And I did not realise that I would be putting myself in that kind of a danger when I came to court.’
The judgement revealed that he did not express a desire to represent himself.
Subsequently, a conversation ensued with the magistrate, during which he learned that the initial rehabilitation period would span a minimum of 42 days, which further unsettled him.
Despite his concerns, the magistrate proceeded to issue an order for his involuntary commitment to rehabilitation, treatment, and skills development for six months. This decision was based on the magistrate’s determination that he met the criteria outlined in the Prevention and Treatment of Drug Dependency Act, being deemed dependent on substances and posing a risk to his own welfare and that of his family.
The case underwent automatic review by the high court. In Judge Lekhuleni’s judgement, he highlighted Section 35(3) of the Act, which guaranteed the individual certain rights during the inquiry process.
These rights included entitlement to legal representation, the ability to cross-examine witnesses, the option to present evidence personally or through legal representation, and the opportunity to present reasons against the order being made.
Judge Lekhuleni emphasised the addict’s right to be heard and receive procedural fairness, asserting that intelligence and verbal proficiency should not preclude these rights from being upheld.
‘All the more so, when the issue raised in the hearing relates to the deprivation of personal liberty of a person,’ Lekhuleni added.
Judge Lekhuleni invalidated the order and directed that the process of involuntary commitment be restarted. Despite the magistrate’s thorough explanation of the rehabilitation duration, the court overlooked his plea for legal representation.
Additionally disregarded was his plea to present experts who could attest that he was not addicted to substances, but rather used them as a more affordable form of medication.
‘It must be stressed that the right to legal representation is ensconced in the Constitution and should not be lightly dispensed with by courts,’ he said.
Judge Constance Nziweni concurred with the decision.
To safeguard their privacy, the individuals involved were not identified in the judgement.
Also read:
Buzzing breakthrough: CT farmer’s flies are revolutionising pet food
Picture: Katrin Bolovtsova / Pexels