On 5 to 7 May 2026, the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria will hear asignificant case concerning the treatment of newborn infants who arerelinquished (safely handed over) through baby saver mechanisms, aprocess aimed at ensuring their protection and whether South African lawwrongly conflates this life preserving conduct with child abandonment,which is deemed an offence under the Children’s Act. Baby Savers South Africa NPO and Door of Hope Children’s Mission NPO(“the applicants”) instituted these proceedings and seek relief to excludeproviders of baby saver boxes from accomplice liability for the offence ofabandonment. The Centre for Human Rights (“CHR”), represented by Lawyers for HumanRights (“LHR”), appears in this matter as amicus curiae, or friend of thecourt.
In this role, CHR and LHR argue that the law must draw a clear distinctionbetween unsafe abandonment and the reliquishment (safe placement)of infants. To treat these acts as identical is not only irrational but alsopotentially produces harmful consequences.
“This case asks a fundamental question about the purpose of our law.Where a caregiver takes steps to ensure a child’s safety, the law shouldrecognise that act for what it is. Protecting life cannot be treated as acrime. If the law fails to draw that distinction, it risks punishing vulnerabilityinstead of protecting children,” - said Deborah Raduba from the Centrefor Human Rights.
Mechanisms that allow for the reliquishment (safe placement) of infantsare typically used in circumstances of crisis and desperation. In suchcontexts, access to a safe alternative may mean the difference betweenlife and death for a newborn child. Criminalising this conduct riskscreating a dangerous deterrent. Where caregivers fear arrest orprosecution, they may resort to unsafe options that put infants' lives indanger.
The matter also raises important gender equality concerns. Althoughlaws may appear neutral on paper, the burdens of pregnancy, childbirth,caregiving, and social stigma fall disproportionately on women amidcycles of poverty and violence.
In practice, it is overwhelmingly women who face the conditions andimpossible decisions that lead to the placement of infants, and who aremost likely to bear the weight of prosecution.
The case further engages the principle of fair labelling in criminal law,which requires that different forms of conduct not be inaccuratelygrouped under the same criminal label. CHR and LHR argue thatabandonment and reliquishment (safe placement) of infants are morallyand objectively distinct. One act endangers life, the other seeks topreserve it. Labelling both as abandonment attaches stigma and blame,where it may be wholly unjustified, with consequences for dignity and therisk of arbitrary detention of those incorrectly labelled.
These organisations emphasise that this case is not about endorsingchild abandonment. Unsafe abandonment remains a serious harm thatmust be prevented and addressed. The issue before the Court is whetherthe law can recognise the difference between conduct that places a childat risk and conduct aimed at securing rescue, care, and survival.
South Africa’s Constitution requires laws to be rational, fair, and consistentwith dignity and equality. Where legislation deters life-saving choices,disproportionately impacts vulnerable groups or mislabels protectiveconduct as criminal, it must be subjected to constitutional scrutiny!
The Centre for Human Rights and Lawyers for Human Rights call on the public, media, civil society organisations, and all those concerned with children’s rights and gender justice to follow the proceedings and raiseawareness!
For more information, please contact:
