The SA National Defence Union filed urgent High Court proceedings against the South African National Defence Force on Wednesday, 8 July, challenging the legality of a 21-day quarantine imposed on hundreds of soldiers returning from a United Nations deployment in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is the second time in recent months that Sandu has resorted to litigation to hold military leadership accountable for conditions affecting service members.
The quarantine applies to personnel who returned from Operation Mistral, which supported the UN’s MONUSCO mission in the DRC. Approximately 350 soldiers and support staff are currently confined at the De Brug mobilisation centre outside Bloemfontein, the first processing point before medical clearances and return-to-unit assignments. A further hundred personnel were expected to arrive by Friday, 10 July. The SANDF implemented the measure in response to Ebola outbreaks in both the DRC and Uganda, the latter serving as a transit country for returning troops.
Additional reference context is available at https://defenceweb.co.za/sa-defence-sa-defence/another-sandu-sandf-court-case-looms-with-quarantine-heading-concerns/.
Sandu’s National Secretary Pikkie Greeff has questioned the legal foundation for the confinement. The union’s position is that no World Health Organization international regulations, nor any South African domestic rules, mandate quarantine for individuals transiting between the three countries involved. Greeff stated that despite formally raising those concerns, the SANDF provided no substantive response to the union’s objections, prompting the decision to seek judicial intervention.
The legal challenge is not limited to the quarantine’s lawfulness. Sandu has documented what it characterizes as inadequate conditions at De Brug: insufficient hot water in ablution facilities, unreliable electricity, damaged equipment, and food rations that fall short in timeliness, quality, and nutritional value. The union’s court action seeks judicial oversight of both the quarantine’s legal basis and the material conditions imposed on confined personnel, arguing that those conditions must comply with South African law and respect the Constitutional rights and dignity of SANDF members.
By contrast, a similar action Sandu initiated did not reach court. That case concerned accommodation provided to SA Military Health Service personnel temporarily relocated to Fort Ikapa to support Operation Prosper, a joint military-police effort targeting gang violence in the Western Cape. The union raised concerns about draughty and leaky hangar conditions, but litigation was averted after alternate accommodation was secured.
The De Brug proceedings represent a sharper escalation. Greeff’s public statements make clear that Sandu seeks not merely to end the quarantine but to establish judicial clarity on whether the SANDF holds any legal authority to impose such measures under current law. That distinction matters: a court ruling on the underlying power, rather than a negotiated fix to conditions, would set a precedent governing how military operational decisions affecting personnel welfare and freedom of movement are scrutinized going forward.
The case will test whether the SANDF’s authority to confine service members for public health reasons rests on firm legal ground, and whether the constitutional protections that apply to other government actions extend equally into the operational decisions of the military.