IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

8 In what follows, we address the following topics in turn: 8.1 First, we begin by outlining the material facts and legal principles which are common cause; 8.2 Second, we outline the relevant factual and legal background to the Minister’s decision, charting the history of the ZEP programme and the contradictory stance now adopted by the Minister and the Department of Home Affairs (Department); 8.. [...] 60 The decision that falls to be reviewed and set aside is the decision as communicated to ZEP-holders and the public by the Minister: 60.1 The Minister has decided to terminate the ZEP programme and refuses to exercise his powers under section 31(2)(b) of the Immigration Act to establish any exemption regime in its place. [...] 78 The measures put in place by the DHA to deal with the backlogs and delays standing in the way of the ZEP-holders are only known to the respondents. [...] 93.3 Third, throughout the Minister and Deputy-General’s answering affidavit, there is a notable disdain for the value of public participation.101 Indeed, it is presumed that ZEP holders are capable only of making representations on why the Minister’s decision should not apply to them personally, and not on the merits of the decision itself, while the views of civil society and the public are deem. [...] 99 Rationality demands that the decision itself and the process by which it was taken must be rational.104 In Simelane, the Constitutional Court emphasised: “[W]e must look at the process as a whole and determine whether the steps in the process were rationally related to the end sought to be achieved and, if not, whether the absence of a connection between a particular step (part of the means) is.