Does the idea of charging the govts from which so-called foreign nationals ran away from not pose serious legal and constitutional questions?

No shared understanding exists of the legal nexus between a foreign-born person who falls sick in SA and is compelled to approach a a hospital or clinic.

At the point of service delivery will be a sovereign patient and not his or former government yet the proposal has the effect of divesting and depriving the patient of his or her personhood.

It is trite that human dignity is a property vested with a person and not a grouping.

It is not clear how for instance the health bills of a grown up child can be collaterally be billed on parents without a legally binding agreement involving the parent concluded prior to the decision to render the service.

Whaf is striking is that the decision to leave and enter SA by Zimbabwean nationals is made and prosecuted at the individual level.

The goveenment or its actors of the foreign country are not fixed with any knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the border jumpers yet the proposed idea is premised on some kind of conspiracy.

There are people who have boldly asserted that President Mnangagwa must be held liable for the health costs incurred in a foreign state when it is not in dispute that Zimbabwe has no jurisdiction over the affairs of persons who may have been Zimbabwean prior to leaving Zimbabwe irrespective to the manner associated with the departure.

It would be absurd even in the Zimbabwean context, to justify a cause compelling a patient’s bills to be automatically assumed by the government of Zimbabwe.

Does a South African public office bearer have title and jurisdiction to make this kind of proposition that would create a nexus between the consequences of illegal or legal border human crossings and the reality of the SA heath care delivery system.

When reason fails, then any wild thought always takes the form of a better and progressive form.