proceedings without having to qualify as a party, an amicus has a special duty to the court. That duty is to provide cogent and helpful submissions that assist the court. The amicus must not repeat arguments already made but must raise new contentions; and generally these new contentions must be raised on the data already before the court. Ordinarily it is inappropriate for an amicus to try to introduce new contentions based on fresh evidence.” Justice Sachs in the case of Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v. Grootboom and Others 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC) noted the special merits brought by advocates who participated in the case as amici. “I might mention that we were helped at the hearing in a most considerable way by the participation of the Human Rights Commission and the Community Law Centre of the University of the Western Cape. Counsel for the Legal Resources Centre appeared on their behalf and succeeded in broadening the debate so as to require the Court to consider the right of all South Africans to shelter, whether they had children or not. The case showed the extent to which lawyers can help the poor to secure their basic rights”. As observed by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the case of Children’s Institute v. Presiding Officer of the Children’s Court, District of Krugersdorp and Others: Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012 defines “amicus curiae” as “a person who is not party to a suit, but has been allowed by the Court to appear as a friend of the Court.” Rule 54(1) vests the Court with the power to appoint amicus curiae in any proceedings, while sub-rule 2 sets out the criteria: “The Court shall before allowing an amicus curiae take into consideration the expertise, independence and impartiality of the person in question and it may take into account the public Interest, or any other relevant factor” In the High Court of South Africa Guateng Local Division Johannesburg Case No. 48226/12 in Re Bongani Nkala & 55 others and Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited & 31 others The case was premised on whether the applicant had satisfied the threshold requirements for admission as amicus curiae. In this application brought in terms of rule 16A(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court (“the Uniform Rules”), the Treatment Action Campaign NPC (“the TAC”) and Sonke Gender Justice NPC (“Sonke”) seek to be admitted as amici curiae(“amici”) in the application brought by Bongani Nkala and 55 others (“the class action applicants”) under consolidated case no. 48226/12 (“the main application”). In opposing this application, the amicus respondents seek to rely on two sets of allegations: first, that the TAC and Sonke have not satisfied the requirements for admission as amici; and second, that their admission would unnecessarily burden the court and the parties. The opposition of the amicus respondents is premised on a misunderstanding o>