Calls from opposition for Godongwana to quit out of kilter with coalition politics
The National Assembly on Wednesday afternoon considered a Fiscal Framework and Revenue Proposals that will underpin the 2025 budget for a second time, after Godongwana was forced to withdraw the last version in April, following political pressure both within and out of the Government of National Unity (GNU), and a subsequent court challenge.
On Tuesday, the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party lost a vote in the house calling for the Finance Minister to be censured over what it argued was the mismanagement of the budget process.
Tabling the committee's report on the latest fiscal framework on Wednesday afternoon, Maswanganyi said drawing up a budget that considers the competing interests of all partners in a coalition government is a complicated process.
"The budget adoption process within a coalition government can be quite complex due to the multitude of interests involved. Coalition partners often bring diverse priorities, ideologies and agendas to the table, which can complicate consensus-building efforts. Many countries, such as those in the Benelux region, the Nordic nations and Germany, encounter similar challenges under coalition governance."
In response to public objections to the adjustment in the fuel levy to fund the R2.3 trillion budget, Maswanganyi said the committee will put pressure on finalising a review of the country's fuel price structure.
The committee noted the stakeholders' rejection of this proposal, mostly citing its impact on the business sector, poor people and low- and middle-income households who spend the bulk of their earnings on food and transportation.
ALSO READ: EFF hellbent on having fuel levy hike scrapped, despite losing legal bid
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
13 hours ago
- The Citizen
What do you think of Malema's Bill to nationalise the Reserve Bank?
If the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill is passed in parliament, there will be no more checks and balances. Parliament wants to know what you think of Julius Malema's Bill aimed at nationalising the South African Reserve Bank. Malema tabled the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill in parliament in 2018 and published for comment at the end of May 2018. However, it lapsed at the end of the fifth parliament, but the National Assembly revived it in October 2019. According to Cabinet, the Bill also lapsed at the end of the sixth parliament but was revived by the National Assembly in July 2024. In September last year, the standing committee on finance resolved to open the Bill to another round of public comment. The South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill seeks to establish the state as the sole shareholder of the Reserve Bank's shares, while the minister of finance will exercise the rights attached to the shares in the bank the state owns. ALSO READ: The ANC's war about nationalising the Reserve Bank is pointless Aims of the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill The South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill also aims to amend the South African Reserve Bank Act to: delete certain definitions; insert a definition; provide for the minister to appoint certain board directors; provide for the tenure of appointed directors; deal with the filling of casual vacancies for appointed directors; repeal certain sections of the Act; give the minister the power to appoint auditors of the Reserve Bank; give the minister the power to make regulations regarding the appointment of appointed directors; and provide for related matters. ALSO READ: Why the Reserve Bank should not be nationalised Free SA already had its say The organisation Free SA already made a formal submission to parliament, expressing its strong opposition to the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill, warning that the proposed nationalisation of the central bank threatens the country's economic stability, institutional independence and international credibility. While the Amendment Bill does not alter the Reserve Bank's constitutional mandate to protect the value of the rand, Free SA cautions that it will undermine the very independence that makes this mandate effective. 'An independent central bank is the cornerstone of any credible economic system. Handing full control of the Reserve Bank to political authorities opens the door to fiscal dominance, inflationary pressure and potentially disastrous economic mismanagement,' Reuben Coetzer, spokesperson of Free SA, says. He points out that Free SA's submission details the economic, legal, institutional and reputational risks of centralising the Reserve Bank's governance in the executive. Drawing on examples from Zimbabwe and Venezuela, he says the submission illustrates how loss of central bank independence historically led to hyperinflation, currency collapse and widespread poverty. ALSO READ: The slow nationalisation of the South African Reserve Bank Specific dangers in South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill The submission highlights these specific dangers in the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill: Inflation risk: politicised monetary policy could lead to the Reserve Bank financing government deficits, weakening the rand and driving up inflation; Governance concerns: transferring all shareholder powers to the minister of finance eliminates external oversight and invites politicisation of appointments; Legal ambiguity: while technically constitutional, the Bill may undermine the spirit of section 224 of the Constitution, which demands independence 'without fear, favour or prejudice'; Investor flight: market confidence in South Africa's monetary policy regime could erode, resulting in capital outflows and higher borrowing costs. 'Symbolic ownership should not come at the cost of real economic harm. The Reserve Bank is one of South Africa's most respected institutions. Undermining its independence, whether deliberately or by accident, will hurt ordinary South Africans most, especially the poor who suffer first and worst from inflation.' Coetzer says Free SA calls on all members of parliament to reject the Amendment Bill and to uphold the constitutional and economic safeguards that protect South Africa's monetary integrity. 'Reform should focus on strengthening accountability and transparency within the Reserve Bank, not eroding the institutional checks that preserved macroeconomic stability through some of the country's most turbulent years.'
IOL News
16 hours ago
- IOL News
Labour Party declares war on Ramaphosa's National Dialogue
THE Labour Party of South Africa has launched a blistering legal and political offensive against President Cyril Ramaphosa's controversial National Dialogue, branding it an unconstitutional, fiscally reckless, and elitist manoeuvre designed to sideline Parliament and the working class. Image: Ron AI THE Labour Party of South Africa has launched a blistering legal and political offensive against President Cyril Ramaphosa's controversial National Dialogue, branding it an unconstitutional, fiscally reckless, and elitist manoeuvre designed to sideline Parliament and the working class. The Party's urgent High Court application, filed on June 18, seeks to interdict the process, citing its estimated R700 million to R800m cost as 'unjustifiable' amid South Africa's deepening crises. Announced by Ramaphosa on June 10, the National Dialogue proposes a two-phase convention — first in August to 'set the agenda', followed by a 2026 summit — to address national challenges. But the Labour Party argues it is a redundant, unlawful parallel to Parliament and institutions such as the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac). 'South Africa doesn't need another elite summit behind closed doors,' said acting Secretary-General Lindi Mkhumbane. 'We already have Parliament, Nedlac, and civil society platforms. What we don't have is political will from the ruling elite to act on the people's demands.' The court papers demand:- A declaratory order that the Dialogue is unconstitutional and irrational.- An interdict blocking public funds for the process, including payments to the appointed 'Eminent Persons Group'.- A review of all executive decisions initiating the Dialogue. The case has escalated into a showdown between the Labour Party and a coalition of high-profile civil society groups aligned with the state. On June 30 the Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, the Strategic Dialogue Group, and the Thabo Mbeki, Steve Biko, and Albert Luthuli Foundations filed to intervene, defending the Dialogue. 'These are not bystanders. These are political actors with deep ties to the post-apartheid ruling class,' fumed interim Labour Party President Joseph Mathunjwa. 'Their role isn't to unite the nation, it's to preserve an elite consensus forged behind closed doors.' The Foundations submitted answering affidavits before being granted leave to intervene, a move Mathunjwa described as 'arrogance, plain and simple'. He accused them of betraying their legacies: 'The same communities (these leaders) stood for are ravaged by gender-based violence (GBV), unemployment, and poverty. Now these elites want a 'dialogue' instead of action.' The Labour Party claims that the dialogue is a smokescreen for IMF-driven austerity, including Eskom's privatisation and neoliberal reforms. 'This is a rubber stamp for IMF instructions, nothing more,' Mathunjwa said. 'If Parliament is functional, why create a new platform? This isn't inclusion, it's circumvention.' The state's late filing of answering papers — missed deadlines and procedural delays — has further fueled suspicions. 'They missed the deadline, and now they're bringing in reinforcements to stall,' Mathunjwa said. The case, initially set for July 1, was postponed to July 4. At its core, the Labour Party's challenge questions whether South Africa's democracy can withstand executive overreach and elite capture. 'The President cannot wake up and decide to allocate R800m without parliamentary scrutiny,' Mkhumbane argued. 'This is executive overreach masquerading as participation.' With the hearing imminent, the Labour Party has called for public support, urging South Africans to reject what it described as a 'PR stunt' while the country burns. 'Rape, violence, and poverty don't need a dialogue, they need action,' Mathunjwa said. 'We're ready to meet them in court.'
Daily Maverick
16 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
DA lays criminal charges against Nkabane over ‘lies' to Parliament in Seta scandal
The Democratic Alliance has laid criminal charges against Higher Education and Training Minister Dr Nobuhle Nkabane after she misled the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education over the appointments of the chairperson of the Seta boards and regarding her independent panel. Higher Education and Training Minister Nobuhle Nkabane has been under fire for appointing ANC politicians as chairs of 21 Sector Education and Training Authority (Seta) boards, which were withdrawn after cries of corruption, and for misleading Parliament about the process of appointing the chairpersons. She claimed an independent panel led by Advocate Terry Motau advised her to make the appointments — yet Motau denies chairing it, and most of the other panellists were from her department. This has now led to the Chairperson of the Federal Council of the DA, Helen Zille; DA Deputy Chief Whip, Baxolile Nodada MP; and DA National Spokesperson and member of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education, Karabo Khakhau MP, opening a criminal case against Nkabane for misleading Parliament over these issues. The DA opened the case at Cape Town Central Police Station on Tuesday morning, 1 July 2025, before Nkabane's budget speech at the National Council of Provinces later. The DA made it clear that it wanted Nkabane to account for 'lying' in Parliament over her conduct involving the Setas and the independent panel. The charges include fraud and statutory offence under section 26 of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislature Act 4 of 2004. Section 26 of the act states that members guilty of contempt (e.g. lying to Parliament, non-compliance with procedures) face sanction — including fines, suspension, removal from positions, or referral to the National Prosecuting Authority. 'This was a blatant lie to Parliament and a misleading of Parliament. Now that has been held in the past to be fraud, and fraud and lying to Parliament are two criminal contraventions. They are criminal contraventions; they are not just indiscretions or lack of consideration or perhaps disrespect, as some people believe has been shown to President (Cyril) Ramaphosa by our colleague Andrew Whitfield. What has been done by Minister Nkabane is fraud and misleading Parliament, both of which are criminal contraventions. We obviously can't let that go,' said Zille. Zille laid out that ministers had been removed from Parliament for lying to it, including Dr Connie Mulder who resigned from Parliament in January 1979 after being at the centre of the 'Muldergate' or Information Scandal. Another minister who was referenced is Tony Yengeni, who resigned from Parliament after receiving a four-year sentence for defrauding it. 'Even under Thabo Mbeki and others, lying to Parliament was not tolerated, and it should not be tolerated now,' added Zille. Last week, Ramaphosa dismissed Andrew Whitfield from his position as Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry on Wednesday, 25 June. Whitfield's removal, it later emerged, was apparently due to an 'unauthorised' trip he took to the US for the DA in February this year, Victoria O'Regan reported. Opposing the budget vote The DA has now intensified the call to also remove Nkabane for her conduct. Khakhau, who laid the charges and revealed that ANC politicians had been appointed as chairpersons of the Setas, said that if Ramaphosa did not want to act against corruption within his own Cabinet, the DA would do what it must to make sure that people were brought to book. 'The National Student Financial Aid Scheme is still a mess, student accommodation is still a mess, allowances are still a mess… And therefore, she also hasn't dealt with defunded students. We have a 100% firm view as the DA that not only does she deserve to be charged, but she also does not deserve the power and the delegation to use the state's money, and that is why we will not be voting in favour of her budget,' said Khakhau. 'While the ethics committee and the Public Protector can find her guilty, the police must jail her. That's why we're here.' During a press conference on 28 June 2025, DA leader John Steenhuisen said the DA would oppose the budget votes of 'corruption-accused ANC ministers' — including Human Settlements Minister Thembi Simelane and Nkabane. Nkabane is set to table her department's budget vote speech today at Parliament and again on Thursday. Zille told the media outside the police station that the DA remained firm that they would oppose the budget votes. 'We will oppose her budget vote. When we used to be in opposition, we used to often oppose budget votes to express our grave dissatisfaction with the performance of the minister. Just because we are now in the Government of National Unity does not imply that we must accept this kind of blatant infringement of the law… We are going to be there in Parliament explaining what an outrageous defiance of the law the minister has put up here and why, under those circumstances, it is impossible for us to support her budget vote,' said Zille. Other cases the DA has filed against Nkabane include a supplementary ethics complaint against her after it learnt that Motau had written to Nkabane claiming he had nothing to do with the Seta appointments process. The DA also reported Nkabane to the Public Protector for investigation into the serious breach of the Executive Members' Ethics Code over numerous counts of misleading Parliament.
