The VAT betrayal: How South Africa's political charlatans sold out the people
Image: Tumi Pakkies/ Independent Newspapers
WHEN the African National Congress (ANC) announced plans to increase Value-Added Tax (VAT) in 2025, it struck a dagger into the heart of every struggling South African. VAT — a tax that punishes the poor for simply surviving — was once again being weaponised to protect the rich and punish the working class.
Today, the so-called "leaders" of South Africa's political parties stand exposed, naked before the nation, stripped of their empty rhetoric and false promises. The VAT saga has laid bare their treachery, their hypocrisy, and their unforgivable betrayal of the very people they swore to serve.
The Real Impact of VAT on the Poor
Let's be clear: VAT is not just another tax. It is a tax on survival. When government raises VAT, it increases the price of bread, milk, school shoes, and bus fare — essentials that millions of South Africans already struggle to afford. VAT doesn't ask if you are rich or poor. It strikes hardest at the empty pockets of the working class, pensioners, and the unemployed.
In a country where over 18 million people depend on social grants, unemployment has soared to over 32%, more than 55% of citizens live below the poverty line, a VAT increase is economic violence. And yet, knowing all this, the ANC still proposed a VAT increase of up to 3% in internal discussions — a brutal attack on the most vulnerable.
Only a massive public outcry and the ANC's weakened position in Parliament — thanks largely to the rise of the MK Party — forced them to reduce the immediate increase to 0.5%.
If Not for MK, VAT Would Have Increased Without a Fight
Had the ANC still held its old majority, the VAT increase would have sailed through Parliament unchallenged. Let the nation remember this: It was the entry of the MK Party into Parliament that weakened the ANC's iron grip.
It was the voice of the masses, echoed by MK MPs, that forced this government to at least slow down its assault on the poor.But even then, the betrayal was only beginning.
The Fiscal Framework Farce
When the Fiscal Framework, the blueprint for government spending, including the VAT increase, came before Parliament, the ANC desperately needed allies.
They found them among parties that had loudly campaigned against the ANC, sworn never to work with the ANC, and claimed to stand for the people.
Yet when the moment of truth arrived, ActionSA, BOSA (Build One South Africa), Rise Mzansi, Gayton Mackenzie's Patriotic Alliance, and others stood not with the people. but with the ANC.
In a narrow vote, the Fiscal Framework was adopted, giving life to the VAT increase. These so-called opposition parties handed the ANC a knife and pointed it at the neck of the poor.
ActionSA, a party that had thundered against ANC corruption and mismanagement, voted for the ANC's Fiscal Framework.
BOSA, led by the so-called "new hope" Mmusi Maimane, voted with the ANC.
Rise Mzansi, the party that brands itself as the future, voted for a future with higher VAT and deeper poverty. Gayton Mackenzie, who styles himself as a man of the people, handed the ANC the majority it needed.
The Great Lie: "The Fiscal Framework Had Nothing to Do with VAT"
When caught, these parties scrambled to spin a narrative so ridiculous it insults the intelligence of every South African. They claimed: "We voted for the Fiscal Framework, but it had nothing to do with VAT.
"Lies. Blatant, shameless lies. The Fiscal Framework explicitly includes the assumptions and parameters for government revenue — including the VAT increase.
It is the foundational document that dictates taxes, spending, and borrowing. Without the Fiscal Framework being adopted, the VAT increase had no legislative path forward.
Today, the Western Cape High Court confirmed what any honest politician already knew: The Fiscal Framework contained the VAT increase. The court set aside the adoption of the Framework and suspended the VAT hike, exposing the lies told to the people. The spin has failed. The betrayal stands naked before us.
The Reality Voters Must Never Forget
South Africans must remember this treachery. Remember that these parties made public pledges and broke them when it mattered most. Remember that in the corridors of Parliament, when faced with a choice between standing with the people or kneeling before the ANC, they chose to kneel.
They are not opposition parties. They are political charlatans. They are the ANC's convenient enablers, eager for scraps from the table of power.
The tragedy of South Africa is not just a corrupt ruling party. It is an entire political class — old and new — that talks revolution during elections but practices betrayal in Parliament.
A Systemic Betrayal
This is not a once-off event. It is a symptom of a deeper sickness: A political elite more interested in self-preservation than public service.
A culture of spin doctors, legal loopholes, and manufactured consent. An economy managed for the rich, subsidised by the poor.
And VAT is just the beginning. Behind every act of betrayal today lurks the threat of more taxes on the working class, more protection for monopolies and billionaires, and more lies dressed up as governance.
MK Party: A Different Road
In this sea of betrayal, the MK Party has stood firm. From the outset, MK MPs opposed the Fiscal Framework, exposed the hidden VAT increase, and demanded that the burden of fixing the economy be placed where it belongs: on the backs of the wealthy, not the poor.
Tax the billionaires. Tax the monopolies. Nationalise key industries. Use the wealth of the country for its people, not for its elite.
That is the road to freedom. Not endless VAT hikes. Not squeezing pensioners and single mothers to please global markets and local oligarchs.
The Final Verdict: Voters Must Choose
South Africa is at a crossroads. The mask has slipped. The lies have been exposed. In the next election — and every election to come — South Africans must remember who voted for higher VAT.
They must remember who lied to them. And they must punish every political party and every political opportunist who chose betrayal over bravery. Never again must we vote for cowards in nice suits.
Never again must we trust smooth talkers who sell us out behind closed doors. Never again must we allow political charlatans to dictate the destiny of our children. The VAT saga is a warning. Let us heed it.
DAILY NEWS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
US to punish top ANC officials over foreign policy, graft allegations
President Cyril Ramaphosa Former South African ambassador to US, Ebrahim Rasool. ANC first deputy secretary general Nomvula Mokonyane. South Africa's relationship with the United States is on a diplomatic knife-edge, as the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee push forward a bill that could see senior African National Congress (ANC) leaders hit with sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes. The proposed U.S. – South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 calls for a sweeping 120-day probe into Pretoria's foreign policy stance, targeting individuals accused of corruption or of acting against American interests. The looming sanctions have intensified diplomatic tensions, placing several senior ANC figures squarely in the crosshairs. President Cyril Ramaphosa, ANC National Chairperson Gwede Mantashe, former International Relations Minister Dr. Naledi Pandor, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General Nomvula Mokonyane, and former U.S. Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool have all been flagged as potential targets of the proposed U.S. action. The bill's advancement has triggered a political storm in Pretoria, with ANC leaders condemning it as an affront to South Africa's sovereignty and its right to pursue an independent foreign policy. Although the U.S. legislation stops short of naming individuals, growing pressure is falling squarely on President Ramaphosa and his cabinet, whose diplomatic choices have increasingly drawn fire from U.S. lawmakers. At the heart of the growing rift is South Africa's vocal and consistent defence of Palestine. Pretoria has become one of the strongest international voices condemning Israel's war on Palestinians, and this has not gone unnoticed in Washington. The South African government's move to initiate a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza was seen as a deliberate shift away from its previously neutral stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Alongside this, Pretoria's growing alignment with Russia, China, and Iran has further strained its relationship with the U.S., who view these ties as contradictory to American geopolitical interests. President Ramaphosa, who has steered South Africa's foreign policy in this direction, faces intense scrutiny. His administration's engagement with Russia and its stance on the Middle East has drawn sharp rebuke from U.S. lawmakers, who have accused South Africa of aligning with authoritarian regimes and undermining democratic values. U.S. diplomats have expressed frustration over Ramaphosa's outspoken criticism of U.S. policy, particularly on issues such as Israel and the war in Gaza. In June, IOL reported that President Ramaphosa released a cautious statement calling for dialogue and a peaceful resolution to rising geopolitical tensions. His remarks highlighted South Africa's sensitive diplomatic position, balancing its longstanding relationship with Iran and its vocal criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. 'President Cyril Ramaphosa and the South African government have noted with a great deal of anxiety the entry by the United States of America into the Israel-Iran war," the statement read. 'It was South Africa's sincerest hope that President Donald Trump would use his influence and that of the US government to prevail on the parties to pursue a dialogue path in resolving their issues of dispute. 'South Africa calls on the United States, Israel, and Iran to give the United Nations the opportunity and space to lead on the peaceful resolution of the matters of dispute, including the inspection and verification of Iran's status of uranium enrichment, as well as its broader nuclear capacity,' the statement reads. Gwede Mantashe, serving as both ANC National Chairperson and Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, is among those who could come under scrutiny. He was named in the Zondo Commission report, which linked him to alleged corrupt dealings with the now-defunct facilities company Bosasa. The report detailed claims that Mantashe received illicit security upgrades at his properties, allegations he has consistently denied, but which continue to cast a shadow over his political standing. Nomvula Mokonyane, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General and former Minister of Environmental Affairs, also appears to be in Washington's sights. Her alleged involvement in the Bosasa corruption scandal remains a point of concern, but it is her recent proposal to rename Sandton Drive, where the U.S. Consulate is located, to 'Leila Khaled Drive' that has drawn international attention. Khaled, a Palestinian militant associated with plane hijackings and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group designated as a terrorist organisation by the U.S., has made Mokonyane's comments especially controversial, sparking widespread outrage and potentially deepening the diplomatic rift. Then there is Dr. Naledi Pandor, South Africa's former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, who has emerged as a central figure in the foreign policy debate. Her vocal defence of South Africa's position on Israel, along with continued diplomatic engagement with Iran and Hamas, has made her a lightning rod for criticism. U.S. lawmakers have accused Pandor of steering South Africa toward increasingly adversarial alliances, arguing that her actions are undermining the country's longstanding relationship with the West. Ibrahim Rasool, former South African Ambassador to the United States, has also come under scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers. Known for his outspoken criticism of U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding the Middle East and Israel, Rasool has often been at odds with American diplomats. His influential role in shaping the ANC's foreign policy during the Obama administration is now being reexamined amid Washington's broader review of its diplomatic relationship with South Africa. The ANC's response has been one of defiance, with ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula condemning the bill as an 'attack on our sovereignty.' Mbalula has warned that the proposed sanctions are part of a broader U.S. effort to undermine South Africa's political independence and foreign policy decisions. "There is no justification for sanctions against our leaders simply for standing up for what we believe is right, especially on the issue of Palestine," Mbalula said in a statement. While the US sanctions bill may pass into law, it is far from certain that the Trump administration will take immediate action. Joel Pollak, a former senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, suggested that the sanctions would likely be targeted at individuals deemed to be responsible for actions that go against U.S. interests. 'The Magnitsky Act is about holding people accountable for undermining democracy and supporting corrupt practices. This is not an attempt to punish South Africa, but to target those who undermine key democratic norms,' Pollak said. As the U.S. Congress moves closer to passing the bill, South Africa faces a crossroads in its relationship with the United States. Should the sanctions go ahead, it will signal a significant shift in South Africa's international standing, particularly with the U.S., and potentially mark the beginning of a new phase in its foreign policy, where its support for Palestine and criticism of Western powers takes centre stage. The Star [email protected]
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Under Watch: Pakistan's Journalists Struggle to Stay Afloat in a Sinking Democracy
While the South African media still enjoys constitutional protections and a relatively free press environment, Pakistan's journalists are battling to breathe amid a tightening noose drawn by military and intelligence institutions. Image: Supplied As South Africa continues its journey of democratic consolidation and media transformation, the situation in Pakistan serves as a chilling reminder of how press freedom can be slowly strangled under the guise of regulation and national security. While the South African media still enjoys constitutional protections and a relatively free press environment, Pakistan's journalists are battling to breathe amid a tightening noose drawn by military and intelligence institutions. A recent report titled ''Intimidation on All Fronts: Press Freedom and Media Safety in Pakistan'', released ahead of World Press Freedom Day 2025, paints a grim picture. Journalists in Pakistan face a growing array of threats: surveillance, legal intimidation, censorship, financial pressure, and in some cases, violent attacks. Despite constitutional guarantees, the freedom to report independently has become a high-risk act. Pakistan's history of media repression is not new. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ From the military regimes of Ayub Khan and Zia-ul-Haq to the more modern, media-savvy control strategies under Pervez Musharraf, the trend has remained the same — muzzle dissent and protect power. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, formed in 2002, was meant to regulate broadcast media. But over time, it has morphed into a weapon used to punish outlets and journalists who challenge the state narrative. Recent developments have added digital spaces to the list of controlled domains. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, initially aimed at curbing cybercrime, has often been misused to target online journalists and civil society voices. Amendments passed this year have broadened the state's powers even further, allowing for arrests and censorship under vague definitions of 'offensive content.' During the 2024 general elections, media access was deliberately restricted. Entire regions, including the capital Islamabad, faced mobile and internet shutdowns, severely hampering election coverage. The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, then under the command of a retired general, enforced these blackouts on instructions from the Ministry of Interior. The timing raised serious concerns about transparency and the integrity of the electoral process. One of the most alarming proposals is the creation of the Pakistan Media Development Authority. Critics argue that it would function more as a state enforcer than a media watchdog, with powers to shut down outlets and prosecute journalists in special tribunals. Such bodies, in a democracy, would be unthinkable. But in Pakistan, they are becoming tools to silence critical reporting under a veil of legality. Economic pressure also plays a part. The government controls a large portion of advertising revenue, and this leverage is used to reward compliant media houses and starve those that refuse to toe the line. Newspapers like *Dawn* and *Daily Sahafat*, which have maintained editorial independence, have faced sharp revenue cuts, while pro-government platforms remain well-funded. But the financial and legal constraints pale in comparison to the physical dangers. Journalists are being harassed, abducted, or worse. In 2024 alone, seven journalists were killed. These included well-known names like Khalil Jibran and Saad Ahmed, whose deaths have not led to meaningful investigations or justice. The case of Arshad Sharif, shot dead in Kenya after fleeing threats in Pakistan, remains a haunting symbol of the lengths to which journalists must go to avoid repression, only to meet violence abroad. Women in the industry are also increasingly targeted. Javeria Siddique, the widow of Arshad Sharif and a journalist in her own right, has faced ongoing harassment both online and off. Such stories are no longer isolated incidents—they reflect a pattern. The Pakistan Press Foundation documented 34 cases of physical assaults, digital threats, or kidnapping in just the first half of 2025. Dozens of journalists have either been arrested or forced into exile. Even prominent figures like Imran Riaz Khan have been repeatedly detained for challenging state institutions, with little or no legal recourse. As South Africans, we should not look away. The experiences of Pakistani journalists should remind us that the freedom to write, question, and investigate must never be taken for granted. When military or political elites control narratives, societies lose not only their access to truth but also the accountability that keeps democracies a time where disinformation is rampant and authoritarian tactics are spreading across borders, the struggle of Pakistani journalists must be seen for what it is — a frontline battle for democracy. South Africa, with its hard-won media freedoms, must stand in solidarity with those who risk everything for the simple act of telling the truth.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
South African Lens: Pakistan's Divorce Laws Leave Women in Financial Limbo
As it stands, Pakistan follows a model where property remains separate unless jointly titled—regardless of a woman's unpaid contributions to the household or her support for her husband's career. This issue has been spotlighted in Pakistan's courts. Image: Supplied In many societies, divorce is not just a personal rupture but a financial reckoning — especially for women. This is starkly true in Pakistan, where the legal system fails to recognise a woman's right to marital property, often leaving divorced wives with little more than the clothes on their backs. For South Africans watching global gender justice trends, Pakistan's legal landscape raises urgent questions about how tradition, law and social norms can entrench inequality in the private sphere. Despite Islam's emphasis on justice and the protection of the vulnerable, Pakistani women who exit a marriage often do so without any claim to assets acquired during the relationship. This is because Pakistan does not currently have legislation that guarantees women a share in property accumulated while married. As it stands, the country follows a model where property remains separate unless jointly titled, regardless of a woman's unpaid contributions to the household or her support for her husband's career. This issue has been spotlighted in Pakistan's courts. The Lahore High Court recently instructed the federal government to consult on a proposed amendment to the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance of 1961. The amendment, initially brought forward by Senator Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, introduces terms such as 'matrimonial asset' and seeks to give women fairer recognition of their contributions. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The court's intervention may become a turning point, as public discourse grows around the injustice of women leaving long marriages with nothing, despite having raised children, run households and sacrificed careers. To understand the impact, it helps to look beyond Pakistan's borders. Countries such as Turkey, Malaysia and Morocco — Muslim-majority states like Pakistan—have adopted laws that balance Islamic principles with modern family realities. In Turkey, marital assets are presumed to be jointly owned unless otherwise agreed. Malaysia takes both financial and non-financial contributions into account when dividing property. Morocco's Family Code permits couples to decide beforehand how to share property, with the law recognising joint management during the marriage. These countries demonstrate that religious values and women's rights need not be in conflict. Legal frameworks can uphold the dignity and equality of both spouses, particularly when marriages dissolve. Currently, Pakistan's system mirrors what legal scholars call a pure separate property regime. Under this model, property belongs only to the person who earned or acquired it. There is no assumption that marriage creates an economic partnership, and courts generally require strict proof of ownership. This often disadvantages women who have worked in the home or made indirect contributions, as they lack titles or formal income records. South Africa, by contrast, provides multiple options when couples marry, including community of property, which assumes equal ownership of assets acquired during the marriage. This legal approach acknowledges that both spouses contribute to the financial foundation of the household, even if in different ways. South African courts, when dividing property, also take into account each partner's needs, contributions and the duration of the marriage. It is a system far more aligned with the complex social reality of marriage than Pakistan's outdated laws. The cost of inaction in Pakistan is high. Women who divorce often lose access to shelter and income. Even where they have invested years in managing the home or caring for children, the law offers no recourse. Many end up dependent on their families or feel pressured into remarriage for economic survival. This perpetuates gendered cycles of poverty and limits women's agency. Pakistan has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which requires states to ensure equality in marriage and family relations, including property rights. CEDAW's guidance calls for equal access to marital assets. Other Muslim-majority countries have made strides toward compliance. Tunisia and Iran, for instance, have introduced property-sharing rules that acknowledge both partners' roles in a marriage. Pakistan, however, remains out of step. Legal reform is not only a technical matter. It is about recognising that women are equal partners in family life, deserving of financial security when that partnership ends. Amending the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance to define and protect matrimonial property would help courts provide more consistent, fair outcomes. It would also signal that Pakistan is serious about its commitments to gender equality, both to its citizens and the global community. For South Africans, watching this debate unfold is a chance to reflect on how far we have come and how far others still need to go. In a world where women's rights are constantly under pressure, the battle for fairness within the family is as important as any public policy reform. Pakistan stands at a fork in the road. One path leads to continued injustice and economic hardship for women. The other leads to fairness, dignity and the recognition of women's work — paid or unpaid—as valuable and deserving of protection. The choice, now, is in the hands of lawmakers.
