The law is not neutral — it serves power or it serves the people
At the core of this legal challenge is a disturbing message that the inclusion of black people in key parts of the legal sector is bad for business. The use of law to defend elite power is nothing new — it has long been a tool for preserving exclusion in South Africa. From the legal justifications of apartheid to post-apartheid tactics of delay and obstruction, the legal profession has often stood guard over the gates of privilege. It is therefore unsurprising — though no less alarming — that this claim is now being made under oath, in a country where the majority is black.
If this moment does not compel us to speak out, then perhaps we are complicit in the unequal future being forged in our name. As in every contested space, power does not yield without a contestation — it fortifies itself.
The government's black economic empowerment code for the legal sector reveals that, three decades into democracy, these corporate law firms have not been able to self-regulate in a way that meaningfully includes black professionals at the highest levels. These same firms are adept at identifying black talent on university campuses, sitting on transformation committees, publishing polished equity reports and championing mentorship initiatives.
Yet, when real accountability is required and they are asked to disrupt entrenched patterns of opportunity, democratise access to work for smaller firms or transparently report on transformation progress, they recoil, and compliance is then framed as a threat to their freedom to trade. This is not a principled stand; it is a calculated defence of privilege. It exposes a profession more committed to the appearance of transformation than to its substance.
While these corporate law firms tie transformation in red tape and legal technicalities, we must remember that the Constitution is not neutral. It is a charter for total social transformation and it commits South Africa to a future rooted in social justice, human dignity, equality and freedom for all. It rejects all forms of racism and sexism and it demands that we all play a role in building an inclusive society.
We must abandon the romantic notion that the Constitution will do the work on its own. As a transformative charter, it demands action — not from some anonymous public, but from the very institutions and professions that now invoke it to escape accountability. Section 22 of the Constitution protects the right to choose one's profession and it was never meant to entrench monopoly power. Yet, in the hands of some corporate firms, it is being used to stall transformation and delegitimise a fair redistribution of opportunity.
When a fraternity sees the very Constitution born of struggle being used to shield privilege, the bitter irony must not go uncontested because corporate law firms are not exempt from confronting the dissonance between constitutional ideals and the lived realities of South African society. The rule of law must never be weaponised to preserve an unjust social order. If these firms truly valued legal integrity and constitutional governance, they would have embraced transformation long ago. They've had more than 30 years and have consistently chosen not to. Similarly, had they attended to meaningful transformation, government intervention would not be necessary.
Similarly, Kathleen Dlepu, former chairperson of the Legal Practice Council, asked: 'What if the voices of resistance to the Legal Sector Code aren't just coming from the usual suspects? What if, behind the legal jargon and procedural masks, we find the fingerprints of those who once pledged allegiance to transformation, not as outsiders, but from within?'
Her words force uncomfortable questions: Who signed these court papers? Which senior counsel is willing to lend their name to this gatekeeping? Which junior counsel, allegedly the future, is being showcased as window dressing while undermining black advancement? These questions matter because law is never neutral. It either serves power or it serves the people and the South African story requires that the law is used for the good of the people.
The entire legal fraternity bears a social responsibility to take a clear and public stance on what is unfolding. The disproportionate stranglehold on transformation maintained by firms that built their power during the darkest chapters of this country's history must be called into question. We cannot look to institutions that profited from the systemic exclusion of black people to lead us into a just future especially when their messages, no matter who delivers them, ultimately undermine the legitimacy of black practitioners. Transformation is not a favour; it is a constitutional imperative that rests on all stakeholders.
This is a moment for clarity — not compromise. The legal profession cannot continue to obscure its failings behind rhetoric. It cannot claim nobility while actively defending structural exclusion and those of us who believe in the Constitution's vision must be willing to call this out for what it is — a crisis of legitimacy. Beneath the veneer of constitutional argument lies a longstanding truth — the powers that control corporate law in South Africa hold the view that transformation in the legal profession is, and has always been, treated as optional. Similarly, this is a moment to acknowledge that entry into elite corporate law circles has often required silence about the racial inequalities that continue to shape our profession.
People died for this democracy. Scores of people willingly and unwillingly gave up their singular human experiences in the name of the idea that, one day, this country would not require the well-being and prosperity of black people as a sacrifice for a firm to remain in business. We cannot let those sacrifices happen in vain.
Bwanika Lwanga is a corporate and commercial attorney and a columnist with an interest in African regional trade, spatial justice and social justice issues.
Abongile Nkamisa is a lawyer and legal researcher interested in corporate accountability, access to information and law to advance social justice.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
35 minutes ago
- IOL News
R700 million ‘National Dialogue' ignores evangelical voices
While the President insists the dialogue is meant to be citizen-led and non-partisan, the deliberate exclusion of evangelical voices, such as those of Pastor Bert Pretorius, who represents over 19,900 churches and half of South Africa's Christian population, raises serious concerns about the inclusivity and legitimacy of the initiative, says the writer. On behalf of SAFI (the South African Friends of Israel), I must share how deeply dismayed we are by the shocking absence of evangelical representation on the panel of 'eminent persons' selected for President Ramaphosa's R700 million National Dialogue. While the President insists the dialogue is meant to be citizen-led and non-partisan, the deliberate exclusion of evangelical voices, such as those of Pastor Bert Pretorius, who represents over 19,900 churches and half of South Africa's Christian population, raises serious concerns about the inclusivity and legitimacy of the initiative. This glaring omission undermines the credibility of a process billed as a path toward national unity. Faith-based organisations have always been central to South Africa's moral and political awakening, from resisting Apartheid to fostering reconciliation. Ignoring their contribution today suggests this dialogue is less about unity and more about political optics - perhaps even a thinly veiled prelude to the ANC's local election campaign. South Africans have already spoken through the ballot box in 2024, giving rise to a Government of National Unity. What citizens demand now is implementation, not more rhetoric. With unemployment at 32.9%, basic services failing, and daily life growing more difficult, a taxpayer-funded talkshop feels like a distraction at best and an insult at worst. It's time to govern, not consult. Daniel Jacobi Executive Director, South African Friends of Israel
Mail & Guardian
an hour ago
- Mail & Guardian
Reimagining employment in the age of the fourth industrial revolution
Labour laws fall short in the fourth industrial revolution. Graphic: John McCann/M&G The fourth industrial revolution (4IR) has become a byword for transformation. As entire industries and social norms shift beneath our feet because of artificial intelligence (AI), so too does the very concept of employment. Less than a decade ago, employment structures were largely rigid, characterised by fixed hours, physical workplaces, and clearly defined responsibilities. The Covid-19 pandemic catalysed a dramatic break from this paradigm. In 2020, the world was forced into a remote-first mode, revealing the limitations of traditional employment models. This transformation, as To grapple with the legal implications of this shift, we must first understand how the scope of employment — that is, the range of activities an employee is expected to perform — has evolved. Remote work, hybrid arrangements, platform-based jobs and the gig economy are no longer anomalies; they are becoming the norm. Flexibility and autonomy, once considered perks, are now central pillars of modern work culture. As For example, remote work has rendered the concept of a fixed workplace nearly obsolete. Work now occurs in homes, co-working spaces or even across countries, raising questions about jurisdiction, supervision and employer responsibility. Gig and platform-based work presents further complexities. Determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor often hinges on vague factors such as control, economic dependence or integration into the business. The rise of AI and automation compounds this further, redefining job descriptions and introducing new tasks that may fall outside traditional employee duties. Additionally, the use of personal devices and remote networks introduces heightened concerns around data security and privacy issues that conventional employment law is not fully equipped to handle. These changes have legal implications, particularly concerning the 'course and scope' of employment, which is a central doctrine to determining employer liability for acts committed by employees. Historically, courts have interpreted this concept through the lens of employer control and the direct furtherance of the employer's business. If employees were deemed to be acting within the scope of their duties, the employer could be held vicariously liable for their actions. But when an employee was engaged in what courts have termed a 'frolic of their own' or personal pursuits unrelated to their job, the employer would not bear responsibility. An important consideration is that the abandonment-mismanagement rule holds that an employer may still be vicariously liable if an employee, while participating in a personal frolic, partially performs their work duties, thus effectively committing a simultaneous act and omission. These distinctions, already intricate, are increasingly difficult to apply in the modern world. There are a number of essential questions to be considered. For example, how should courts assess the scope of employment when work is asynchronous, occurring across time zones and digital platforms? What happens when employees alternate between professional and personal tasks at the same time while working from home? How should algorithmic supervision and AI tools factor into evaluations of employer control? These questions underscore the need for a more dynamic and context-sensitive framework for interpreting the scope of employment — one that reflects the fluidity of modern work rather than clinging to the static definitions of the past. Equally urgent is the question of who qualifies as an employee. Traditional labour laws were designed with clear, stable employment relationships in mind. But in the gig economy, where many workers straddle the line between contractor and employee, these laws often fall short. If left unaddressed, this legal ambiguity could allow employers to shirk responsibilities around fair compensation, social protection, and worker benefits, undermining the principles of fairness and dignity that labour law seeks to uphold. Balancing flexibility — a key value for many modern workers — with the employer's need for accountability, productivity, and oversight is no small feat. It requires a recalibration of the legal system. As Mpedi aptly observes: 'Historically, the law has been a largely reactive tool. But, in the age of AI, it cannot remain so.' The legal system must become anticipatory, not merely responsive. It must evolve in tandem with the digital transformation it seeks to regulate. This means revisiting — and in many cases, redefining — fundamental legal concepts such as 'employee', 'employer', 'work', 'workplace' and 'scope of employment'. Policymakers must also ensure that the rights and protections afforded to traditional employees extend to gig and platform workers, who increasingly constitute a significant portion of the labour force. Just as nature adapts to survive, so must the law. As we conclude in our book on AI and the Law : 'A meaningful subject in our conversations is the necessity for a flexible legal framework capable of adjusting to the rapid progress of AI advancement. Conventional legal ideas and laws created for a world centred on humans frequently prove inadequate when applied to AI.' If we are to meet the challenges — and seize the opportunities — of the fourth industrial revolution, we must embrace a Darwinian mindset: adapt or risk obsolescence. The future of employment is already here. The law must now catch up. Letlhokwa George Mpedi is the vice-chancellor and principal of the University of Johannesburg. Tshilidzi Marwala is the rector of the United Nations University and UN under-secretary-general. The authors' latest book on this subject is Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024).
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Africa's entrepreneurs focusing on sustainability are the continent's changemakers
Dr Mia Strand of Nelson Mandela University's Institute for Coastal and Marine Research. Photo: Supplied Stewardship — keeping what we have in trust for our children — lies at the heart of sustainability, and Africa must tell its own story in its own voice. This was the message from a panel discussion hosted by Nelson Mandela University's (NMU's) Mandela Institute for Sustainable Futures (MISF) earlier this month, which explored how sustainability can be framed in an African context. The event brought together thought leaders from South Africa and Nigeria, who emphasised that African solutions must be indigenous, inclusive and innovative. In his keynote address, Professor Bheki Mngomezulu, director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at NMU, highlighted Africa's rich resources and the need to redefine sustainability through African epistemologies, or ways of knowing. 'A subject like history should be reintroduced — we relegated it to oblivion. In 1994 we had the opportunity to commission books and we squandered it,' he said, calling for African-centred books to be commissioned to trace African inventions. He was critical of both colonial legacies and post-colonial African leadership failures. 'Africans are thinking but not implementing — we should have progressed much faster but we cannot blame the West for all of our wrongs,' he said. 'How do we shift the narrative that Africans have to catch up?' he asked, stressing that African leaders needed to take responsibility and work collaboratively with academics to address sustainability issues. But he cautioned that research should not be conducted purely for the sake of research; it had to be in service of society. The conversation underscored the power of narrative in changing attitudes, advocating for pan Africanist intentionality and the celebration of African achievements. From Nigeria, Dr Nneka Okekearu, director of the Enterprise Development Centre at Pan-Atlantic University, echoed this, saying that Africa's sustainability story must remain true to its roots while looking to the future. Her key takeaways were: • Africa has always been sustainable; our roots run deep. • Entrepreneurs are our changemakers; turning ideas into action. • Inclusion matters; everyone has a role to play. • Innovation is local; homegrown solutions are thriving. • Circular is the future; waste less, do more. • Tell our story; Africa's voice, Africa's way. • You are the movement; build it together. 'Let us celebrate local success stories, scale what is working and share South Africa's unique voice globally,' she said, stressing the importance of youth and women's empowerment and the circular economy. She also gave inspiring examples of African-led sustainable entrepreneurship. These include: Chioma Ogbudimkpa, founder and creative director of Redbutton, is a sustainable women's fashion brand that fuses African aesthetics, local materials and art to create apparel using yarns made from the invasive water hyacinth. Amara Nwuneli has transformed a landfill in Lagos into a youth-led, community-based recycling initiative. Ecotutu is a Nigerian start-up that provides solar-powered food storage for farmers using sustainable cooling technology. 'Africa's entrepreneurs are our changemakers,' she said. Dr Mia Strand, a postdoctoral research fellow with NMU's Institute for Coastal and Marine Research, challenged participants to centre African ways of knowing in ocean conservation and sustainability. She highlighted the legacies of colonialism in conservation, which often silenced indigenous voices and imposed external models. 'How can we centre ubuntu and communalism in ocean sustainability? How do we make sure we do not reproduce and reinforce coloniality?' she asked. She made a strong call for global cognitive justice, noting: 'It is important that this process is African-led — the United Nations sustainable development goal 14, Life Below Water, is not a one-size-fits-all situation, and consideration must be given to specific context. 'What and whose research, methods and knowledges are we including, and not including? 'How do we come together to make this an inclusive process, to ensure that it is actually informed by African ways of knowing and being with the ocean, and connecting with the ocean?' The panel, facilitated by Dr Shashi Cullinan Cook, said that framing sustainability in Africa demanded more than just replicating global frameworks. It called for intentional, African-led visioning, inclusion of indigenous knowledge and empowerment of local communities to take ownership of their sustainable future.
