What do you think of Malema's Bill to nationalise the Reserve Bank?
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.'
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
14 hours ago
- IOL News
Cross-examination denied in Judge Mbenenge's sexual harassment tribunal
Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge attending the tribunal. Image: Office of the Chief Justice / N Mabusela Sexual misconduct accused Judge President Selby Mbenenge will not be cross-examined by sexual harassment complainant Andiswa Mengo's legal team after their application for such was denied at the Judicial Conduct Tribunal on Tuesday. Tribunal chairperson, retired judge Bernard Ngoepe, denied the application brought by Nasreen Rajab-Budlender on behalf of her client Mengo. Further to Mbenenge, witnesses brought on his behalf will also not be cross-examined, Ngoepe ruled. The ruling was made in accordance with the Judicial Service Commission Act. 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 Next Stay Close ✕ 'After looking at the Act, we are of the view that such a right should not be granted. We say so for certain considerations, indicating that we strove to achieve fairness as far as possible. 'This includes that we allowed legal representation for the complainant, albeit within limits. Secondly, we allow the complainant's legal representatives to put questions to witnesses who had been called by the evidence leader.' The ruling was made ahead of Mbenenge's legal team, who would present their case at the Tribunal. Counsel for Mbenenge confirmed they would be calling four witnesses - the last of which would be the judge president himself. Earlier on Tuesday, continuing her testimony, gender equality researcher Lisa Vetten maintained that when Mengo engaged in conversation with Mbenenge, in what she interpreted as sexting, it had come at a much later stage in their conversations after Mbenenge persisted with untoward chats. Vetten continued her testimony to the Judicial Conduct Tribunal on Tuesday after the Tribunal resumed on Monday. Mbenenge is accused of sending Mengo untoward WhatsApp chats over an extended period, and in one incident, it is alleged that he asked Mengo to engage in a sexual act in his chambers. Mengo lodged the complaints in December 2022. During cross-examination, and seemingly aggrieved by the response submitted by Vetten, Mbenenge's counsel criticised Vetten for her 'long-winded explanations' and sympathetic approach to the complainant in her (Vetten's) responses. The submission by advocate Muzi Sikhakhane was affirmed by a vigorous head nod of his client, Mbenenge. Vetten submitted, during cross examination by Sikhakhane on Tuesday, that Mengo had given quite different responses at different times. Sikhakhane probed Vetten on whether it undermines her decades of work when false claims are made. Vetten confirmed that she has dealt with false claims of sexual harassment, but did not ascribe to the falsehood that 'if one woman lies, therefore everybody else lies'. 'When somebody lies about their house being broken into in order to claim insurance, we do not start to doubt everybody who makes an insurance claim. That is the attitude we should take with these matters. We should make it less exceptional. 'We should allow for the fact that yes some women will not behave well. And the fact that some women behave well does not mean that all women behave well,' said Vetten. Sikhakane said that Vetten had given sympathetic interpretations when it came to Mengo's statements, but did not do the same for the respondent (Mbenenge). Vetten submitted that Mengo's conduct did become ambiguous. 'At times she does not say anything, then she does engage, then she is evasive. The respondent is pretty clear about what he wants… What I am saying is when you look at the times when she is saying 'no, no, no', and gives a response like that (referring to a sexting message), there is ambiguity,' said Vetten. Proceedings continue.
IOL News
18 hours ago
- IOL News
Court ruling highlights banks' obligations under the National Credit Act
Consumers have rights under the National Credit Act and banks must adhere to the Act before it can simply repossess a car of a payment defaulter. Image: File Banks that want to repossess a vehicle in a case where the owner has fallen in arrears with the monthly instalments are obliged to comply with the National Credit Act (NCA) to ensure that the consumer is aware that the bank is considering litigation against the payment defaulter. This was made clear by the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, in a case where Wesbank obtained an order by default against the vehicle owner, Charl Viljoen, because he never defended the matter in court. Viljoen told the court that he only heard a month after the order was made that his car was now repossessed. To make matters worse for him, the vehicle has meanwhile been sold at auction by the bank. He successfully turned to court to have the default judgment overturned, as he claimed he had no idea that legal proceedings were going to be taken against him. The bank, on the other hand, maintained that he did receive a section 129 notice and that summons was subsequently issued against him. Counsel for the bank, however, could not prove that Viljoen ever saw either notice. A section 129 notice is a formal notification required by the NCA in South Africa before a credit provider can take legal action against a consumer for defaulting on a credit agreement. It serves as a warning that the consumer is in arrears and provides options for resolving the debt. The court said, 'It is most unfortunate that, in these circumstances, the applicant's (Viljoen) vehicle was sold as there was blatant non-compliance with the NCA.' Although the court ruled in favour of Viljoen, the horse had already bolted, as the vehicle was meanwhile sold. In disregard, the court said Viljoen may have a claim in this regard, but his attorneys can advise him of remedies possibly available to him in law. Wesbank told the court that it made all attempts possible to inform Viljoen that he was in arrears of more than R76,000 on the Pajero. One of its agents phoned him about the arrears, but it is claimed that Viljoen dropped the call. Later, a field agent went to his home, but it was claimed that Viljoen said he would make payments once he had regained employment, after which he drove off. Wesbank said it subsequently sent Viljoen an email informing him that his account was in arrears and that all attempts made to contact him had been unsuccessful, ultimately resulting in the bank instituting legal action. Viljoen claimed that he never received this email. The bank said it then sent the section 129 notice to Viljoen via registered post. It furnished the court with documentation in this regard, as well as with a post office 'track and trace report.' This report pertained to Wesbank following the movements of the 129 notice sent to the Post Office.
