Financial and Fiscal Commission raises alarm over SOEs fiscal drag
Banele Ginidza
The Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) has sounded a clarion call to Parliament, highlighting alarming trends in the fiscal drag imposed by State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs).
In a recent presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Monitoring and Evaluation, the FFC revealed that direct government transfers to SOEs rose significantly from 1% of GDP in 2015/2016 to 1.6% in 2021/2022.
This stark upward trend raises pressing concerns over the sustainability of SOE funding and the need for urgent reforms.
The Commission's damning analysis underscores a decade-long commitment from the government, which, between 2008/2009 and 2019/2020, spent approximately R160 billion to bail out financially troubled SOEs.
The FFC's warnings come amid growing anxiety over the potential fiscal repercussions of the proposed National State Enterprises Bill, which it claims fails to adequately address long-standing governance and accountability concerns prevalent over the past 30 years.
"In the 2025 Budget, our analysis shows that between 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 total government contingent liability will rise by about R9.4 billion with the bulk of it being centred around Eskom, Independent Power Producers and Transnet," the FCC said.
The National State Enterprises Bill proposes the establishment of the State Asset Management Company to consolidate the State's shareholdings in SOEs with the State as the sole shareholder of a holding company.
The Commission emphatically stated its opposition to the Bill in its current form, labelling it inadequate in tackling issues of misuse of public funds and insufficient in providing measures for consequence management related to irregular and wasteful expenditure.
The FFC articulated a preference for establishing a holding company funded within the National Treasury's budget baseline, a proposal aiming to restore fiscal integrity in the management of SOEs.
"The Bill does not have provision on consequence management specifically in the irregular, wasteful and corrupt expenditure. Without that, SOEs may continue to be vulnerable to improper public fund practices," said the Commission.
"We are concerned about the clear lack of financial purpose in this Bill...and transparency as well. Our initial advice was that the shareholding company should be within Treasury."
Treasury appeared before the Portfolio Committee on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation on Wednesday also expressing concerns on the potential of malfeasance in the Bill.
Committee members, especially uMkhonto WeSizwe Party MP, Mzwanele Manyi, outrightly rejected the Bill, citing the fiscal risks associated with establishing the holding company, particularly the significant funding requirement of R615 million.
Members of Parliament expressed scepticism regarding the feasibility of the innovative funding mechanisms proposed.
Treasury also highlighted critical issues, particularly the proposed non-application of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) to the holding company and its subsidiaries, which could undermine transparency and accountability in financial management.
Treasury cautioned that the centralisation model posed risks, such as increased political interference and the potential for State capture, emphasising the importance of ensuring that SOEs remained financially sustainable without undue reliance on public funds.
Committee members raised significant concerns about the centralisation issues presented in the Bill. They argued that a centralised model could lead to a lack of transparency and accountability, making it more vulnerable to corruption and political interference.
Members highlighted that consolidating oversight of SOEs under a single holding company might exacerbate existing vulnerabilities rather than mitigate them, potentially creating an environment where decision-making becomes opaque and less subject to scrutiny.
BUSINESS REPORT
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
3 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
International anti-corruption court can restore human dignity in Africa
The case for establishing an international anti-corruption court (IACCourt) has been mooted as a feasible solution to address the constraints of domestic systems. Such a court would fill the enforcement gap in the international framework. The right to human dignity is core to a basic understanding of rights and obligations. It is enshrined in the The right to dignity means every single one of us possesses an inherent quality that is intrinsic to our being, and there is an obligation on the state to enshrine and protect that right. Notably, the constitutional court has anchored some of its critical judgments that have defined South Africa's post-apartheid democracy on an understanding of what the right to human dignity means. These cases have touched on a broad range of issues including the The notion of human dignity is both a fundamental rule of law principle and has broader implications related to ubuntu and restorative justice. Following the democratic transition the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was intended to usher in a new era of democratic accountability. Amnesty would be granted for those who came forward and spoke the truth, and prosecution and sanction would follow for those who refused to walk through the commission's open doors. The TRC, largely, did not achieve its restorative ideals. Political cases were suppressed, reparations have not followed and wide-scale prosecutions did not take place. Fast forward 20 years, the State capture was a crime against the dignity of the nation. Kleptocrats who abuse power to seek personal enrichment of themselves, their families and cronies can be viewed as akin to those who commit treason. Acts of self-interest are in direct contradiction with the interests of society. Private unelected persons, such as the Guptas, the Watsons and others, in collusion with state actors, siphoned off billions of rand from the government in various nefarious deals. These schemes largely involved capturing public procurement, diverting profits from those contracts and, in many cases, laundering the money offshore. Now we have the historical record, the findings and the recommendations. Where are the prosecutions? How much money has been stolen, how much has been traced, and how much has been recovered? It has been reported that Frustration remains that the criminal justice system in many countries is unable to deal with the weight and magnitude of high volume, multi-actor, multiple jurisdiction transactions. These are often linked to racketeering, money laundering, and corruption involving public officials, private persons, and organised crime. Dubai, for example, has become a notorious destination that harbours criminals such as the Guptas and provides a haven for stolen assets, complicating prosecution of crimes across borders. Even with commissions of inquiry, findings and recommendations, cases are slow to be lodged within national systems. This may be characterised by the independence of the prosecution services and judiciary, but they are fundamentally constrained when it comes to delivering quick and effective justice. Over the years, troves of information have been leaked pointing to how certain kleptocratic networks function, but prosecutions and stolen asset recovery have been meagre. In global systems, where no single jurisdiction can be relied upon to have the political will and modalities to go after kleptocrats and their stolen assets, we need alternative solutions. Presently, there is no international institution to hold kleptocrats accountable when the countries they rule are unwilling or unable to do so. The case for establishing an Countries who ratify the IACCourt treaty will give the court jurisdiction to prosecute the core Corruption erodes human dignity by depriving citizens of vital services like healthcare, education, and justice, especially affecting vulnerable communities in Africa. The IACCourt will hold corrupt officials and corporations accountable, restoring dignity through global accountability. By targeting high-ranking offenders and establishing an impartial framework, the court can address corruption where national systems are compromised, promoting justice in weakened states. The IACCourt would complement regional efforts, such as the Particularly through its asset recovery jurisdiction, the IACCourt will create a forum where stolen monies can be recovered and repatriated based on the demands of a particular case. Asset recovery is a critical strategy in the fight against corruption, but too often assets that are recovered, are then returned into a corrupt fiscus. The recovery of stolen assets must be linked to a notion of repatriation that has restorative justice values and provides direct benefits to victims of corruption. Repatriation would mean returning the stolen assets to their rightful place, ensuring that they are used for the benefit of the people who were harmed by the corruption. The As we commemorate the African Union's Anti-Corruption Day, focusing on the theme of Promoting Human Dignity in the Fight against Corruption, the establishment of the IACCourt could significantly contribute to this vision. The IACCourt aligns with the call for accountability and justice. It offers a platform to prosecute high-ranking corrupt officials and recover stolen assets, ultimately restoring human dignity to the communities that have been deprived by corruption. By filling gaps in the current legal system, the IACCourt provides an opportunity for Africans to stand up for their rights and dignity, as we work together to combat corruption across the continent. Karam Singh is the deputy director of Integrity Initiatives International, and Ruth Kolevsohn is the executive director of Good Governance Africa's group governance programmes.
IOL News
3 days ago
- IOL News
Financial and Fiscal Commission raises alarm over SOEs fiscal drag
The National State Enterprises Bill proposes the establishment of the State Asset Management Company to consolidate the State's shareholdings in SOEs with the State as the sole shareholder of a holding company. Banele Ginidza The Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC) has sounded a clarion call to Parliament, highlighting alarming trends in the fiscal drag imposed by State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). In a recent presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Monitoring and Evaluation, the FFC revealed that direct government transfers to SOEs rose significantly from 1% of GDP in 2015/2016 to 1.6% in 2021/2022. This stark upward trend raises pressing concerns over the sustainability of SOE funding and the need for urgent reforms. The Commission's damning analysis underscores a decade-long commitment from the government, which, between 2008/2009 and 2019/2020, spent approximately R160 billion to bail out financially troubled SOEs. The FFC's warnings come amid growing anxiety over the potential fiscal repercussions of the proposed National State Enterprises Bill, which it claims fails to adequately address long-standing governance and accountability concerns prevalent over the past 30 years. "In the 2025 Budget, our analysis shows that between 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 total government contingent liability will rise by about R9.4 billion with the bulk of it being centred around Eskom, Independent Power Producers and Transnet," the FCC said. The National State Enterprises Bill proposes the establishment of the State Asset Management Company to consolidate the State's shareholdings in SOEs with the State as the sole shareholder of a holding company. The Commission emphatically stated its opposition to the Bill in its current form, labelling it inadequate in tackling issues of misuse of public funds and insufficient in providing measures for consequence management related to irregular and wasteful expenditure. The FFC articulated a preference for establishing a holding company funded within the National Treasury's budget baseline, a proposal aiming to restore fiscal integrity in the management of SOEs. "The Bill does not have provision on consequence management specifically in the irregular, wasteful and corrupt expenditure. Without that, SOEs may continue to be vulnerable to improper public fund practices," said the Commission. "We are concerned about the clear lack of financial purpose in this transparency as well. Our initial advice was that the shareholding company should be within Treasury." Treasury appeared before the Portfolio Committee on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation on Wednesday also expressing concerns on the potential of malfeasance in the Bill. Committee members, especially uMkhonto WeSizwe Party MP, Mzwanele Manyi, outrightly rejected the Bill, citing the fiscal risks associated with establishing the holding company, particularly the significant funding requirement of R615 million. Members of Parliament expressed scepticism regarding the feasibility of the innovative funding mechanisms proposed. Treasury also highlighted critical issues, particularly the proposed non-application of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) to the holding company and its subsidiaries, which could undermine transparency and accountability in financial management. Treasury cautioned that the centralisation model posed risks, such as increased political interference and the potential for State capture, emphasising the importance of ensuring that SOEs remained financially sustainable without undue reliance on public funds. Committee members raised significant concerns about the centralisation issues presented in the Bill. They argued that a centralised model could lead to a lack of transparency and accountability, making it more vulnerable to corruption and political interference. Members highlighted that consolidating oversight of SOEs under a single holding company might exacerbate existing vulnerabilities rather than mitigate them, potentially creating an environment where decision-making becomes opaque and less subject to scrutiny. BUSINESS REPORT
The Citizen
3 days ago
- The Citizen
Tears of joy as Nyoka family sees justice 38 years later
After nearly four decades of longing for justice, the family of slain anti-apartheid activist Caiphus Nyoka finally breathed a sigh of relief on July 10, as former apartheid-era police officer Johan Marais was sentenced to 15 years in prison for his murder. Overcome with emotion, members of the Nyoka family broke down in tears in a packed courtroom at the Pretoria High Court. The public gallery, filled with ANC supporters and activists, erupted in song and shouted 'Hamba', meaning 'Go', as Marais, visibly shaken and holding a plastic bag, was led down to the holding cells. Delivering the sentence, Judge Papi Masopa condemned the brutality of the apartheid regime. He acknowledged that although there had been an instruction to kill, it was unlawful. 'It is unfortunate that the political heads of your time are not standing trial today, those who propagated racist laws that led you to act the way you did. What happened in the 1980s, related to police brutality, must not be repeated in our democracy.' He said evidence accepted by the State shows that the murder was committed by a group of people who acted with common purpose. 'It is difficult to make a finding that the murder was premeditated or planned, but I find it difficult to understand how an operation to arrest an individual could involve such a high number of police officers from different units if their intention was not to kill.' Masopa also reflected on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). 'Fast forward into democracy and, in the spirit of the Constitution, TRC proceedings were initiated, where murderers of the apartheid era were given an opportunity to disclose their evil past in return for indemnity from prosecution. But the accused did not participate in that process, despite being fully aware of it. 'Only in 2019, after attempting to commit suicide, did the accused decide to approach a journalist and disclose his past. The evidence does not indicate what led to this change of heart.' Masopa said the accused wrote a letter of apology to the family on January 13, 2025, after pleading guilty on November 12, 2024, suggesting the apology formed part of his mitigation strategy. 'The surrounding circumstances do not indicate genuine remorse. He had over 20 years to disclose what he did in 1987. I'm not persuaded that the accused truly appreciates the consequences of his actions. The death of the deceased not only negatively impacted his family, but also the community he served as a student activist. His parents died before ever finding closure,' said Masopa. Speaking outside the courtroom, Nyoka's elderly sister, Alegria Nyoka, said they are pleased that after 38 years, justice has finally prevailed. 'My brother's spirit has fought for this moment. The way things happened, it's difficult to forgive him because it seemed like he was crying to gain sympathy and make things work in his favour; he didn't appear genuinely remorseful,' said Alegria. Marais had pleaded guilty to the 1987 murder of Caiphus Nyoka, a prominent leader of the Congress of South African Students (COSAS) in Daveyton and co-ordinator for the Transvaal Congress (Transco) East Rand. He was fatally shot on August 24, 1987, by members of a special police unit allegedly formed to crack down on so-called 'terrorists'. Marais's conviction follows his confession and guilty plea, which led to an early judgment. However, the trials of his co-accused, Leon Louis van den Berg, Abram Hercules Engelbrecht and Pieter Stander, all former apartheid police officers, continue. Also Read: Caiphus Nyoka murder trial: Apartheid cops plead not guilty Also Read: Slain Caiphus Nyoka honoured at wreath-laying ceremony At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
