South Africa's Budget Speech Set for 21 May: Key Insights from Finance Minister Godongwana
Image: Picture supplied
Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana announced on Wednesday in a media briefing that the third Budget speech will take place on 21 May.
The announcement comes following the 0.5 VAT reversal announced last week by the Treasury, which was proposed in the March 2025 Budget and the matter being taken to court by the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).
Minister Godongwana also announced that he and the Treasury would not be taking any questions regarding the preparation of the third budget speech until 21 May.
Godongwana said that the Budget of 12 March 2025 and the proposed VAT increase sparked rigorous debate.
'This is welcomed in a healthy democracy. Today there is clarity that VAT will remain at 15%. This decision was shaped not only by political debate but by the voices of the South African people.'
Godongwana added that we are all new in South Africa to what is called coalition politics. 'There are lessons to be learnt by cabinet, legislature and ourselves. I'm pleased that we have agreed that we will balance the budget without raising VAT while protecting vital sectors such as education, health, and social grants.'
Godongwana said that the National Treasury has already commenced work on developing a new fiscal framework that will maintain their trajectory toward debt stabilisation, a crucial element in strengthening our public finances.
'The revised budget will adhere to all established technical processes and consultations as set out in the Money Bills and Related Matters Act. This includes formal consultations with the Financial and Fiscal Commission, thorough consultations with all political parties within the Government of National Unity (GNU), as well as Cabinet approval before presentation to Parliament.'
Godongwana added that this comprehensive review will include the Fiscal Framework, the Appropriation Bill, Division of Revenue Bill, and the already tabled Rates and Monetary Amounts and Amendment of Revenue Laws Bill.
'Until the new budget is passed, government services will continue to be funded under section 29 of the Public Finance Management Act. This allows spending of up to 45 per cent of last year's budget during the first four months, and up to 10 per cent for each month after that.'
Godongwana said that while we wait for the 2025 Division of Revenue Act to be passed, funding for provinces and municipalities will continue under the 2024 Act, allowing transfers of up to 45 per cent of their allocated funds. 'While the postponement of the budget's passage is not ideal, the circumstances leading to this decision have highlighted the importance of meaningful engagement on fiscal matters.'
Godongwana added that this situation has provided a valuable opportunity for all stakeholders—citizens, Members of Parliament, labour organisations, and civil society—to thoroughly engage with the complex challenge of achieving fiscal sustainability while promoting economic growth and protecting essential public services within very limited resources.
Godongwana said that the revised process includes:
Revising economic assumptions using the latest available data
Generating updated fiscal projections
Recalculating revenue projections and tax implications
Determining appropriate borrowing strategies
Consolidating these elements into a coherent and sustainable fiscal framework.
Godongwana added that they will soon develop a new consultation process for the Budget speech to accommodate the GNU. 'This process will start in September before the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS). The MTBS is a key milestone as it shapes the content of the February budget.'
Professor Andre Thomashausen, a renowned expert in international law from the University of South Africa, said that the survival of the GNU is crucial to safeguarding South Africa's reputation as a reliable trading partner and safe investment destination.
'The VAT compromise is a small price to pay for giving the GNU a longer chance to fix the many governance issues that the GNU inherited. It is positive that the VAT debate has now encouraged a more rigorous engagement to combat corruption and the wasting of funds in the upkeep of mismanaged State Owned Enterprises.'
Johann Els, Old Mutual Group chief economist, said that the cancellation of the VAT rate increase has created a R75 billion funding gap over the next three years, putting pressure on the Treasury to maintain its fiscal consolidation targets. 'These include narrowing the budget deficit from -5.0% to -4.6%, raising the primary surplus from +0.5% to +0.9%, and peaking the debt-to-GDP ratio at 76.2% this year.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
2 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
3 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.
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Who will steer the R55bn marriage of MultiChoice and Canal+?
There's a new power couple in African media. After nearly five years of courting, Canal+ has finally put a ring on MultiChoice to form a pan-African content colossus with global ambitions. French media titan Canal+ has secured the final go-ahead to acquire MultiChoice in a landmark R55-billion deal. After years of quiet manoeuvring and regulatory hurdles, the merger is now a question of who controls what. The Competition Tribunal's conditional approval, granted late last week, closes the chapter on a five-year 'creeping takeover' and opens a new era in African broadcasting. Now it's a balancing act weighing foreign capital with national sovereignty on a digital scale with local content. Enter the media monarchy In return for its princely sum, Canal+, owned by the French conglomerate Vivendi, gets access to MultiChoice's 14.5 million Anglophone and Lusophone subscribers, the DStv powerhouse, sports juggernaut SuperSport, and a foothold in streaming via Showmax. MultiChoice, facing rising costs and subscriber declines, finds itself rescued by a suitor with deep pockets and pan-African ambition. Combined, the merged entity will serve more than 24 million subscribers across 50 countries — instantly becoming the largest pay-TV and streaming provider on the continent. However, if Canal+ was hoping for free access, South African regulators had other plans. The deal's approval came wrapped in layers of red tape — not as a deterrent, but as a deliberate design feature. Transformation goals Central to the regulatory conditions is the creation of LicenceCo, an independent company that will hold MultiChoice South Africa's broadcast licence. It will be majority-owned and controlled by historically disadvantaged South Africans and employees. Crucially, Canal+ has no control and no board seats. This structural firewall protects South Africa's legal requirements around media ownership, ensures transformation goals are met and serves as a template for foreign investment in other sensitive sectors. Phuthuma Nathi, the B-BBEE shareholder darling, increases its economic interest in LicenceCo to 27%, with a new employee trust added. The licence, and the local airwaves it governs, stay South African. The R30bn lobola The Competition Tribunal didn't just demand structural separation; it also extracted a commitment package valued at more than R30-billion. This includes: A three-year moratorium on retrenchments linked to the merger; Significant investment in local content production, sports broadcasting, SMME procurement and Corporate Social Investment programmes; Ongoing free-to-air broadcast access for key sporting events, safeguarding the public's ability to view major matches without a subscription; and Local skills development through Canal+'s 'University Programme', to train historically disadvantaged individuals in broadcasting and production. In a media environment where Netflix and Amazon Prime are increasingly dominant, this local-first approach is designed to future-proof South African media. Showmax, SuperSport and scale Behind the regulatory muscle lies a clear commercial imperative. MultiChoice has struggled in recent years, shedding 2.8 million linear subscribers and burning cash to prop up Showmax 2.0, its streaming reboot built on Comcast tech and bolstered by NBC Universal's 30% equity stake. Canal+ brings financial stability and scale. It also inherits Irdeto, MultiChoice's profitable cybersecurity unit, and Showmax's potential to become Africa's answer to global streamers. Vivendi, Canal+'s parent company, views this merger as critical to its own transformation and part of a plan to split into three listed entities, with Canal+ as its global growth engine. Listing Canal+ on the JSE within nine months of deal completion is a further nod to local inclusion, visibility, and capital market confidence. The shiny ring can't cover controversial holes While South Africa celebrates a structurally sound deal with tangible local benefits, not all observers are convinced. Critics warn that Canal+'s track record and the Bolloré Group's 30.4% stake in it come with baggage. Vivendi's past includes one of the largest corporate losses in history and regulatory infractions that still cast a shadow. Vincent Bolloré, the billionaire behind the curtain, faces corruption charges in France and has been accused of turning Canal+'s French media outlets into right-wing political mouthpieces. With Canal+ now embedded in South Africa's broadcasting ecosystem, some fear creeping influence over editorial independence, particularly if there are future attempts to deepen ownership or control beyond the current firewall. Marriage isn't buying a horse Mergers are easy to announce but hard to manage. However, the competition bodies have played their hand cleverly — extracting commitments, safeguarding jobs and setting a precedent for how global capital must behave when it enters South Africa's strategic sectors. The long-term test lies ahead. Can Showmax truly compete with Netflix? Can SuperSport keep its sports crown as global streamers outbid for rights? Will LicenceCo be a transformative force or a regulatory box-ticker? Will Canal+ respect the firewall, or try to chip away at it over time? The merged entity is now king of the hill in African broadcasting, but it's a kingdom that won't run on size alone. Trust, execution and transformation will be the currencies of success. DM
