Latest news with #EEAA
IOL News
6 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
NEASA and Sakeliga file urgent court bid to halt employment equity quotas
The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court In a joint statement issued to the media late on Thursday, the two groups argued that the quotas were introduced without proper consultation and failed to comply with legal and constitutional requirements. IOL previously reported that the government plans to introduce new employment equity targets under the amended Employment Equity Act (EEAA). These targets apply to 18 key sectors and require certain employers, particularly in senior roles, to align their workforce with the country's racial and gender demographics. The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court seeking to interdict the implementation of the Employment Equity sectoral quotas. "The Minister did not act in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), as she failed to adhere to the prescriptions of Section 15A of the EEA prior to the setting and publishing of the 2025 sectoral numerical quotas. This renders her actions unlawful and invalid". Earlier this year IOL also reported Minister of Employment and Labour, Nkosazana Meth, defended the sectoral quotas and criticised opposition to the reforms. She also accused the Democratic Alliance (DA), which has also launched a court challenge against the quotas, of seeking to maintain the status quo. "The DA's challenge seeks to disrupt efforts aimed at achieving equitable representation and maintaining the inherently unfair status quo. By opposing these amendments, the DA is actively sabotaging the transformation goals that have been pursued since the end of the apartheid era". NEASA and Sakeliga further argued that the quotas were 'irrational and arbitrary,' failing to consider the diverse circumstances across sectors, including differences in skills availability and regional demographics. The two groups also pointed out that the final quotas 'differ drastically' from earlier drafts published in 2023 and 2024 but were never republished for renewed public comment as required by law. "The quotas disregard South Africa's constitutional stipulations on non-racialism, equality before the law, and administrative justice". IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
IOL News
6 days ago
- Business
- IOL News
NEASA and Sakeliga file urgent court bid to halt employment equity quotas
The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court In a joint statement issued to the media late on Thursday, the two groups argued that the quotas were introduced without proper consultation and failed to comply with legal and constitutional requirements. IOL previously reported that the government plans to introduce new employment equity targets under the amended Employment Equity Act (EEAA). These targets apply to 18 key sectors and require certain employers, particularly in senior roles, to align their workforce with the country's racial and gender demographics. The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court seeking to interdict the implementation of the Employment Equity sectoral quotas. "The Minister did not act in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), as she failed to adhere to the prescriptions of Section 15A of the EEA prior to the setting and publishing of the 2025 sectoral numerical quotas. This renders her actions unlawful and invalid". Earlier this year IOL also reported Minister of Employment and Labour, Nkosazana Meth, defended the sectoral quotas and criticised opposition to the reforms. She also accused the Democratic Alliance (DA), which has also launched a court challenge against the quotas, of seeking to maintain the status quo. "The DA's challenge seeks to disrupt efforts aimed at achieving equitable representation and maintaining the inherently unfair status quo. By opposing these amendments, the DA is actively sabotaging the transformation goals that have been pursued since the end of the apartheid era". NEASA and Sakeliga further argued that the quotas were 'irrational and arbitrary,' failing to consider the diverse circumstances across sectors, including differences in skills availability and regional demographics. The two groups also pointed out that the final quotas 'differ drastically' from earlier drafts published in 2023 and 2024 but were never republished for renewed public comment as required by law. "The quotas disregard South Africa's constitutional stipulations on non-racialism, equality before the law, and administrative justice". IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
The Citizen
6 days ago
- Business
- The Citizen
Urgent court action aims to halt employment equity quotas
Business organisations say government's new race and gender targets are procedurally flawed and unconstitutional. The court papers highlight what appear to be substantive procedural flaws in the setting of race quotas. Picture: Moneyweb Sakeliga and the National Employers Association of SA (Neasa) filed an urgent Gauteng High Court application this week challenging race and gender targets under the Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEAA), which became law in January 2025. The act sets hiring quotas for 18 economic sectors, from agriculture and mining to transport and construction. 'The application challenges the legality and constitutionality of the newly introduced employment equity framework, which introduces rigid race and gender quotas across 18 economic sectors on the top four occupational levels,' according to a statement by the business organisations. These quotas, formally published in April 2025, require employers with 50 or more employees to restructure their entire workforce to reflect the national gender and racial demographics of the country, or face dire consequences. The EEA defines 'designated groups' as blacks, women and people with disabilities, and is intended to increase their representation in the workplace. ALSO READ: State sued over estate agent BEE plan The challenge involves two steps: The first asks the court for a judicial review of the 'procedurally flawed' manner in which the minister went about setting the quotas; and The second part, yet to be launched, attacks the constitutionality of the quotas under the relevant parts of the EEA. Neasa and Sakeliga argue that Minister of Employment and Labour Nomakhosazana Meth skirted the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (Paja) by not applying the relevant sections of the EEA in arriving at the race quotas. The policing of the act and its associated regulations will require 10 000 labour inspectors by the Department of Employment and Labour. The act has received pushback from business, the DA and trade union Solidarity. 'When the legislation was passed, we informed the government that we would bring an urgent application to set it aside as they had not done proper consultation, as required by law,' says Gerhard Papenfus, chief executive of Neasa. ALSO READ: Employment Equity Act amendments to come into effect on 1 January 2025 'They then started consulting, but with whom? 'They chose 18 industries. The act says you must first determine what these industries are. You can't just decide this on your own,' he says. 'On top of that, the consultations took place over seven days. They scheduled for each and every consultation for one and a half hours, allowing just 15 minutes for questions. That's not consultation.' Neasa also criticises the way industries were demarcated. For example, manufacturing – including steel, plastics, agro-processing, clothing and chemicals and other sub-sectors – was treated as a single industry. ALSO READ: Five-year Employment Equity targets: What must each sector aim for? Substantive flaws The court papers highlight what appear to be substantive procedural flaws in the setting of race quotas. Failure to identify and gazette economic sectors: The identification of 18 national economic sectors for purposes of setting quotas was not carried out as required under the EEA, which meant there were no sectors existing in law with whom the minister could consult. It further resulted in different sub-sectors with different characteristics being lumped together under a one-size-fits-all quota. Improper consultation: Inadequate notice was given for online consultations and these were limited to 1 000 attendees, with just 15 minutes allocated to questions. The minister neglected to consult with employees in the economic sectors who will be severely affected by the quotas. No lawful publication: The two business organisations say the final 2025 quotas differ radically from the earlier draft quotas published in 2023 and 2024, and were never published for renewed public comment as required under the act. This is a legal requirement and failure to adhere to it renders the quotas invalid. Quotas are arbitrary: The minister set irrational and arbitrary quotas that do not take into account the nature, circumstances and challenges of each sector. No consideration was given to the pool of skills available in each sector, the natural gender disparity in certain sectors, or the difference in racial demographics across provinces in SA. No socio-economic impact assessment performed: The regulations are ultimately aimed at compelling the workforce of every single designated employer in SA, in every sector, on every occupational level, to conform to the racial and gender demographic profile of the country's economically active population. This cannot be rationally introduced as a legal requirement without a proper assessment of its socio-economic impacts. Violation of The Constitution: The quotas disregard South Africa's constitutional stipulations on non-racialism, equality before the law, and administrative justice. Businesses will be forced to spend vast amounts of time and resources complying with these employment equity quotas, say Neasa and Sakeliga in a statement. ALSO READ: DA legal challenge to Employment Equity sparks political divide 'Individuals will be employed or not employed, and promoted or not promoted, based on unlawful quotas. Employers will restructure and make other permanent changes to their workforce and corporate structuring, employ new employees and forego opportunities and take on the expense that this involves, all based on unlawful quotas. 'This [court] filing marks the next important step in preventing these impossible, irrational, and harmful employment quotas for the benefit of employers, employees, and all communities across the country.' Papenfus was part of a delegation of Afrikaner leaders to visit the US White House in June, during which the US administration set out a number of preconditions for normalising relations with SA, including exempting US businesses from BEE requirements, classifying farm attacks as a priority crime, no land expropriation without compensation and an unequivocal condemnation by the ANC of the 'Kill the boer, kill the farmer' slogan. Law firm Norton Rose Fulbright has filed a separate court challenge to the Legal Sector Code – which sets firm-level targets of 50% black ownership, voting rights and executive management positions within five years – arguing that these targets are unrealistic given that blacks made up just 38% of the profession in 2023. It argues that the introduction of the code was arbitrary, unlawful and procedurally flawed. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
Daily Maverick
11-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
The DA's employment equity case attempts to reverse transformation and entrench white minority privilege
The Democratic Alliance's (DA's) legal challenge to the Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEAA) is a thinly veiled attempt to reverse economic transformation and thereby entrench white minority privilege. The party's claim that its court action is in opposition to 'grand social engineering' rings hollow given the enduring legacy of apartheid's social and economic architecture. In truth, the DA's stance on EEAA is an ideological inheritance, a continuation of their historical resistance to redress; part of its raison d'être to fossilise colonial and apartheid racial and gender hierarchies. To appreciate this, let us briefly consider the Department of Employment and Labour's 24th Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) Annual Report (2023/24). It exposes the fiction that the private sector is a transformed happy terrain which the DA seeks to shield from the supposed 'interference' of the government. The report illustrates a country still struggling to shrug off the shadow of economic apartheid. For example, while the white population group constitutes 7.7% of the nation's economically active population (EAP), it nevertheless held 62.1% of top management level positions in 2023. Representing 2.6% of the EAP, South Africans of Indian descent held 11.6% of these posts. At 80.7% of EAP, black Africans hold 17.2% of top management roles, while coloureds, at 9% of the EAP, account for a paltry 6.1%. These disparities are neither natural nor God ordained; they are an outcome of Verwoerdian economic violence against Africans, coloureds and Indians. The CEE report also damningly notes that the majority of recruitment, promotion and skills-development opportunities at this highest echelon continue to flow to the white population group. This is not merit, it is the perpetuation of a boardroom order where white privilege remains the default. Conveyor belt of privilege The disparity reflected at top management cascades downwards to the senior management level where whites at 7.7% of EAP occupy 48.5% of positions, Indians who constitute 2.6% of EAP hold 12.4%, while black Africans hold 27.6% of positions despite being 80.7% of the population. The lion's share of opportunities still flows to those already at the top, which means that transformation is perpetually decked against a conveyor belt of privilege. The private sector emerges as the stronghold of this resistance. While the government has made commendable strides, achieving 74.7% black African representation at top management, the private sector languishes with a pitiful 14% black African representation at this level, effectively maintaining the apartheid-era status quo, where 65.1% of top posts are held by white individuals. Alongside racial disparities is gender inequality. Across all sectors, men dominate top management by more than two-and-a-half times females (roughly 73% male). While the government shows marginally better female representation at 35.4% in top leadership, the private sector registers 10% less, at 25.8%. This glass ceiling, often a result of old boys' clubs dressing up exclusion as 'culture fit', is an outcome of a patriarchal culture which compounds racial exclusion and puts paid to the mythology of a self-correcting market. Nowhere is this private-sector exceptionalism and entrenched bias more grotesque than in the DA-run Western Cape, their self-proclaimed bastion of good governance. There, white males alone occupy a staggering 57.2% of top management positions and 34.4% at senior management level. This is in a province where white people constitute only 17% of the population, compared with 42% coloured and 38% black African – who together form 80% of the residents. This is not a reflection of a 'dearth of qualified candidates'; it is a damning testament to a systemic racial and gender bias thriving under a political administration that pays lip service to equality while actively fighting the tools designed to achieve it. Coloured and black African professionals are corralled into the lower tiers by an exclusionary 'culture fit' that walks and quacks like 'job reservation' in post-apartheid South Africa. These are the gatekeepers making crucial investment and employment decisions and shaping institutional cultures that too often exclude black African, coloured and Indian talent. In its affidavit to the North Gauteng High Court, the DA wilfully misrepresents the amended Section 15A of the EEAA, which empowers the minister to set 'numerical targets', as a draconian imposition of immutable 'quotas'. Yet, the original Employment Equity Act (EEA), in Section 15(3), explicitly clarifies that affirmative action measures 'include preferential treatment and numerical goals, but exclude quotas'. The Constitution itself was drafted to smash apartheid's economic architecture, not to immortalise it, and the Employment Equity Act is one of our key demolition hammers. Transformation failure The current amendments provide a desperately needed impetus precisely because the 'context-sensitive employer-led plans' so cherished by the DA have demonstrably failed to achieve substantive transformation, as the CEE statistics brutally confirm. Furthermore, the Act is far from being the rigid cudgel the DA portrays. Section 15A (3) explicitly provides for nuanced, differentiated targets responsive to occupational levels, sub-sectors or regions. Critically, Section 42(4) explicitly permits any employer to 'raise any reasonable ground to justify its failure to comply'. The Act has consistently emphasised the appointment of 'suitably qualified' individuals. Nothing in the Act prohibits the appointment of a candidate from a non-designated group if a diligent, exhaustive search does not find a suitably qualified candidate from a designated group. In practice, the Act operates much like our critical-skills visa process – nuanced, consultative and always mindful of maintaining standards. This inherent flexibility exposes the DA's opposition as ideological warfare rather than a practical critique. Their true grievance is with the erosion of racial privilege. Qualified franchise, swart gevaar This position is not new for the DA. As recently as 1978, 47 years ago, the DA, then called the Progressive Party, championed a qualified franchise for black people over universal adult suffrage or 'one person, one vote'. Revealing – more than it concealed – its contempt for black people, this party, which claims liberal credentials, argued that black people needed to have attained a certain level of education and own property in order to vote. No doubt a strategy to manage the savages. After rebranding as the Democratic Party, it opposed the Labour Relations Act of 1995 and the original Employment Equity Act of 1998 on grounds that these laws offend against 'meritocracy'. You can accuse the DA as you will, but inconsistency in protecting white minority privilege cannot be one of its faults. The DA's dire prophecy that the Act will cripple investment or decimate employment is an old swart gevaar red herring pure and simple. After the original EEA took effect, between 2001 and 2007, South Africa's economy grew between 4.5%-5.5%, while unemployment dropped by 11%, proving that equity policies can coexist with economic expansion. The real drags on investment are challenges such as energy and logistics bottlenecks and crime, not the presence of black African women and men in the C-suite. By selectively championing Section 9(1) of the Constitution (equality) while ignoring the clear mandate of Section 9(2) – the solemn duty to enact measures that advance those historically disadvantaged by unfair discrimination – the DA reveals its true colours. It aligns itself with every white-supremacist argument ever used to defy meaningful change. This constitutional mandate demands decisive, active intervention, not passive hope or transformation on its terms – optional, non-binding and perpetually negotiable. No Bantustan boardrooms The EEAA, fortified by the undeniable truth of the CEE's findings, stands as an indispensable instrument in our protracted struggle to dismantle structural racism, unlock the full spectrum of South African talent and forge an inclusive economy – a boardroom that is not a Bantustan reflecting a 7% minority. We cannot allow the boardrooms of corporate South Africa to remain gated enclaves. The consequences for doing so would be more than symbolic. These are the individuals who shape investment decisions, workplace cultures and corporate governance. If they do not reflect our nation, neither will our economy. Besides, we can forget about social and political stability – something to which the DA either pays lip service or does not appreciate, or both. The DA has no history of genuinely advancing the interests of black people in general, Africans, coloureds and Indians in particular, in our country. Its historic positions are consistent with this latest offensive and an affront to the eradication of the legacy of colonialism and apartheid. South Africans must ask – whose freedom is advanced if the DA wins? Certainly not the coloured engineer passed over because she 'won't fit the culture'. Not the black African professional locked out of a training programme because the boardroom is 'already diverse enough'. The only winners would be those who mistake yesterday's privilege for today's right.
IOL News
30-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Helen Zille's remarks on Afrikaner "opportunities" under scrutiny
Democratic Alliance (DA) Federal Council Chairperson Helen Zille. Image: Itumeleng English/ Independent Newspapers HELEN Zille has defended her comments that the Afrikaner community "took all opportunities very seriously" and there was "nothing stopping everyone else from following that example" despite backlash. Zille took to X and wrote: 'Afrikaners took all opportunities very seriously. Educated their children into professional skills and out of poverty. Built huge enterprises from the bottom up. Nothing stopping everyone else from following that example.' Many quickly called her out, citing the racist apartheid system. Approached for further comment on Thursday, Zille told the Cape Times: 'Read the history of Afrikaners between 1902 and 1940, in any authoritative history. They started absolutely poverty stricken and economically excluded, and the story of how they changed that in the ensuing three decades is clear. The historical facts of the transition from poverty to prosperity of Afrikaners is well documented in many sources. Taking offence will not change this.' This comes as the DA has turned to court to challenge the Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEAA), which the party believes will repel investors and discriminate against certain races. Her comments also come as the 2025 Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) annual report showed that white people were eight times their Economically Active Population (EAP) at top management, while the black population representation at just 18.0% is four times below their EAP. The statistics contained in the report forms part of the Department of Employment and Labour's basis to forge ahead with legislative amendments despite pushback from opposition parties, in particular the DA. Employment Equity deputy director, Niresh Singh told a recent EE Roadshow in Pietermaritzburg that employers who are not compliant with the Employment Equity Act (EEA) will be excluded from doing business with organs of state. 'Designated employers must comply with Chapters II and III of the Act whereas those not designated have to comply only with Chapter II. They must attach the certificate of compliance which can only be issued by the Minister for a period of 12 months. The certificate can be revoked at any time for failure to comply.' He told the gathering that the certificate of compliance issued by the Minister will only be issued when the minister is satisfied that the employer has complied with the numerical targets in terms of Section 15A relevant to that employer, if the target is not achieved, the employer must have raised a reasonable ground to justify the failure. Singh said Section 53 has been in the Act since 1998 and was not promulgated then. 'And now it is promulgated and will be in force', he said. General Industries Workers Union of South Africa (GIWUSA) president Mametlwe Sebei said it was clear that without any pressure, from the state, 'there's not going to be any de-racialisation of the workplace".
