Latest news with #FreeSA
Zawya
4 days ago
- Business
- Zawya
South Africa: Opposition mounts to Malema's proposed Sarb takeover
"An independent central bank is a cornerstone of any credible economic system," warns Free SA, as it raises alarm over a proposed bill to nationalise the South African Reserve Bank. The organisation has submitted a formal objection to Parliament, arguing that the SARB Amendment Bill [B 26—2018] threatens to destabilise South Africa's economy by eroding the institutional independence that underpins monetary stability and investor confidence. Introduced by MP Julius Malema, the Bill proposes making the state the sole shareholder of the Sarb and transferring key governance powers—such as the appointment of directors and auditors—to the Minister of Finance. The Bill seeks to also amend the SARB Act by removing certain definitions and granting the Minister of Finance the power to appoint specific board directors. Both current SARB directors and the public may nominate candidates for these appointments, which are fixed for three-year terms. Additionally, the Minister will appoint two auditing firms annually to audit the Reserve Bank's financial statements, centralising governance and oversight powers within the executive branch. Fiscal control risks 'Handing full control of the Sarb to political authorities opens the door to fiscal dominance, inflationary pressure, and potentially disastrous economic mismanagement,' flags Reuben Coetzer, spokesperson for Free SA. In its submission, Free SA outlines a series of legal, economic, and reputational risks associated with centralising the Reserve Bank's governance in the executive branch. Drawing on cautionary examples from countries like Zimbabwe and Venezuela, the organisation highlights how diminished central bank autonomy has previously led to hyperinflation, currency collapse, and widespread poverty. Among the key dangers flagged in the submission are: Inflation risk: A politically controlled Sarb may be pressured to finance government deficits, weakening the rand and pushing inflation higher. Governance concerns: Transferring shareholder powers to a single political office removes external oversight, increasing the likelihood of politicised appointments. Legal ambiguity: Although technically within constitutional bounds, the Bill may violate the spirit of Section 224, which mandates independence 'without fear, favour or prejudice". Investor flight: The perception of weakened monetary policy independence could drive capital outflows and raise borrowing costs. Challenging private power But Malema asserts that nationalising the South African Reserve Bank will effectively facilitate financial inclusion. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), he said, views the Sarb as a crucial instrument for socio-economic transformation. It argues that the bank should not remain in the hands of private individuals and institutions but should serve the broader public interest. As far back as 2018, Malema highlighted that six of the largest banks control 90% of all banking facilities in South Africa and are predominantly owned by white minorities, who often apply exclusionary criteria. He believes that nationalising the Sarb would address these disparities and make the institution more reflective of South Africa's demographics. In parallel, Malema and the EFF have also backed the Banks Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Banks Act to allow state-owned companies—such as Postbank—to register and operate as banks. (While Postbank now exists as a state-owned commercial banking entity in legal structure, it has not yet submitted its licence application to the Prudential Authority and therefore is not operating as a fully licensed bank.) The Banks Amendment Bill would introduce legislative changes to enable Postbank to operate as a fully licensed, State-owned commercial bank by addressing key legal limitations in the Banks Act (No. 94 of 1990). Malema and the EFF argue that this intervention would enable the State to provide essential financial services and expand access to credit, particularly for underserved communities. It is within this ideological framework and long-standing push for financial reform that the EFF has persistently pursued the legislative process required to bring the SARB Amendment Bill to Parliament. Nationalisation in motion The Bill was initially introduced to Parliament in August 2018 but lapsed in May 2019 with the dissolution of the sixth Parliament. It was subsequently revived in October of the same year. In 2020, the EFF and Parliamentary Legal Services briefed the Standing Committee on Finance on the Bill, following an initial round of public hearings held in November 2018. Despite this early engagement, the Bill once again lapsed in May 2024, before being revived for a second time in July 2024. After the EFF called for the Bill to be prioritised in the new parliamentary administration, the Standing Committee on Finance resolved in September 2024 to conduct a second round of public hearings. This decision followed a briefing by the Parliamentary Budget Office, which presented its analysis of the Bill's potential socio-economic impact. With limited progress in processing the Bill, EFF MP Hlengiwe Mkhaliphi raised the matter with the National Assembly Programme Committee in late March 2025 and was assured that a response would be provided at the following meeting. Despite the Bill's steady advancement through parliamentary channels, Coetzer remains resolute in his opposition, warning that the cost of nationalisation may far outweigh its symbolic value: 'Symbolic ownership should not come at the cost of real economic harm. The Sarb 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.' - The public consultation process, wherein which individuals and stakeholders were invited to submit comments on the Bill by Monday, 30 June 2025, has now concluded.
The Citizen
6 days ago
- Business
- 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.'
Daily Maverick
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
‘Smacks of apartheid' — DA, activists slam new rule compelling property buyers to disclose race, gender
Free SA, a civil society organisation, has joined the call for the rural development ministry to reverse the mandatory disclosure of race, gender and other demographic information. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development insists the information will only be used for data collection. There are rising concerns about a regulation under the Deeds Registries Amendment Regulations 2025, which officially came into effect in early April. All property buyers are now required to submit demographic information such as race, gender, citizenship and nationality when lodging deeds for registration. This change is overseen by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and is an update of the long-standing Deeds Registries Act of 1937. Last Friday, the DA called on Minister of Land and Rural Development Mzwanele Nyhontso to abandon the controversial regulation, after the minister's reply to a DA parliamentary question revealed 'that the minister of land and rural development is enforcing racial classification regulations in property transfers without a legal or legislative definition of 'race' to underpin the compulsory classification requirement introduced', the DA said. The DA sees this as utterly flawed, saying a minister cannot admit that his regulations have no legal definition yet also insist that they are implemented and enforced as if they are binding law. The DA reiterated its demand that Nyhontso abandon the regulation that requires buyers of property to declare their race and gender in writing to the government via compulsory Deeds Office forms, because by the minister's own admission 'there is no legal or legislative definition of race' in South Africa any longer. The department's head of communication, Linda Page, told Daily Maverick they had not received any concerns from the deeds offices. The department said the data will help it make better-informed policies. Nyhontso has said: 'This regulation is not going to be used against other races. This regulation is going to be used to understand the land and to understand who owns the land, so we are able to audit the land in this country.' In a parliamentary session, Free SA said the regulation is unconstitutional and the data could be misused. In a letter addressed to the Chief Registrar of Deeds, in response to the latter's circular, the organisation said: 'We are compelled to place on record our serious constitutional concerns with the abovementioned requirement – specifically the demand for racial classification. This element of the circular is, in our view, unconstitutional and fundamentally incompatible with the founding values of the Constitution, particularly non-racialism, as enshrined in section 1(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.' Both the DA and Free SA pointed to the historical context, saying the requirement was an apartheid regime tactic. 'Compulsory racial classification was employed by the apartheid regime, most infamously codified through the Population Registration Act, 1950 (Act No. 30 of 1950). This Act formed a pillar of systemic racial discrimination and was repealed precisely to dismantle the machinery of formal, state-enforced racial categorisation,' the letter reads. Free SA also raises data privacy concerns, saying authorities should be transparent about where and how the data will be used and who will have access to it. Daily Maverick put this question to the land reform department but had not received a response by the time of publication. The concern is not only about the regulation itself, but also how it will be enforced. 'Even if a legitimate governmental objective were to be cited in support of collecting racial data (e.g. for purposes of redress, audits or transformation policy development), the means adopted must still comply with constitutional constraints. Compulsory racial classification by the state, in our considered view, cannot be reconciled with the post-apartheid constitutional order. In its current form, this regulation constitutes an impermissible infringement of constitutional rights and values, including those protected under sections 1, 9, 10 and 14 of the Constitution.' Esi Attorneys explains: 'For buyers, sellers and conveyancing professionals, the implementation of Form LLL is a procedural step, not a substantive legal change. It simply requires that the form be completed and submitted during the normal course of the transfer process. 'There is no impact on transaction timelines, fees or ownership rights, and legal practitioners are experiencing the integration to be smooth and straightforward.' However, MP and the DA's spokesperson on land reform and rural development, Mlindi Nhanha, told Daily Maverick: 'The mandatory requirement to disclose race and gender as a pre-condition to exercising one's rights is a cause for concern. This new Regulation uncomfortably smacks of the apartheid era, during which South Africans were subjected to mandatory racial classification for purposes of discrimination, control and exclusion of the majority of the population. Nearly 31 years into a democratic dispensation, it is disheartening and regrettable to see similar mechanisms being reintroduced, even though under a different pretext and ostensibly different objectives.' Nhanha said that while they acknowledged the importance of accurate and comprehensive land ownership data to inform government policy and ensure the equitable transformation of land ownership patterns in the country, 'the inclusion of race and gender as mandatory disclosure requirements in the property transfer process needs careful consideration as these may violate individual dignity, privacy and constitutional rights'. The DA's land reform team would meet their support staff today (Thursday) to finalise a programme to visit at least one Deeds Office per province. 'My office has been inundated with calls and emails of practitioners in the sector expressing their displeasure about the new regulations. At the moment they find themselves compelled to complete the form much against their will or risk their applications being thrown out. It is for this reason we shall be undertaking surprise oversight visits to see for ourselves,' Nhanha said. Asked whether the DA believed this information would be misused by the Deeds Office, and if so, how, he said: 'The objectives of a land audit, especially in the context of redressing historical injustices, are laudable and necessary. However, the collection and use of demographic data, particularly where disclosure is tied to legal processes such as the registration of property rights, raises important questions about its constitutionality, privacy, data security, data abuse and potentially other unintended consequences.' The party would explore all avenues at its disposal 'to stop the minister in his tracks'. Daily Maverick spoke to a number of property agents who said they had not had many dealings with the form yet and so did not have feedback from clients about whether they were comfortable with sharing their demographic information. DM
IOL News
18-06-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Teacher unions divided on Bela Act guidelines
New guidelines for the implementation of the 2024 amendments to the South African Schools Act have sparked a fierce debate among education stakeholders. Image: Independent Newspapers Archives The Department of Basic Education's newly released Guidelines for the Implementation of the 2024 Amendments to the South African Schools Act have sparked a sharp divide among education stakeholders. Issued to MECs for Education and provincial heads of departments, the guidelines aim to clarify the interpretation and rollout of the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act (BELA), focusing on contentious areas such as language policy, admissions, and the role of school governing bodies (SGB). Civil society organisation Free SA has welcomed the guidelines, calling them a victory for constitutional governance, while the South African Democratic Teachers' Union (SADTU) has outright rejected the guidelines, calling them unlawful and politically motivated. Free SA, a constitutional rights advocacy group, applauded Minister Siviwe Gwarube, a member of the DA, and her team for incorporating core democratic principles into the guidelines. 'Free SA commends minister Gwarube for her leadership and responsiveness,' said spokesperson Reuben Coetzer. 'By anchoring these guidelines in the Constitution and administrative justice, she has taken a vital step in protecting the democratic ethos of South African schooling.' The organisation said many of the recommendations it submitted in a January 2024 memorandum have been adopted. These include the use of clear and objective standards for the assessment of admission and language policies, time-bound appeal procedures, and protections for SGBs from arbitrary interference. 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 ✕ 'SGBs cannot be dissolved or stripped of functions without a documented failure, due process, and an opportunity for rectification,' said Coetzer. However, SADTU issued a scathing media statement, accusing the Minister of acting outside the limits of her legal authority. 'The minister seems confused about her legal authority in terms of the Constitution,' the union said. 'She cannot exercise a power she does not have in law.' SADTU general secretary Dr Mugwena Maluleke said the union had written to the minister several times through its lawyers, warning that BELA does not authorise her to issue guidelines with legal effect. 'The law is clear that the Minister is only allowed to make regulations, not guidelines, in terms of the BELA Act,' the union stated. It went further, alleging that the release of the guidelines is part of the DA's political strategy to hinder full implementation of BELA, particularly sections dealing with language and admissions. 'We therefore demand that the Minister retract these guidelines and stop delaying tactics. We want the process to be lawful and be speeded up,' said Maluleke, urging schools, MECs, and SGB members to ignore the guidelines. In contrast, the National Professional Teachers' Organisation of South Africa (Naptosa) took a more constructive tone. Naptosa provincial CEO Thirona Moodley said the guidelines are 'fair to all stakeholders and do not impose unnecessarily on the jurisdiction of any stakeholder.' She added that Naptosa has representatives on all BELA regulation drafting committees and is confident that the final regulations will be practical and clear. 'Our reps are able to identify with the needs of the schools, thereby making valuable input from that perspective,' she said. Moodley encouraged public participation once the draft regulations are released. While the department has clarified that these are interim, non-binding guidelines, Free SA said they set an encouraging precedent for how BELA can be implemented without undermining constitutional values. The group said it would remain vigilant in monitoring the next phase of regulation development. Meanwhile responding to questions in the Basic Education Portfolio Committee yesterday, Minister Gwarube said that regulations regarding the Act would be published by the end of this month. "We made a commitment last year that by the end of June, the regulations would be out and published for the public. We are not at the end of June.' Gwarube also said the drafting of the regulations was an intricate process. 'It is not done by the minister. It is done by the legal team within the department in conjunction with the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor. That is the legal process we must allow to take its course. The regulations don't delay the implementation of the Act. "The Act is in force and implementable. The regulations seek to give clarity on certain parts of the Act and how they should be implemented.' THE MERCURY
IOL News
29-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Straining to support: South Africa's social grants are vital but can the state keep up?
Economic challenges and the future of social grants in South Africa Image: Tracy Adams Social relief of distress, or social grants, is a key part of South Africa's welfare system; however, recent data indicates that its role is increasingly strained, raising concerns about sustainability, economic growth, and social cohesion. According to the latest General Household Survey released by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA), an unprecedented 40.1% of the population - approximately 25.4 million individuals-now rely on social grants. This marks a significant increase from previous years and reflects a steady rise in dependence, particularly amid persistent unemployment and economic challenges. Risenga Maluleke, Statistician-General of South Africa, noted that the country's official unemployment rate hit 32.9% in the first quarter of 2025. Such figures highlight the stark depth of economic hardship many face, with social grants serving as a vital safety net without sufficient employment opportunities. Paul Maritz, Director at Free SA, a foundation advocating for rights, equality, and systemic reform, highlighted the gravity of this dependence. 'The growing reliance on social grants - now affecting over 25 million people — highlights deep socio-economic challenges and the urgent need for structural change,' he explained. 'Our proposed Power to the People Amendment aims to address these issues by reducing waste, devolving policing, and breaking monopolies that hinder economic opportunity.' Maritz warned that 'sustained dependence on grants without parallel investment in job creation risks entrenching a welfare economy that stifles individual potential and hampers long-term growth.' He warned that if current trends persist, South Africa's economy could face stagnation, shrinking tax bases, and rising inequality-all threatening social stability. The fiscal burden of social grants is significant. In 2011, the South African government allocated around 3.5% of GDP to social assistance, which has grown over the years. The Centre for Global Development estimated that expenditure on social grants, particularly the Child Support Grant (CSG), reached nearly ZAR31 billion (approximately US$4.2 billion) in 2010-11. Instead, they argued that they serve as a necessary-but insufficient-measure to support those unable to provide for themselves. "While grants have helped improve food security, children's well-being, and school attendance,' Maritz warned that they are not a long-term solution to poverty. 'Overdependence can distort labor markets. When social assistance becomes a substitute for employment, it can disincentivize active job-seeking and skills development. 'Countries with more developed economies often implement prerequisites or conditions tied to grants, encouraging recipients to pursue upskilling or community participation.' He added that the current approach risks creating a stagnating workforce and reducing overall productivity in South Africa, thereby hindering economic growth and perpetuating inequality. 'Ironically, the system designed to reduce inequality may inadvertently reinforce it if not paired with empowerment strategies. 'Without access to meaningful employment, quality education, and secure communities, social mobility remains elusive for many beneficiaries.' Furthermore, dependence on grants without addressing the root causes-unemployment, corruption, and inefficient public services-could erode trust in institutions. Maritz warned that 'a society where millions feel trapped and unheard is inherently unstable,' stressing the need for comprehensive reforms.
