Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 April 2025 | Story Terrance Molobela | Photo Supplied
Terrance Molobela
Terrance Molobela is a Lecturer in the UFS Department of Public Administration and Management.

Opinion article by Terrance Molobela, Lecturer in the Department of Public Administration and Management, University of the Free State.

 


 

Despite fierce opposition of the already passed National Fiscal Framework, the African National Congress (ANC) convened several meetings within and outside the Government of National Unity (GNU) mostly pioneered by its Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula who recently stated: “We are not trickers; we do not trick people. We engaged with ActionSA, and they said they do not want VAT; that’s not tricking anyone.”

One thing is clear, there is nothing binding on the GNU that after receiving additional budget proposals to raise revenue from ActionSA and Building One South Africa (BOSA), the VAT hike will be dropped. In fact, on 16 April 2025 in an interview with Newzroom Afrika the Minister of Finance Enoch Godongwana said: “I am not married to any increase or percentages”. The minister pointed out that the initial budget without VAT hikes was still on the table, however, he further highlighted that VAT increases remain Parliamentary policy issues. His advice is: “If you remove the 0.5% VAT increase, you must find an equivalent amount on the expenditure side to ensure the fiscal framework remains balanced.”

As the budget impasse stands, people need to understand that once the budget is passed by Parliament, the minister cannot unilaterally reverse the VAT increase. This is cemented by Section 12 of the Public Finance Management Act and Section 7(4) of the VAT Act. This ball is in Parliament’s court to reverse the budget and revenue proposal once alternative revenue generation proposal have been brought forward.

With 1 May 2025 looming, South Africans have a bitter pill to swallow as they will be charged R15.50% for every R100 spent. The media covered the VAT increase with rage and concerns from various communities across the country. The people feel punished by the GNU, while facing deep-rooted socio-economic problems like inequality, high unemployment, and poverty.

Despite the GNU deadlock and its fiscal crisis, several members within the ANC have unanimously admitted that the party has grossly failed to reach an amicable consensus within the GNU to freely support the VAT hike, hence it is vehemently opposed from all sides. Some critics suggest that the ANC-led government is poised to drop the VAT hike, but it’s unclear as to where and how the minister of finance would find the money to plug the fiscal gap.

 

Marriage may be sweet, but divorce is bitter

Both the ANC and DA knew ahead of time that forming the GNU with other parties was what is commonly known as “a marriage of inconvenience”. Before and on the wedding day, you both blind yourselves because of the sweet cake, joy, guests, and presents that long-lost friends will bring along. You create this beautiful picture that only exists in your head and hope that the other party shares a similar picture. But after you have entered the marriage, you then realise that you each functions on different levels and do not have complementary ideologies.

The DA’s ideologies on governance and policy is far the opposite of the ANC, and although it could work, the ANC have demonstrated their thirst for power and control, hence, their ability to share power equally remains a foreign language. DA leader John Steenhuisen has made it clear that they will not sacrifice citizens’ votes for a piece of cake but would rather fight and support a budget that caters for economic growth and job creation. This they have demonstrated by challenging the legality of the budget process in court, with hopes of blocking the implementation of a VAT increase, which has led to widening the rift within the fragile GNU.

 

The authenticity of the parliament – flawed budget process?

Amid mounting tensions created by the budget impasse, the National Assembly narrowly facilitated the national budget process, the DA, Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party rejected the budget, whilst the ANC-led government through coalescing outside GNU with parties like Action SA, secured majority support for the approval of the fiscal framework.

Parliament passed the 2025 National Fiscal Framework without the formal amendment of the mounting VAT and tax hikes. This was approved without binding recommendations, although budget committees suggested that the VAT and tax hikes be reconsidered at a later stage. As 1 May 2025 approaches for the VAT hike to kick in, reversing the VAT increase would be a lengthy process because it appears untenable.

The DA leader raised concerns that the Finance Committee acted ultra vires of the standing rules of Parliament, meaning the budget was not properly presented to the committee to reject or approve it, and that only a single proposal from the ANC was prioritised, whilst neglecting the DA proposal. This legal anomaly occurred under the watch of the National Assembly on the 2 April 2025. Hence, the DA have been challenging the budget.

One would ponder – “if the tables were turned, and the DA was in the position of the ANC and visa-versa, would the National Assembly opted to approve the budget framework?” I guess we would never know.

 

Where does the road lead now?

GNU: the ANC has already held several talks and meetings indirectly citing that the DA should hand over their divorce papers. But the president of the ANC needs the DA to remain in the coalition because of further economic shocks, which saw R1 trillion wiped out on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). Investor confidence in the economy has hit rock-bottom, and the current trade wars have put pressure on multiple businesses to tighten their investment belts until it is safe to continue investing. The DA has not yet declared whether they want a divorce, but critics suggest that the Deputy President, Paul Mashatile, would be delighted if the DA left since they rejected the very same budget that they expect to reap from. As for ActionSA, it is unclear whether they have decided to join the GNU, but its leader Herman Mashaba has shown interest in joining the GNU, which most critics have weighed as a betrayal to the people of South Africa.

Ordinary citizens: It is time for South Africa’s citizens to brace themselves for the oncoming VAT hike. As much as the minister of finance has argued that it was necessary to stretch the already deeply embedded financial distress of citizens grappling with over-taxation of income, the bitter pill remains theirs to swallow. The 0.5% in VAT carries an underestimated distress for households who will be left alone to deal with increased prices of goods, services, and essentials.

 

What should be done thus far?

More tax on the people, goods and services kills jobs, which results in reducing revenue generation by government. To avoid further inflationary hikes, the government needs to approach the problem in an unusual way – this means placing strict rules and regulations on any government transaction that takes effect, deal with corruption and mismanagement at every sphere of government. Monies lost and stolen through unfinished projects should be recovered and ensuring that all state projects remain frequently monitored.

The government needs to change its ways of approaching industries, companies, and businesses to create jobs, and transfer some of their skills to the people of South Africa. The youth is yearning to be seen, supported, trained, and placed into the real world to unleash their potential, which might be something the economy needs to re-establish and position itself in the right direction to stir desired economic growth.

 

News Archive

UFS law experts publish unique translation
2006-06-21

Attending the launch of the publication were from the left:  Prof Boelie Wessels (senior lecturer at the UFS Faculty of Law), Prof Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS), Prof Johan Henning (Dean: UFS Faculty of Law) and Adv Jaco de Bruin (senior lecturer at the UFS Faculty of Law). Prof Wessels translated the treatise from corrupted medieval lawyer Latin into English, Prof Henning is the leading author and initiator of the publication and Adv de Bruin assisted with the proofreading and editing. Photo: Stephen Collett

UFS law experts publish unique translation of neglected source of partnership law

The Centre for Business Law at the University of the Free State (UFS) has translated a unique long neglected Roman-Dutch source of the law of partnership law from Latin into English.  This source dates back to 1666. 

The book, called Tractatus de Societate (A Treatise on the Law of Partnership), by Felicius and Boxelius is published as Volume 40 in the research series Mededelings van die Sentrum vir Ondernemingsreg/Transactions of the Centre for Business Law.  It is the first translation of this Roman-Dutch source into English and comprises of a comprehensive discussion of the South African common law of partnerships.  

“Apart from various brief provisions dealing on a peace meal and an ad hoc basis with diverse matters such as insolvency, there is no comprehensive Partnership Act in South Africa.  The law of partnership in South Africa consists of South African common-law, which is mainly derived from Roman-Dutch law,” said Prof Johan Henning, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the UFS.  Prof Henning is also the leading author and initiator of this comprehensive publication.

“Countries such as America, England, Ireland and The Netherlands have drafted or are in the process of establishing new modern partnership laws in line with new international guidelines, practices and commercial usages,” said Prof Henning.

“However, in South Africa the most recent policy document released by the Department of Trade and Industry explicitly excludes partnership law from its present company law reform programme and clearly regards this as an issue for another day,” said Prof Henning.

“Unless there is a political will to allocate the necessary resources to a comprehensive partnership law revision program, it is a practical reality that South Africa will not have a modern Partnership Act in the foreseeable future,” said Prof Henning. 

According to Prof Henning South African courts have been using the Roman-Dutch partnership law sources as authority.  “The English Partnership Act of 1890 is not binding and the English text books should therefore be approached with caution,” said Prof Henning.

“A treatise on the law of partnership that has been regarded by South African courts as an important common law authority is that of  a Frenchman by the name of Pothier.  This treatise was translated into English and was regarded as an au­thority of significance in The Netherlands towards the end of the eighteenth century,” said Prof Henning. 

“Pothier’s opinions are however not valid throughout in the Roman-Dutch partnership law as it did not apply to the Dutch province of The Netherlands and it sometimes also rely on local French customs for authority,” said Prof Henning.

For this reason the Centre for Business Law at the UFS decided to focus its attention again on the significance of the comprehensive treatise of Felicius and Boxelius on the Roman-Dutch partnership law.  Felicius was an Italian lawyer and Boxelius a Dutch lawyer.

This long neglected source of partnership law was published in 1666 in Gorkum in The Netherlands.  "A significant amount of Roman-Dutch sources of authoritive writers trusted this treatise and referred to it,” said Prof Henning.

The translation of the treatise from corrupted medieval lawyer Latin into English  was done by Prof Boelie Wessels, a very well-known expert on Roman Law and senior lecturer at the UFS Faculty of Law.  Prof Wessels, who  has 15 degrees, spent almost ten years translating the treatise.  The proofreading and editing of the translation was done by Prof Henning and Adv Jaco de Bruin, a senior lecturer at the UFS Faculty of Law.

“We want the South African courts to use Volume 40 in the research series Mededelings van die Sentrum vir Ondernemingsreg/Transactions of the Centre for Business Law as the primary source of reference when cases where Roman-Dutch Law partnership law principles are involved, are ruled on,” said Prof Henning.

The first part of the publication comprises of selected perspectives on the historical significance of the work as well as a translation of selected passages. “The intention is to follow this up expeditiously with the publication of a very limited edition of a complete translation of the work,” said Prof Henning.

A total of 400 copies of the publication will be distributed to all courts, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.

Media release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Media Representative
Tel:   (051) 401-2584
Cell:  083 645 2454
E-mail:  loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za
21 June 2006

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept