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

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

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