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

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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