Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
15 August 2025 | Story Martinette Brits | Photo Stephen Collett
Prof Yonas Bahta
Prof Yonas Bahta, Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of the Free State, delivered his inaugural lecture on the future of agricultural trade and food security, titled Can We Own the Future? The Ever-Changing Dynamics of Agricultural Trade and Food Security Amid Intensifying Agricultural Drought.

With the world hurtling towards a population of 9,7 billion by 2050 – and Africa set to make up more than a quarter of that – the question of whether we can ‘own the future’ has never been more urgent. In his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State (UFS), Prof Yonas Bahta from the Department of Agricultural Economics warned that climate change, trade tensions, and deepening food insecurity are converging to create unprecedented risks for farmers, economies, and communities.

“We find ourselves at a pivotal moment in human history, characterised by the intersection of climate change, particularly agricultural drought, resource scarcity, geopolitical instability, and the current trade reciprocal tariff, all of which pose significant threats to the foundational structures of global food systems,” he said.

 

From vulnerability to agency

Prof Bahta highlighted the stark reality that the world population is projected to reach 9,7 billion by 2050, with Africa constituting 2,5 billion. “Despite this growth, the agricultural sector predominantly operates at a subsistence level, with diminishing resources available to farming communities, especially smallholder farmers who rely on agriculture as their primary source of employment and sustenance.”

In South Africa, climate change – particularly agricultural drought – is affecting both commercial and smallholder farmers, with cascading effects on food security, employment, and livelihoods. Coupled with disease outbreaks, these factors lead to reduced crop yields, supply shocks, and trade imbalances that ripple through the economy.

Food insecurity remains a critical concern, with approximately 15 million South African households experiencing moderate to severe food insecurity – a figure even higher (25,5%) among households engaged in agricultural activities. Prof Bahta emphasised that these challenges are compounded by “institutional barriers such as the current trade reciprocal tariff by the USA, limited access to credit, crop and livestock insurance, inadequate road infrastructure, and electricity shortages”.

Despite these challenges, Prof Bahta sees clear opportunities. He pointed to Africa, including South Africa’s extensive arable land; research and innovation have highlighted the benefits of integrating traditional techniques with modern approaches such as climate-smart agriculture and its membership of BRICS and other trading partners as levers for resilience and growth. “Securing the future is not about mere assertion but about the stewardship of markets, data, and people,” he said. By aligning trade policy, drought preparedness, and social protection within robust institutions, “the country can transition from vulnerability to agency, from passively observing the future to actively shaping it. In doing so, we may indeed assert with integrity that ‘We own the future’.”

 

About Prof Yonas Bahta

Prof Yonas Bahta is a Professor and NRF-rated researcher in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of the Free State. He joined the UFS as a researcher in 2014 and has supervised more than 42 postgraduate students (both MSc and PhD), of whom 29 have completed their studies (10 PhD and 19 MSc).

He holds a PhD (2007) and MSc (2004, with distinction) in Agricultural Economics from the UFS, and a BSc (1994) in Agricultural Economics from Haramaya University, Ethiopia. Prof Bahta serves on the editorial boards of several journals, acts as a reviewer and guest editor, and is a member of several national and international professional bodies.

His work has been recognised with an award from the African Growth and Development Policy Modelling Consortium (AGRODEP), and in 2024 he was rated among the top 2% of researchers globally by Elsevier.

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