DA claims victory over VAT hike reversal amid political tensions

Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen is adamant that the decision to reverse the controversial 0.5 percentage point increase in value-added tax (VAT) was a direct result of the DA's legal challenge.
'Well, I think it's very clear from the beginning that we were opposed to the VAT hike,' Steenhuisen said in an interview with eNCA on Friday.
'We made it very clear before we went into the vote in Parliament, and now all the other parties have come around to our viewpoint.'
He criticised other parties for trying to take credit for the reversal.
'It's kind of like somebody setting a house on fire and then expecting credit when they throw a bucket of water on it,' he said.
'We are in this situation because those parties represented at the press conference yesterday were the perpetrators of the VAT hike. They're the ones who voted for it.'
His comments come after Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana announced that the VAT rate would remain at 15%.
The National Treasury said the increase, originally scheduled to take effect on May 1, was withdrawn following consultations with political parties and a review of parliamentary recommendations.
Despite being part of the ANC-led Government of National Unity (GNU), the DA has had tense relations with the ruling party, especially after refusing to support the 2025 Budget Fiscal Framework that included the VAT increase.
The DA, along with opposition parties such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), voted against the budget and took the matter to the Western Cape High Court.
Following Godongwana's announcement, the DA quickly claimed victory.
Steenhuisen insisted the change would not have occurred without the court pressure.
'If it wasn't for the court action and the dreadful day Treasury had in court, where it became clear their arguments were not gaining traction, there would have been no volte-face from the Finance Minister,' Steenhuisen said.
'The Minister of Finance had been adamant in court papers that there was no alternative to the VAT increase. What changed? It was the very real prospect of losing the case.'
Meanwhile, other political parties have also claimed credit.
uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party secretary general Floyd Shivambu told supporters outside Jacob Zuma's court hearing in Pietermaritzburg on Thursday that Jacob Zuma's party had led public resistance to the VAT increase.
'It's only the MK Party that went to the streets to reject the VAT increase,' Shivambu said.
'While others were trying to discuss VAT in court and in Parliament, it's only us who went to the ground.'
Other parties, including ActionSA, Build One SA, and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), said they engaged the ANC directly to find alternative solutions.
Build One SA leader Mmusi Maimane praised the negotiations with the ANC, calling them key to the VAT reversal.
However, on Thursday, IOL News reported that Patriotic Alliance (PA) deputy leader Kenny Kunene accused the DA of hypocrisy, slamming the party's claim of victory as dishonest.
'They woke up this morning after seeing the statement from the minister and claimed victory — that's quite hypocritical,' Kunene said during a multi-party media briefing in Sandton.
He alleged that the DA attempted to use the VAT hike as leverage to push for state asset privatisation and political appointments within the GNU.
'They tried to use it to change what Parliament had already resolved,' Kunene said.
'So a party of extortionists has failed to serve South Africans on an important matter of national interest.'
Kunene further claimed that the DA made demands during negotiations, offering to support the VAT hike if certain conditions were met, including the scrapping of the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill, the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill, and the privatisation of a state port.
'When the extortionists could not get their way, they ran to court,' Kunene said.
'The DA has no moral authority to claim victory for the removal of the VAT increase.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Citizen

2 hours ago

• The Citizen

How to miss a miracle: Just don't try

The National Development Plan was visionary, but today its only value is as a mirror. The plan was the government's flagship strategy to create a more equal society and an environment of accelerated economic growth … Picture: Shutterstock I found a dusty copy of the original National Development Plan (NDP) published in August 2012 while moving offices last week. Paging through the 500-page glossy book, I was again reminded that it was an excellent document – well ahead of its time. But the irony is stark, as it now represents one of the biggest pipedreams in South Africa's democratic history. The plan was the government's flagship strategy to create a more equal society, with all proposals centralised to establish an enabling environment where businesses could grow and flourish to accelerate economic growth. The goal was average economic growth of over 5.4% between 2011 and 2030. Unemployment was targeted to drop to 14% by 2020 and to 6% by 2030. The government adopted the plan amid dancing girls and fireworks, proudly labelling it the magic blueprint for a prosperous future in South Africa. Read more SA expresses sadness, offers condolences to India after Air India crash [VIDEO] Well, that didn't quite happen. But it isn't a surprise. I also remember the ANC's elective conference in Mangaung a few months later, in December 2012, where Jacob Zuma was re-elected as ANC president. During his victory speech in a packed and boisterous venue, he feverishly brandished the plan in the air and shouted above the noise: 'This is the plan that will take South Africa forward.' The crowd noise tapered off and turned to discontented mumbling. A Cosatu official I had been speaking to bent down and muttered: 'It's a DA plan. It will never happen. Over my dead body.' That was nearly 13 years ago. It might as well have been the blueprint for the tallest building in the world, where the only execution was the theft of the building materials. ALSO READ: What is the National Development Plan, and will its hopes become a reality? No execution, but reviews continue … The National Planning Commission still exists, and it regularly publishes reviews of the original plan's failures. The cynic in me says it could be one commission Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana can cut as part of his austerity plan. The NDP still sports a beautiful cover, with crisp, glossy pages and an expertly crafted layout – a really professional document. Yet, despite its elegance, it has become a prime example of how a visionary and audacious plan, without execution, is ultimately not worth the paper it's printed on. It's a waste of money. Today, South Africa has no clear blueprint for its future. The government of national unity (GNU) is positive, but the leadership is currently focused on stabilising coalitions and tackling short-term crises. Beyond the immediacy, there is a vacuum of long-term strategic thinking. A positive development, however, is the GNU's stated focus on growth and job creation – core goals that echo the original intent of the NDP. ALSO READ: SA's expanding safety net: Millions more to receive social grants by 2030 Worth another (good) look Perhaps the plan's lasting value lies in its function as a mirror. If politicians and policymakers were to reread it today – really read it – they might come to a sobering realisation: the country's current economic policies are not working. This will require an aggressive reassessment of key policies: revisiting empowerment policies and frameworks, policies not to nationalise plundered and dysfunctional state-owned enterprises but to re-establish powerful, independent institutions like the Scorpions to combat corruption, and fundamentally rethinking how South Africa fights crime to restore the rule of law. We don't need another glossy plan. We need brave decisions, practical policy shifts, and the political will to act. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.

TimesLIVE

3 hours ago

• TimesLIVE

Suicide bombing kills 20 at Damascus church

At least 20 people were killed and dozens injured when a suicide bomber blew himself up at the Mar Elias Church in the Dweila neighbourhood of Syria's capital Damascus on Sunday, health authorities and security sources said. It was the first suicide bombing in Damascus since Bashar al-Assad was toppled by an Islamist-led rebel insurgency in December. Syria's interior ministry said the suicide bomber was a member of Islamic State (IS). He entered the church, opened fire and detonated his explosive vest, a ministry statement said. A security source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said two men were involved in the attack, including the one who blew himself up. IS has been behind several attempted attacks on churches in Syria since Assad's fall, but this was the first to succeed, another security source told Reuters. Syria's state news agency cited the health ministry as saying 52 people were injured in the blast. A live stream from the site by Syria's civil defence, the White Helmets, showed destruction inside the church, including a bloodied floor and shattered pews and masonry. Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who led the offensive against Assad before taking over in January for a transitional phase, has repeatedly said he will protect minorities. 'We unequivocally condemn the abhorrent terrorist suicide bombing at the Mar Elias Greek Orthodox Church in Damascus,' the Greek foreign ministry said in a statement. 'We demand the Syrian transitional authorities take immediate action to hold those involved accountable and implement measures to guarantee the safety of Christian communities and all religious groups, allowing them to live without fear.' IS had previously targeted religious minorities, including a major attack on Shiite pilgrims in Sayeda Zainab in 2016, one of the most notorious bombings during Assad's rule. The latest assault underscores the group's continued ability to exploit security gaps despite the collapse of its territorial control and years of counterterrorism efforts.

IOL News

4 hours ago

• IOL News

Is R700 million for a national dialogue worth it?

Before the government spends R700 million on a(nother) national dialogue, it is reasonable to ask what the dialogue promises to deliver, is this worth more than R700 million and what are the chances the stated objectives will be achieved, ask the author. Before the government spends R700 million on a(nother) national dialogue, it is reasonable to ask what the dialogue promises to deliver, is this worth more than R700 million and what are the chances the stated objectives will be achieved. Dr Oyama Mabandla, a member of the national dialogue preparatory task team, asks us to give the national dialogue a chance, reminding us that '[t]he national dialogue is an attempt to reinvigorate and fix a dangerously adrift democracy. It will involve the entire populace, instead of the self-selecting and incestuous elites, who have been producing one after another failed plan, while the rest of us have been spectators.' But of course it won't involve the entire populace and the outcome will be a big report that no one reads. How can it be anything other than this? Even if you could speak to everyone. What then? Which ideas do you implement and which do you ignore? No member of the task team can do anything other than talk and although conversations matter, you need executive power to change things and you get executive power through lots of votes. The reason we have elections is that you can't involve the whole populace of 63 million people in any dialogue, no matter how important. So we compromise and although they are very far from perfect, elections are the only way we have to get a sense of what citizens want. South Africans didn't decide to give the ANC 40% of the vote in the last election to teach anyone a lesson, as experts love to tell us. A gogo voted for the DA because she believed they would give her grandchildren the best future and a young, first-time voter put their X next to Juju's face because they believe the EFF will give them the best opportunities, but most didn't even do that. Voting is the only opportunity you have to not get the government all the other idiots deserve. It is only in those few minutes in a cubicle where you can actually get something changed. The national dialogue is not even that. You can say as much as you want in conversations and you will be ignored. This is not personal. It is the very heart of how democracy works. No one vote counts for anything unless millions of others agree with you and then that vote really counts. I have no idea why President Cyril Ramaphosa feels like a(nother) national dialogue will yield anything positive (aside from the events' organisers who will no doubt be skimming their 25%) or why borrowing R700m to fund this will yield more in value than the R700m, plus interest, that will be spent. (We currently borrow around R1 billion per day, so the national dialogue is an extra 17 hours or so of borrowing, which somehow doesn't feel that bad. But it is). It's all about social compacting, we are told. But what is this magical phrase loved by many and understood by few? Does Ramaphosa love social compacting more than Trump loves tariffs? Will the national dialogue make more people less poor or will everyone just be R700mn poorer? Social compacting would pop up in masterplans in the Department of Trade Industry and Competition for example, and mostly seemed to mean that a small number of dominant companies could meet with the government, without minutes or recordings, to determine how the rest of the industry should work. It failed even with the full power of government and the largest companies in the country behind it. South Africans, when you ignore the loudest and emptiest vessels, talk with each other just fine (even if that is mostly to complain about the government). The problem is that South Africans are getting poorer and most citizens don't believe the government, irrespective of which party is in charge, can fix that. That is why so many people don't bother voting. The most important first step to economic transformation is to make it easier for more people not to be poor. The three great social ills in South Africa of poverty, unemployment and inequality, leaves out the fourth great ill which is lack of economic freedom. The EFF hijacked this term for their version of communism, but economic freedom allows people to solve their own problems. Not another pile of the Master's Plans, pushed down onto South Africans, but allowing them more freedom to do what they believe is important for them. But the government doesn't trust its own citizens, so you can be "given" a free house shitty house after waiting decades but you can't sell it, because the government doesn't believe you can be trusted with your own money. You wait for decades because with free stuff, the demand always outstrips the supply and no one has an incentive to increase the supply. We know poor people will pay for houses if they can own them, because poor people currently pay for houses they cannot own. Rich people have economic freedom and poor people are not allowed to make their own economic decisions and so remain poor. We have the only national dialogue that matters, which are the conversations which happen in parliament. Have your say and vote and you are part of the dialogue. Spending R700m so you can be told by a(nother) group of people how they can lift you from poverty, as long as you do as you are told, is a terrible idea.