Cosatu says debate on B-BBEE is needed for beneciaries' benefit
Cosatu calls for reform of B-BBEE to ensure real empowerment for workers and disadvantaged communities, not just political elites and business insiders.
The debate about the broad-based black economic empowerment (B-BBEE) is needed on how to ensure it benefits the beneficiaries.
This is according to union federation Cosatu spokesperson Matthew Parks, who was reacting to the ongoing debate on whether the B-BBEE policy is aimed at being biased against whites.
Inequality persists
'While we support the B-BBEE Act, we believe a debate is needed on how to make sure it reaches its intended beneficiaries, in particular historically disadvantaged individuals and communities,' he said.
'We support the objectives of B-BBEE. These are necessary given three and a half centuries of systematic discrimination and disempowerment under colonial and apartheid rule. South Africa is 31 years into democracy but remains the world's most unequal society.'
Parks said the policy was a necessity to help historically disadvantaged persons and communities to enter the economy, not only as wage earners but also as owners of businesses.
He said Cosatu cannot remain satisfied with progress when the colour of one's skin still largely determines one's economic status.
ALSO READ: Minister extends date for comments on R100 billion transformation fund
'Ticking time bomb'
He added the majority of shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange are owned by whites, similarly with regards to ownership patterns of businesses.
'This is a ticking time bomb that we must address. It's not racism against whites and, in fact, white women and white South Africans with disabilities are included. White South Africans and investors are not excluded,' he said.
'All the policy seeks to do is to boost the economic empowerment of those still disadvantaged. It has helped to begin the journey of building a nonracial society. While some progress has been made in building a black middle class and black industrialists, it is not enough given the inequalities still so prevalent.'
Parks said more must be done to ensure 'it benefits workers and not just the elite and worker ownership and employee shareholder ownership programmes should be ramped up'.
He added more must be done to ensure investors honour their B-BBEE shareholders and equity equivalents.
Equity equivalents offer alternative for foreign investors
When asked if Cosatu supports the equity equivalents, Parks agreed and said that has been one of two options under the B-BBEE Act for many years.
He said they provide a useful option for international investors who are not able to do the B-BBEE shareholders' option.
ALSO READ: DA transformation policies stance dents its image and may lose it votes, says expert
'Equity equivalent option allows investors to support local manufacturers, create jobs, skill workers or invest in local communities,' he said.
'These have benefited many local businesses, workers and communities. They have been successful in many sectors, including clothing and motor manufacturing. Many companies have utilised this option before.'
Malatsi's draft policy
Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi was recently criticised for unveiling a draft policy direction in the Government Gazette 'proposing an alternative to the B-BBEE ownership requirements for the ICT [Information and Communication Technology] sector'.
'The new model would allow companies to meet empowerment obligations through equity equivalent programmes rather than direct ownership transfers,' one critic said.
The proposed amendment to the Act could facilitate the entry of investors such as Elon Musk's Starlink into South Africa's telecommunications market and contribute to the empowerment of the previously disadvantaged people without having done a direct transfer of ownership.
Malatsi's critics said he was trying to pave a way for Starlink to do business in SA. Musk has previously criticised the B-BBEE policy, saying it was racist.
NOW READ: Proposed Starlink deal 'wrong in principle and practice'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Are we inviting the World Bank's interference or seeking genuine support?
Later this year the World Bank Group will launch the second pilot edition of its B-READY report, a new benchmark for assessing global business climates. Image: Wikipedia Has the World Bank's flagship business index already been hijacked — from a South African perspective — even before the country's debut in the pilot phase? Money, as Ayn Rand wrote, is the barometer of a society's virtue. In her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, Rand observed: 'When you see that trading is done not by consent but by compulsion, when you see that to produce, you need permission from men who produce nothing, when money flows to those dealing in favors rather than goods — when corruption is rewarded and honesty becomes self-sacrifice — you may know your society is doomed.' Nearly seven decades later, her words remain chillingly relevant. Later this year (September–October 2025), the World Bank Group (WBG) will launch the second pilot edition of its Business Ready (B-READY) report, a new benchmark for assessing global business climates. South Africa is set to join the third pilot in 2026, alongside 184 economies, before the project's full rollout in 2027. B-READY, an evolution of the discontinued Doing Business survey, evaluates regulatory frameworks and public services affecting firms. For South Africa, the index focuses on 10 key areas — business entry, utilities, labour, financial services, taxation, dispute resolution, and more — spanning four departments: Employment and Labour; Finance; Small Business Development; and Trade, Industry, and Competition. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ The WBG has already critiqued South Africa's 'hard regulations', including BEE policies, local content rules, and collective bargaining, arguing they stifle implementation and breed corruption. A February 2025 WBG report, Driving Inclusive Growth in South Africa, also highlighted weak market competition as a critical flaw. Notably, the report's contributors included prominent South African economists and private-sector representatives — Tania Ajam, Haroon Bhorat, Mcebisi Jonas, and others. While the World Bank is a respected institution, its reports often reflect local biases rather than impartial Washington analysis. South African policymakers are well aware of this — and of attempts to influence policy through institutions and 'experts' of perceived gravitas. B-READY's methodology relies on firm-level surveys and confidential expert input, raising questions about transparency. In a country with low internet penetration and a gatekeeping culture, how representative will these surveys be? The selection process — scouring LinkedIn, conferences, and embassy directories — hardly guarantees objectivity. The Doing Business report's demise in 2020 followed data manipulation scandals involving China, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Is South Africa immune to such interference? With competing economic agendas, disjointed governance, and external pressures (including from Trump-aligned figures), the risk of distortion is real. Domestically, the DA is challenging labour laws in court, while AfriForum lobbies foreign governments against B-BBEE. Meanwhile, institutions such as the CIPC, Competition Commission, and SARS — though theoretically capable of enabling business — remain inefficient and disjointed. Consider recent examples: CIPC's mass deregistration of 'non-compliant' companies, under the guise of FATF compliance, ignores South Africa's unemployment crisis. Private-sector exploitation of undocumented workers (Uber, SPAR franchises) flouts labour and tax laws. Tshwane's revenue crackdown exposes rampant illegal utility connections by businesses. Will the World Bank's surveys capture these realities? Or will its findings — like past reports — be skewed by advocacy masquerading as research? A 2005 evaluation of WBG research (led by Nobel laureate Angus Deaton) found that the Bank elevated favourable studies and ignored inconvenient ones, blurring the line between analysis and agenda. South Africa doesn't need external interference — it needs will. Regulatory bodies must function cohesively. Policies should enable, not strangle. And if B-READY is to be Rand's 'noble medium', it must resist becoming another tool of coercion. The question lingers: Is the World Bank's index a genuine reform tool—or a new frontier of influence against South Africa? * Makgwathane Mothapo is a marketing and communications practitioner. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, IOL, or Independent Media. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Sars enforcement: the new era of tax compliance in South Africa
Tax Discover how the South African Revenue Service has transformed into a powerful enforcement agency with Project AmaBillions, and learn how to navigate the new landscape of tax compliance to protect your finances. The South African Revenue Service (Sars) is no longer the passive revenue service many South Africans remember. With the injection of R3.5 billion from the national budget and the ominous launch of 'Project AmaBillions,' Sars has entered its most aggressive phase of enforcement in years and is quickly turning into one of the most sophisticated, assertive, and unrelenting revenue authorities in the world. Welcome to the new high-stakes era of tax compliance, which marks the end of the era of any perceived leniency. It is now the time of relentless enforcement. If you've received a surprise assessment or an additional tax bill, doing nothing could be financially and legally disastrous. Sars has flipped the switch: compliance or consequences South Africa's budget is strained, and Sars has one clear mandate: collect at all costs. The days of informal engagement are over. Today, Sars is functioning as a well-resourced enforcement agency, driven by targets and backed by increasingly automated systems that flag non-compliance in real-time. Their legal tools of collection include: - Final demands; - Civil judgments; - Third-party appointments are issued directly to your bank without having to inform you; - Garnishee orders issued directly to your employer; - Instructing the Sheriff to collect; - Asset seizures; and - Criminal prosecution. If you disagree with an assessment, silence is surrender. Unless formally and timeously disputed, Sars will pursue recovery. And they don't knock, they act. From garnishee orders to default judgments, Sars is now executing collections swiftly and with minimal notice. Once the machine is in motion, it becomes significantly harder and more expensive to reverse. There's a process, but it's not forgiving Yes, there is a dispute process. And yes, it exists to protect taxpayers, but only if used strategically and correctly. You have 80 business days from the date of assessment to object. Miss this window, and you must beg Sars to condone your lateness, and they're under no obligation to say yes. Even if the assessment is wrong, Sars is entitled to collect unless and until a dispute is lodged and the debt is suspended. Without this, enforcement proceeds. Your bank accounts, salary, or even those who owe you may be targeted. Sars has shown no hesitation in using every legal mechanism at its disposal, and you must thus use every legal mechanism at your disposal to protect your interests. Disputes must be strategic - this is a legal battlefield This is not the time for 'DIY' tax disputes. In the enforcement era, objections need to be drafted like legal pleadings, not complaints. Sars doesn't respond to emotion; it responds to evidence, statute, and precision. A skilled tax attorney can mean the difference between a successful objection and irreversible enforcement. This is especially critical when multiple years are at stake or where Sars alleges serious non-disclosures. Sars Commissioner Kieswetter has made their philosophy clear: compliance will be facilitated; non-compliance will be punished. The playing field may be fair, but it is also ruthless to those who don't act timeously. Every single day counts, and delay is dangerous In today's enforcement climate, an assessment is not a suggestion; it's a trigger. It signals the start of Sars' collection clock. If you don't respond with speed and legal force, you may find your finances, assets, and reputation under siege. Every day you delay, Sars gains ground. An assessment isn't an invitation to negotiate. It's a legal action, and if you fail to act swiftly and strategically, Sars will act for you through your bank, your employer, or the courts. Dispute on time. Dispute strategically. Or prepare for the full force of Sars enforcement. Act now, those who wait, lose. * Daniels is the head of tax controversy and dispute resolution at Tax Consulting SA. PERSONAL FINANCE
TimesLIVE
6 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
CRL chair's claims against its executive director are 'defamatory', Forsa says
Freedom of Religion South Africa (Forsa) has strongly denied what it termed false and defamatory allegations made by chairperson of the CRL Rights Commission Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva on Thursday. During a media briefing convened by the commission, Mkhwanazi-Xaluva alleged Forsa and its executive director Michael Swain had accused her, Cheryl Zondi and/or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation of receiving R1.5m from the National Lotteries Commission. Zondi was a witness in the rape trial of Nigerian televangelist Timothy Omotoso. Forsa said this donation was reported widely in the media. It said a press release from the National Lotteries Commission of December 13 2018 stated the Cheryl Zondi Foundation had partnered with the Izimvo 447 NPC and received R1.5m to aid their work for those exploited in sacred spaces. 'Neither Michael Swain, nor Forsa, has ever alleged financial misconduct of any kind. Such claims are false and wholly without any factual basis at all,' the organisation said in a statement. Forsa said it was disappointed that Mkhwanazi-Xaluva did not first seek clarity or engage with it before making public accusations and threatening legal action. 'Her subsequent laying of criminal charges against Michael Swain and Forsa is seen as vexatious and unfounded. It appears to be a personally motivated attack designed to intimidate and deter Forsa (or others) from opposing the chair's agenda to push again for state regulation of religion.' Forsa said it reserved all legal rights in its response to this matter and was considering appropriate legal remedies in response to these false and harmful allegations. 'These include a formal demand for retraction as well as amending its extant damages claim for defamation.' Forsa said it was not against any person or institution, including Mkhwanazi-Xaluva or the commission. 'On the contrary, Forsa supports all of its legitimate and constitutional objectives. However, our singular focus is the protection and advancement of religious freedom and related constitutional rights in South Africa.' Forsa said a letter from more than 20 senior religious leaders representing about 12-million South Africans was sent to President Cyril Ramaphosa in 2019, raising several concerns, including that Mkhwanazi-Xaluva simultaneously served as CRL chairperson and deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation. The commission was a Chapter 9 institution, created to be independent and impartial, accountable only to parliament, Forsa said. 'Thus, its chair must avoid bias, preferential treatment and dual loyalties. Arguably, this includes keeping clear boundaries when interacting with organisations, especially advocacy organisations, linked to matters before the commission.' Forsa said under Mkhwanazi-Xaluva's leadership at the time, the CRL strongly pushed for state regulation of religion. 'A wide diversity of faith communities strongly opposed the CRL's proposal. The 'conflict of interest' concern arose because the CRL chair cited the Omotoso case as a high-profile example to justify the CRL's proposed regulation model (via peer review councils, licensing of religious leaders, etc).' Her appointment as the deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation, therefore, created a strong impression of an overlap of interest and influence. 'On the one hand, the chair of the CRL is tasked with impartial interaction with faith communities, constitutional compliance, and safeguarding diverse religious rights. Acting as deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation is an advocacy-aligned — not neutral — position.' This raised legitimate concerns about a conflict of interest on the part of the chairperson, Forsa said. 'It must be stressed that this in no way raises any concern or casts any suspicion on Cheryl Zondi or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation.' Since being reappointed, Mkhwanazi-Xaluva has continued promoting proposals for state regulation of religion, including the introduction of peer review mechanisms, Forsa said. It said it had consistently opposed this course of action, repeatedly warning that state regulation of religion was unnecessary, unconstitutional, unworkable and unaffordable. 'In Forsa's public education efforts to point out the dangers to religious freedom of state regulation of religion, we gave the historical background to the current context. One part of this extensive presentation referenced the 2019 letter to the president in good faith and with full transparency.' Forsa said the 2019 letter did not accuse Mkhwanazi-Xaluva of theft or corruption of any kind and did not contain any accusations against Zondi or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation at all.
