Parliament warns against stalling Bela Act implementation
The minister denied being influenced from outside to issue the guidelines.
However, the committee voiced concern about claims that the draft guidelines clash with the South African Schools Act (Sasa) and interfere with provincial administrative powers. Issues raised include confusion over the phrases 'collaborative vs after consultation', powers of the heads of departments and the appeals process.
'We have not been furnished with any guidelines or regulations. During our engagements with the provincial departments of education, it became apparent the guidelines differ from the Sasa. Some provincial departments of education are also confused by whether they received guidelines or regulations,' said Maimela.
'This is confusion we were concerned about from the start. If the provincial departments of education are confused, what about the general public and other stakeholders. We cannot allow the confusion.'
Some provincial departments told the committee the council of education ministers (CEM) rejected the guidelines and referred the matter back to the heads of education departments committee, calling for focus on regulation drafting.
The committee has asked Gwarube to submit a full report within four working days detailing how the guidelines came about.
'The committee is of the view that the time spent for draft guidelines could have been used rather for drafting regulations. We need the detail of what led to the guidelines as we must discuss if we need to write to the office of the president and explain the confusion created in the sector,' said Maimela.
The committee also noted challenges raised by provinces, including infrastructure issues, funding for compulsory Grade R, stipends and training for grade R, and stipends and training for Grade R practitioners.
It refused to engage with the Western Cape education department's presentation, citing a lack of substance.
Maimela said: ' The department has been told to amend its presentation and address the shortcomings. The Western Cape education department had a seven-slide presentation, but only three of the slides had the required information. We took a dim view as we noted the department seems to disregard our oversight role. We informed it to prepare a more detailed presentation that speaks to the request we sent to them.'
TimesLIVE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
3 hours ago
- The South African
'There's no white genocide': US lawmaker pleads SA's case amid sanctions bill
US Representative Jonathan L. Jackson, during an address to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has opposed H.R. 2633, the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 that aims to sanction South Africa and some ANC officials. On Wednesday, he said the bill 'does absolutely nothing to advance our bilateral relations with South Africa and in fact threatens to undermine it'. Jackson described the bill as 'not diplomacy' but 'coercion', based on a 'deeply fogged premise' that ignores the complexities and significant progress made together. Jackson stated that there was 'no credibility, no truth to saying white South Africans have experienced genocide'. 'Those were manufactured pictures,' he added, and emphasised the absence of a white genocide in South Africa. Jackson noted South Africa is the largest US trading partner in Africa, with over $20.5 billion (R359 billion) in two-way trade. He described South Africa as a strategic partner and a strong democracy committed to human rights. The two countries cooperate on global issues like health, climate, trade and education, Jackson added, stressing the importance of 'mutual respect' and 'respectful dialogues' to build on progress and yield benefits for both nations. Jackson warned that the proposed bill would increase tensions and undermine the progress South Africa and the US had already made. He urged Congress to allow diplomacy to 'play a central role in resolving political differences' based on international law and respect for sovereignty. He reminded the committee that the US had had relations with South Africa for less than 30 years since apartheid ended, and said South Africa had the right to an independent point of view. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee passes first round of anti-SA Bill
The Bill calls for a review of US-SA relations and for sanctions against the South African government and ANC leaders. A Bill that would require the Trump administration to conduct a full review of US-South Africa relations and to identify South African government and ANC leaders eligible for sanctions, passed the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee this week. The committee passed the 'US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025' by a vote of 34-16, with 28 Republicans and six Democrats supporting it and only Democrats opposing. It will now go to the full House of Representatives, where observers believe it will pass. It envisages SA government and ANC leaders being sanctioned under America's Global Magnitsky Act, which imposes financial and visa restrictions on individuals deemed guilty of human rights abuses or corruption. The Bill would also require the US Administration to determine if South Africa has undermined US national security or foreign policy interests. 'Aligning with America's adversaries' The Bill cites a long list of actions by the ANC government which it says have offended the US, centred on its good relations with Russia, China and Iran, and its hostility to Israel and Taiwan. The Bill was introduced by Texan Republican Ronny Jackson, a firm supporter of President Donald Trump. He told the committee that South Africa, while claiming to be non-aligned, had recently abandoned the US and its allies by increasingly aligning with America's adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran, and Iranian military proxies such as Hamas. He cited SA hosting the Chinese government's Confucius Institutes, conducting military exercises with China and Russia, and its alleged involvement in efforts to downgrade the US dollar. He also said, 'South Africa is systematically going after our partners and allies.' He cited its downgrading of Taiwan's presence in the country, 'falsely accusing the State of Israel of genocide at the illegitimate International Criminal Court and mimicking Iran's disgusting dismissal of the atrocities committed by Hamas on October the 7th' (the date of the attack by Hamas on southern Israel). Jackson said 'extreme politicians from the African National Congress have led efforts to target Afrikaners'. Daily Maverick recently revealed that the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) was a significant donor to Jackson, the sponsor of the Bill, and several other members of Congress hostile to SA. Of the six Democrats who voted for the Bill in the Foreign Affairs Committee, Brad Sherman and Jared Moskowitz are known to be strong Israel supporters. Bill Keating and George Latimer represent districts with large Jewish populations and Ted Lieu was born in Taiwan. Gregory Meeks, senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee and most other Democrats on the committee, strongly opposed the Bill. Meeks said SA acted as a leader not only among African countries, but also on the world stage – and was this year chairing the G20. The US and SA had a long history of partnership, which the Bill 'will not help to deepen or further'. 'South Africa has taken a number of foreign policy positions that I happen not to agree with. But in mature relations between countries, we can deal with those differences through diplomacy and dialogue. This legislation does just the opposite, taking a heavy hand'. He said, 'President Trump has already disproportionately targeted South Africa. He's done this by trying to embarrass President Ramaphosa in the Oval Office, with faulty evidence of purported atrocities in the country, by instituting an executive order cutting all US assistance in the country, and putting in its place a special refugee resettlement programme for Afrikaners. 'Glaring hypocrisy' 'And at the same time, he's blocking the resettlement of literally all other refugees to the United States… This is glaring hypocrisy.' Jackson's Bill is an updated version of a Bill which was introduced last year, but which ran out of time when Congress ended before elections in November.
Mail & Guardian
6 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Cannabis reform without legal legitimacy is an illusion
Commercialisation of the trade requires cohesive regulation. File photo South Africa's cannabis economy is poised for transformation, but it is being built on a legal contradiction. The department of trade, industry and competition has proposed a national licensing authority and commercialisation framework. Yet the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act (CfPPA) of 2024 still prohibits all forms of cannabis trade, cultivation for profit and distribution. This is not a technical oversight. It is a constitutional fault line. We cannot licence what the law criminalises. Until the Act is amended to include commercial provisions or a new enabling Cannabis Commercialisation Act is passed, the department's proposals remain legally unenforceable. Officials risk overreach. Entrepreneurs face uncertainty. People are left in limbo. Even the government acknowledges this. In a parliamentary Q&A session in June, the department's minister, Parks Tau, said: 'It is the intention of the [department] to address this aspect as soon as cannabis has effectively been removed from the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.' While this reflects a degree of momentum, it's legally insufficient. Removing cannabis from the Drugs Act may lift criminalisation, but the CfPPA continues to prohibit dealing, trading and cultivation for commercial gain. In short, even if cannabis is no longer classified as a drug, it still cannot be sold or licensed under the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act when the Act comes into operation. This legal misalignment has real-world consequences. The department's policy framework, while ambitious, suffers from structural blind spots: It focuses narrowly on licensing without transitional support for informal traders; It fails to protect small-scale cultivators from being displaced by large corporations; It omits regulatory clarity around cannabis clubs and urban dispensaries; It overlooks enforcement coordination across the South African Police Service, municipalities, and regulatory bodies; and It excludes meaningful integration of indigenous knowledge systems into product development. One major omission is the legal ambiguity about cannabis clubs, private collectives facilitating cultivation and sharing among adult members. Since the Haze Club case was dismissed in 2022 and its appeal withdrawn in 2024, the status of grow clubs remains undefined. This vacuum has enabled the proliferation of illicit urban clubs and pseudo-dispensaries selling untested products to non-members, tourists and minors, often with no age verification or dosage controls. What South Africa needs is regulatory clarity, not criminal silence. Rather than banning cannabis clubs outright or letting them proliferate unchecked, the law should define them, regulate them and use them as strategic tools within a broader commercialisation policy. Ignoring their existence only empowers the illicit market. South Africa must not repeat the mistakes seen elsewhere. In Thailand, decriminalisation without proper controls led to youth exposure and market chaos. The government reversed its policy in 2025, reclassifying cannabis as a controlled herb, shuttering thousands of dispensaries, and leaving farmers in limbo. In Italy, a sudden 2025 ban on low-THC products erased billions in legal revenue, criminalised compliant retailers, and triggered European Union-level legal challenges. In the United States, fragmented state-by-state regulation has caused enforcement confusion, increased youth access, and resurgence of illicit trade, particularly in states failing to fund education and safety programmes. In Canada, even with national legalisation, spikes in underage consumption, impaired driving and workplace incidents exposed the limits of reform absent cultural readiness and public health investment. And in Mexico, international price competition with the US led to cannabis crop abandonment, pushing rural farmers into more dangerous illicit drug markets. The common thread across these countries? Commercialisation without cohesive regulation, especially about cultivation, processing, distribution, retail, enforcement, education and cultural integration. Cannabis is not just a commodity. It's a cultural and constitutional indicator, reflecting whether we are capable of reform that is inclusive, ethical and enforceable. A well-regulated industry could empower rural cooperatives, restore trust with legacy growers, elevate local brands on the global stage and reduce harm in urban youth sectors. Properly regulated cannabis clubs offer promise. If legally recognised and governed, they could provide: controlled, adult-only access aligned with privacy rights; peer-based harm reduction and responsible usage education; traceable supply chains that reduce street-level trade; municipal licensing opportunities and tax reinvestment models; the promotion of community accountability and reinvestment; and entry-level platforms for small-scale cultivators operating in compliant, cooperative models. The time has come to move beyond fragmented intent. Commercialisation needs: Legislative legitimacy: Amend the CfPPA or pass a Cannabis Commercialisation Act; End-to-end value chain governance: Link licensing to retail, enforcement, and branding; Transitional and inclusive models: Support informal traders and vulnerable communities; Cannabis club regulation: Recognise and govern clubs under civic and constitutional frameworks; Enforcement clarity: Align the police, municipalities and DTIC to police illicit trade and protect minors and the vulnerable; and Ethical branding and indigenous knowledge integration: Elevate products that reflect our biodiversity and cultural heritage. Develop premium South African cannabis products for global markets. South Africa can build a cannabis economy that is just, lawful, inclusive, and resilient. But it starts with fixing the foundation. Anything less is not reform. It is an illusion.' Adv Simi Pillay-van Graan is the chief executive of Trikar Enterprise Solutions.
