Understanding the Banks Act exemption: MEC Zondi's insights on Ithala
KwaZulu-Natal Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (Edtea) MEC Reverend Musa Zondi.
Image: Sibonelo Ngcobo/ Independent Newspapers
KwaZulu-Natal Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (Edtea) MEC Reverend Musa Zondi has discussed issues surrounding the Banks Act exemption and the banking licence and how these affect Ithala SOC Limited.
Zondi discussed the two topics during a media briefing called by the KZN government, led by Premier Thamsanqa Ntuli. Ithala SOC Limited CEO Dr Thulani Vilakazi was also present.
Zondi explained that there is a provision in the Banks Act for an exemption to be granted to certain institutions, such as Ithala SOC, to operate as a fully-fledged bank without having to acquire a banking licence.
'That has been the case from day one until the powers that be decided that they were no longer going to grant it,' Zondi said.
'Denying extending the exemption to Ithala SOC may as well cause an amendment to the Banks Act to do away with the exemption regime.'
Zondi said they are making Ithala operational because they are working within the law governing the banks in South Africa.
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 ✕
He said he has been a parliamentarian since 1994, and from 1994, there has been a persistent call from parliamentarians that a state bank should be established.
'There has been no success to date. Ithala is the only, if you like, existing state bank which has been successful,' Zondi said.
'So why kill something that is already successful?'
On Ithala's acquisition of a banking licence, Zondi explained that the reason they needed to acquire a banking licence is to comply with the current situation where the Prudential Authority has withdrawn the bank's ability to operate.
'As parliamentarians, when we drafted that Act we drafted it with state institutions like the land bank and others (in mind), will they need a commercial licence, do you need to privatise them. No, you don't need to privatise them and therefore that exemption clause was put in there,' Zondi said.
thobeka.ngema@inl.co.za
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Expropriation Act: How many expropriating authorities are empowered by the Act?
The Expropriation Act is written so broadly that every form of property in South Africa is now subject to expropriation below market value. From homes to farms to businesses to savings to pensions, all forms of property are, in terms of the Act, vulnerable to expropriation, says Makone Maja, IRR Strategic Engagements Manager. The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) will this week write to the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure, Dean Macpherson, requesting clarity on a crucial matter related to the Expropriation Act, for which the Minister is responsible. The Act grants sweeping powers to expropriating authorities to expropriate any form of property below market value. It offers weak and contradictory measures to property owners to protect their rights through the courts. Yet, just how many authorities in South Africa are granted expropriating powers by the Act is unclear; by IRR calculations, the number could exceed 400. Says Makone Maja, IRR Strategic Engagements Manager: 'The Expropriation Act is an unpopular piece of legislation. IRR opinion polling in March and April this year found that 68% of registered voters oppose the Act. It's easy to understand why. The Act is written so broadly that every form of property in South Africa is now subject to expropriation below market value. From homes to farms to businesses to savings to pensions, all forms of property are, in terms of the Act, vulnerable to expropriation. And yet there seems to be no clarity from the government on the exact number of entities the law empowers to confiscate property on astonishingly flimsy grounds.' As illustrated in the IRR's flagship Blueprint for Growth series, property rights are a vital means of economic participation and empowerment only if they are secure. Weaken the certainty with which people can own what's lawfully theirs and the knock-on consequences range from undermining food security to wiping out pensions and savings. Says Maja: 'It is the height of policy recklessness for this door of vast state power to be opened to an unknown number of expropriating authorities. If the number of these authorities is unknown, how can South Africans have any trust that the sweeping expropriating powers granted by the Act won't be abused? 'We have all heard the horror stories of extortion by state officials – from kickback mafias to corruption. We are a country familiar with the disgusting abuse of state power. The Expropriation Act empowers a vast expropriation network at all levels of the state. The IRR has thus far tallied at least 426 such authorities, yet the number might rise to close to a thousand. This is a terrifying prospect. The Minister has a duty to provide urgent clarity on this matter.' The Institute of Race Relations Johannesburg
The South African
2 days ago
- The South African
Starlink triggers black ownership row in South Africa's parliament
South Africa's proposal to amend the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Act has provoked political outrage, with Elon Musk's Starlink at the forefront. The retaliation responds to Solly Malatsi's (Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies) Friday announcement, recommending they restructure the Electronic Communications Act, which requires 30% of foreign telecoms equity to be black-owned. Malatsi's proposition occurred two days after South African President Cyril Ramaphosa visited the White House, during which Cape Town-based billionaire Johann Rupert requested Musk's technology to tackle the nation's high murder rate. Starlink is yet to operate in South Africa as several neighboring countries grant access. Portfolio committee chair and African National Congress (ANC) member Khusela Diko declared Malatsi's scheme as bending the rules for Musk in a Parliamentary hearing on Tuesday. Moments later, Economic Freedom Fighters member Sixolise Gcilishe said, 'We are not going to accept a situation where our laws are going to be rewritten in Washington.' Meanwhile, ANC's Tshehofatso Chauke saw the policy as a threat to domestic business owners, believing it to offer an 'opportunity for international players to come through the back door' and 'favor big business rather than the interests of South Africans and those who are previously disadvantaged.' Democratic Alliance member Malatsi denied that Starlink played a role in the recommended policy change, stating that the amended framework had been internally discussed since around September of last year. 'We are not attempting to open a special dispensation for Starlink or any other company or an individual… There is no conspiracy on our part with regard to this policy direction,' Malatsi stated. The Minister revealed his intentions were driven by the need to attract investment and tighten business regulations. He believes the policy to be as domestically benefiting as the current BEE requirements, outlining that the reform offers foreign companies two avenues: an equity equivalent scheme or 30% black ownership. 'We advocate for smarter, scalable approaches that deliver meaningful impact and restore policy clarity, consistency, and investor confidence,' South Africa's Association of Communications and Technology said in a statement supporting Malatsi. The proposal has divided South Africa's cabinet, with some calling for legal intervention while others believe it doesn't object to current domestic laws. South Africa's BEE act, introduced after the conclusion of Apartheid, has been infamously criticized by Pretoria-born Starlink CEO Musk, who views the policy as 'openly racist.' Starlink has become increasingly prevalent in Africa – connecting pockets of rural Africa to fast internet – while steering clear of South Africa but operating in neighbors Eswatini, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique. Other African locations include Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, and Benin. South Africa's lawmakers will continue to discuss Malatsi's policy reform, suggesting that, amid the backlash, the door remains narrowly open to restructuring the ICT sector's current black ownership requirements, enabling Starlink to open up shop. 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.
IOL News
3 days ago
- IOL News
Navigating spousal status and marital regimes for better financial planning
Explore the critical aspects of spousal status and marital regimes in South Africa, and learn how these factors influence your financial and estate planning decisions. Determining whether a person is married for legal purposes and tax purposes is paramount in their financial or estate planning journey. Of further importance is whether a marriage is in or out of the community of property. The proprietary ownership of assets in marriages in South Africa is governed by the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. The Act requires that people who wish to marry need to decide, before their marriage, whether they wish to enter into an ante-nuptial contract or not. In financial planning and estate planning, there are certain benefits that come with being a spouse, and because of this, the definition of 'spouse' is important. These benefits include: · Bequests (in terms of a will) to a spouse are free from estate duty in terms of the Estate Duty Act · Transfers of assets between spouses are free of capital gains tax in terms of the Income Tax Act · Donations to a spouse are free from donations tax in terms of the Income Tax Act. · Transfers of property between spouses are free from Transfer Duty With so many blurred areas on what exactly defines a spouse, let us have a look at what qualifies one as a spouse, specifically in the context of income tax, capital gains tax, estate duty, transfer duty, and donations tax. The following people are considered to be spouses: A partner in a marriage or customary union recognised in terms of South African law. A partner in a union recognised as a marriage in accordance with the requirements or practices of any religion. A partner in a same-sex or heterosexual union, which the Commissioner is satisfied is intended to be permanent. Partners, therefore, do not have to be married to enjoy the tax benefits of married spouses. There are, however, certain instances where these partners will not automatically benefit from the same protection that a married spouse has, for example, on death if there is no will. There are three marital regimes in the Matrimonial Property Act: Marriages without an antenuptial contract, called in community of property marriages Marriages with an ante-nuptial contract, with accrual Marriages with an antenuptial contract. without accrual Marriage in community of property A marriage is in community of property if no antenuptial contract is entered into by the spouses before marriage. On the date of marriage, the spouses' assets and liabilities are joined into one estate, with each spouse having an equal 50% claim to it. All assets and liabilities accumulated during the marriage will form part of the joint estate in the future and are shared equally between the spouses when the marriage ends, either at death or in divorce. Each spouse owns half of the joint estate, irrespective of how much they had at the beginning of the marriage or how much they each added during the marriage. On the first death, only half of the joint estate will be subject to estate duty. Any amount bequeathed to (left to) the surviving spouse is not subject to estate duty, and that spouse benefits from any unused estate allowance when they pass away. The full estate is subject to the executor's fees. Gifts or inheritances that are specifically stipulated to be excluded from the community of property estate do not form part of the joint estate. This is for example, if a spouse inherits a property, the other spouse will not be able to benefit from it at divorce, as it does not form part of the joint estate. The law also states that spouses married in community of property may not perform certain juristic acts without consent from both spouses. For example, one spouse cannot take on debt without the other's consent, as it affects their joint estate. Where this becomes important is when one spouse is sequestrated or becomes insolvent, the other immediately becomes sequestrated as well, and their joint estate becomes insolvent. If one spouse wants to set up a business when they get married, it might be prudent to set up an antenuptial contract when they get married to protect the other spouse's assets if the business fails. Marriage out of community of property The accrual system automatically applies to a marriage out of community of property after 1 November 1984 with an Ante Nuptial Contract (ANC). It can be excluded in terms of the antenuptial contract signed before the marriage. It is a document drawn up and signed in front of a notary public (such as an attorney) and is registered at the Deeds Office. A post-nuptial agreement can be entered into during the marriage, but there has to be a valid reason for this, and the application must be made to the High Court, showing that no creditors will be harmed or disadvantaged by this agreement. It is a costly application, and it is therefore easier to set it up from the start. Where there is an out-of-community property accrual system, each spouse's estate remains separate and will not require the other spouse's consent for transactions. When the marriage ends through death or divorce, the wealth acquired by the two spouses during the marriage is shared equally between the spouses. The additional value that each spouse brought into the marriage is considered, and the difference between the value gains is split so that each person's estate after marriage becomes equal. This way, a spouse who did not work and whose investments didn't grow as much will benefit from the other spouse's assets as an equal partner and is not left destitute when the marriage ends. The accrual claim by the surviving spouse reduces the value of the deceased's estate for Estate Duty purposes. If the antenuptial contract excludes accrual, there is no accrual claim. However, this is far less clear-cut these days as there are fairness issues that have come before the Constitutional Court. Amendments to the law might shortly be made to provide a sharing regime to spouses who had uneven bargaining power in marriage. Before getting married, it is essential to understand the legal and financial implications of the different marital regimes available in South Africa. The choice you make will significantly impact your future financial well-being, asset protection, and estate planning. Always consult a qualified financial adviser before entering into marriage to ensure your financial plan is aligned with your personal circumstances and goals. * Nxumalo is a financial planner at Alexforbes. PERSONAL FINANCE
