Cosatu hails PIC's R3 trillion milestone as it urges vigilance against corruption
Cosatu commends the Public Investment Corporation's reaching an historic R3 trillion milestone.
Image: File
Trade union Cosatu on Wednesday lauded the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) for surpassing R3 trillion in assets under management, marking what it described as a historic milestone for the continent's biggest investment fund.
The PIC, which primarily manages assets on behalf of the Government Employees' Pension Fund (GEPF), has seen significant growth from R2.7trl a year ago and R1.8trl during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Roughly 87% of the PIC's funds are sourced from the GEPF, with additional contributions from the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) and the Compensation Fund, among others.
"It is sacrosanct that at all times the PIC invests and manages these funds, workers' hard-earned monies, in a manner that expands and enables them to fulfill their legislative mandates of allowing public servants to retire in security and comfort, to provide relief to workers who've lost their jobs or support them whilst they are on maternity, parental or adoption leave; as well as to compensate workers' whose health and lives have suffered in the course of their occupations," Cosatu said.
The union called on the PIC to ramp up development-focused investments, aligning with its legislative mandate to stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and promote sustainability. South Africa's economy has struggled to reach its growth targets, with Cosatu reiterating the need to reach and surpass the 3% threshold.
The PIC, a state-owned asset manager, has in recent years faced scrutiny over governance lapses and exposure to politically connected investments. It has since undertaken reforms, including tighter oversight and risk management frameworks.
'Whilst appreciating the efforts by the PIC to shut out the lecherous hands of those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of workers and their funds, it must remain hyper vigilant to these realities and do more as this cancer of corruption has not disappeared altogether and remains an ever present threat to workers, the nation and the programme of renewal,' the statement warned.
Cosatu said it would continue to work closely with the PIC to safeguard workers' interests.
BUSINESS REPORT
Visit: https://businessreport.co.za/
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
When it comes to Freedom of Expression, the WHO Pandemic Agreement says nothing
The writer says that the next time a pandemic strikes—and there will be a next time—we cannot look to Geneva for guidance on how to preserve open debate and protect democratic norms. Image: File THE World Health Organization's long-awaited Pandemic Agreement has finally been adopted. At over 30 pages, it is comprehensive in ambition - addressing everything from vaccine access to supply chain resilience. But when it comes to one of the most critical ingredients for effective public health in a democracy - freedom of expression - the Agreement has remarkably little to say. In fact, it says almost nothing. Take, for instance, this key provision: 'Each Party shall, as appropriate, conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic and trust in science and public health institutions, authorities and agencies.' This sounds constructive. But read it again. 'As appropriate'? According to whom? And what policies, exactly? The Agreement doesn't say. It offers no guidance on whether open public debate - complete with disagreement, critique, and messy facts - is essential to building trust in science and public institutions. Nor does it warn against the dangers of censorship during public health crises. It simply leaves it to each country to decide for itself what 'appropriate' means. In other words, it takes no position. And this is precisely the problem. In the name of trust, governments during the COVID-19 pandemic did not always build it - they sometimes undermined it. South Africa offers two powerful examples. First, Dr Glenda Gray, one of the country's most respected scientists and then-president of the Medical Research Council, publicly criticised aspects of the government's lockdown measures. The reaction from the Department of Health was swift: the Director-General requested that her employer, the Medical Research Council, investigate her. 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 ✕ This wasn't scientific debate. It was an attempt to silence a dissenting voice. It was only after public uproar that the matter was dropped. Second, consider the ivermectin litigation saga. In December 2020, South Africa's medicines regulator, SAHPRA, triggered a controversy by incorrectly stating in a press release that ivermectin was 'not indicated … for use in humans', despite the fact that the drug had long been registered for certain human indications in South Africa. Some might label SAHPRA's statement as misinformation or even disinformation, but more plausibly, it was simply a careless - though consequential - error by a public authority. Yet the same press release went further, threatening with criminal enforcement against members of the public seeking to import ivermectin - an unnecessarily heavy-handed stance that swiftly provoked litigation. These are not stories from some distant autocracy. They happened here, in South Africa. And they highlight an uncomfortable truth: even well-meaning public institutions can slip into authoritarian habits under the pressure of a public health crisis. The antidote to authoritarian drift - and to official error - is freedom of expression. In Democratic Alliance v African National Congress, the Constitutional Court affirmed that freedom of expression is valuable not only for its intrinsic worth but also for its instrumental role in a democratic society. It informs citizens, fosters public debate, and enables the exposure of folly and misgovernance. It is also vital in the pursuit of truth—both personal and collective. If society suppresses views it deems unacceptable, those views may never be tested, challenged, or proven wrong. Open debate enhances truth-finding and allows us to scrutinise political claims and reflect on social values. This is why the South African Constitution enshrines freedom of expression - not as a luxury for peacetime, but as a safeguard for moments of crisis. Our Constitution was written with the memory of repression in mind. And it is precisely when fear and uncertainty tempt governments to silence dissent that its protections matter most. One might have expected an international agreement on pandemic response to affirm these same values. Yet the WHO Pandemic Agreement retreats into vagueness. It speaks of 'trust' and 'solidarity,' and warns against 'misinformation and disinformation,' but avoids the real issue: how should a democratic society respond when public health policies are contested? How do we protect space for critical voices? Instead of offering a principled stand, the Agreement offers a shrug. Countries are told to act 'as appropriate.' That could mean encouraging open dialogue—or it could mean criminalising dissent. The WHO doesn't say. And that silence speaks volumes. Professor Donrich Thaldar Image: University of KwaZulu-Natal
The South African
9 hours ago
- The South African
Warren Hammond's Personal View: Geopolitical risk surges as April and June warnings unfold
Acts of Violence – The World Is on Edge This Summer. Image: LinkedIn/warren-hammond Home » Warren Hammond's Personal View: Geopolitical risk surges as April and June warnings unfold Acts of Violence – The World Is on Edge This Summer. Image: LinkedIn/warren-hammond On 2nd June, I published a note entitled 'The Personal View: Acts of Violence – The World Is On Edge This Summer.' In it, I warned: 'June and July 2025 will shape up to be two of the most geopolitically intense, heated, combustible months in recent memory… not defined by a single headline, but by a drumbeat of destabilising, violent, and politically consequential events.' This warning is reiterated. All June and all July will see persistent and intense acts of violence, terror, war, and conflict. Since the warning was issued on 2nd June, we've witnessed: – Israeli airstrikes on Iran's Natanz nuclear site– Iranian missile retaliation centred on Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem– Waves of rocket fire in Gaza and southern Lebanon– A mass shooting in Graz, Austria– Riots in Ballymena, Northern Ireland– India–India-Pakistan tensions reignited with border clashes and terror threats– A firebomb attack in Colorado– Casualties in Kherson, Ukraine, from Russian drone strikes– Rising tensions on the Kyrgyz–Tajik border – The UN confirming 118+ attacks on schools, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure globally Back in mid-April, I published 'The Personal View: The Thucydides Trap, War Cometh.' I stated: 'A rising tide of systemic confrontation is unfolding… This is the Thucydidean Trap, when a rising power threatens an established one, and miscalculation often leads to escalation.' In both notes, I flagged the geopolitical risk escalation and identified the market implications: – Exposure to energy security risk and oil-sensitive names – Tactical positioning away from travel, tourism, shipping, and logistics These weren't just warnings. They were calls to act. Markets are still mispricing the persistent asymmetric volatility ahead. Entering March 2025, my note, 'The Personal View: How to Position Your Portfolio for the Market Turmoil Ahead (2025–2028),' explicitly forecasted a wave of market volatility tied to tariff wars, leadership failure, military escalation, oil shocks, and cyber threats, including the unfolding Iran conflict. This was not a reaction; it was anticipation. The note forecast persistent, structural volatility through 2028. This same framework guided my early February 2020 short call ahead of the COVID crash, and my April 6, 2020, pivot to go long the S&P 500 with a multi-year target of $8,500, a call made amid panic, volatility, and disbelief. The fuse has been lit. June and July 2025 will continue to see the world on fire.. Share your thoughts in the comments below. How are you preparing for this volatile period? 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
9 hours ago
- IOL News
Cosatu hails PIC's R3 trillion milestone as it urges vigilance against corruption
Cosatu commends the Public Investment Corporation's reaching an historic R3 trillion milestone. Image: File Trade union Cosatu on Wednesday lauded the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) for surpassing R3 trillion in assets under management, marking what it described as a historic milestone for the continent's biggest investment fund. The PIC, which primarily manages assets on behalf of the Government Employees' Pension Fund (GEPF), has seen significant growth from R2.7trl a year ago and R1.8trl during the Covid-19 pandemic. Roughly 87% of the PIC's funds are sourced from the GEPF, with additional contributions from the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) and the Compensation Fund, among others. "It is sacrosanct that at all times the PIC invests and manages these funds, workers' hard-earned monies, in a manner that expands and enables them to fulfill their legislative mandates of allowing public servants to retire in security and comfort, to provide relief to workers who've lost their jobs or support them whilst they are on maternity, parental or adoption leave; as well as to compensate workers' whose health and lives have suffered in the course of their occupations," Cosatu said. The union called on the PIC to ramp up development-focused investments, aligning with its legislative mandate to stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and promote sustainability. South Africa's economy has struggled to reach its growth targets, with Cosatu reiterating the need to reach and surpass the 3% threshold. The PIC, a state-owned asset manager, has in recent years faced scrutiny over governance lapses and exposure to politically connected investments. It has since undertaken reforms, including tighter oversight and risk management frameworks. 'Whilst appreciating the efforts by the PIC to shut out the lecherous hands of those who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of workers and their funds, it must remain hyper vigilant to these realities and do more as this cancer of corruption has not disappeared altogether and remains an ever present threat to workers, the nation and the programme of renewal,' the statement warned. Cosatu said it would continue to work closely with the PIC to safeguard workers' interests. BUSINESS REPORT Visit:
