Trade war is "tax without revenue", says Sarb Governor Lesetja Kganyago
From left to right: National Treasury director-general Duncane Pieterse, finance minister Enoch Godongwana, and Sarb Governor Lesetja Kganyago at the 2nd G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting in Washington, D.C.
South African Reserve Bank (Sarb) Governor, Lesetja Kganyago, has likened the prevailing uncertainty in the global trade and economy caused by the trade war over import tariffs as a 'tax without revenue'.
Speaking during a media briefing in Washington D.C. on Thursday, Kganyago said the 2nd G20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting reflected on the current economic developments and the extent of the uncertainty that engulfed the financial markets as a result of the trade measures that had been taken with respect to the impact on trade and the response in the form of tariffs, and what that actually meant for financial stability.
Kganyago said the tit-for-tat that was taking place over tariffs meant that countries might actually not be talking to each other, adding that they were coming to the point where the tensions have become so elevated that countries were speaking past each other.
'There was also a need to take immediate and coordinated efforts as needed to de-escalate and reduce the current volatility and uncertainty, and to provide policy clarity. Basically, uncertainty was seen as a tax without revenue, and that we cannot let the uncertainty become the new certainty,' Kganyago said.
'There are time limits that have been set. Some tariffs are supposedly off the table for a period of 90 days. It's ticking every day. The days are becoming fewer.
'And in an environment where every country is negotiating bilaterally, these things could actually take a lot of time, meaning that the uncertainty might be with us for long, and that there was a call that says that you have got to actually be de-escalating, and the way to de-escalate is to actually be engaged in dialogue.'
Kganyago said the meeting also reflected on the benefits from globalization, and members were supporting an open, rules-based, and transparent trading system with the World Trade Organizations at its core.
He said there was also a big reflection that the current rules might have to be relooked in a bid to have a much fairer trade.
'There was also a reflection on the global imbalances, and that was strongly emphasized, and that we need to look at the root causes and review both the internal and global policies that intensify these imbalances and increased trade barriers and trade tensions that we had seen, and that the IMF should actually be playing a key role in assessing the country-specific policies,' he said.
Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana said the meeting opened with discussing the international financial architecture, which focuses, among other things, on the continued agenda of the reform of the multinational banks.
Godongwana said the key item was that work has been done, but what the G20 needed to do was to develop a reporting mechanism for the banks, which it hoped to be concluded by the end of September.
'The issues also continue to deal with the debt vulnerabilities, particularly in emerging economies and the African continent. In this regard, the common framework is an instrument. We will be publishing case studies of countries that have gone through that process,' Godongwana said.
'On the focus, another focus agenda was on the African continent. As you would be aware, given the fact that the presidency [of the G20] now is on the African continent, we've given a spin and a focus on Africa.
'Then a key of those challenges that need to be done on the African continent, and deepening some of the institutional arrangements we've had, like the combat with Africa, replenishing the African Fund, African Development Fund, and generally, how do we deal with the cost of capital and access to capital for the African continent. Those are some of the challenges that we grappled with this morning.'
BUSINESS REPORT
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
R770 million National Dialogue bill sparks uproar: final say lies with finance minister
Finance Minister, Enoch Godongwana will have the final say regarding funding amid widespread criticism from trade unions and political parties. Image: Armand Hough / Independent Newspapers As questions swirl around the projected R770 million price tag for the forthcoming National Dialogue, Deputy President Paul Mashatile has confirmed that the ultimate decision on funding will rest with Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana. Last week, the National Dialogue preparatory committee announced that the process could cost as much as R770 million. This announcement has triggered public outcry and political scrutiny regarding government spending, with South Africa's largest trade union, Cosatu, and several political parties criticising the estimated figures. "COSATU like other sober-minded South Africans was amazed that anyone could even suggest the Dialogue should be allocated R700 rash thumb-suck budget figure should be dismissed as a verbal gaffe and a reckless typo better left deleted and forgotten," Matthew Parks COSATU Parliamentary Coordinator said. Deputy President Paul Mashatile confirms that Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana will hold the final say on funding amid widespread criticism from trade unions and political parties Image: GCIS The National Dialogue was initiated by President Cyril Ramaphosa and aims to promote inclusive discussions on the country's most pressing social, economic, and political challenges. "The dialogue will be a people-led, society-wide process to reflect on the state of our country in order for us to reimagine our future," Ramaphosa said. Speaking to journalists outside the North West University's Rag Farm Stadium on Monday, Mashatile said the minister of finance will have the last say on the budget. "Trade unions, the churches so it's going to be everybody what we are trying to come together as South Africans talk about our challenges but also solutions to our challenges. We want to come out of that dialogue and say this is the South Africa we want to build together," Mashatile said. "The issue of the costs, obviously, will be looked upon by the minister of Finance, and normally when there are activities like this, officials will start planning and projecting the costs. The minister will decide whether funds are available in that regard or we need to cut down". [email protected] IOL Business Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel
The Citizen
3 hours ago
- The Citizen
Reserve Bank unlawfully interfered in Absa chair appointment, says court
Costs were awarded against the respondents, Absa and the PA. Sarb's Prudential Authority exceeded its powers by notifying Absa of its objections to appoint Sipho Pityana as chair. Picture: Moneyweb The South African Reserve Bank's (Sarb) Prudential Authority (PA) broke the law and exceeded its powers in raising objections to the appointment of Sipho Pityana as chair of Absa in 2021, the Pretoria High Court ruled on Friday. Costs were awarded against the respondents, Absa and the PA. Pityana had approached the court for a declaratory order, claiming the PA had acted outside the law by pursuing an informal process that interfered with his potential nomination as chair of the Absa board. He was appointed to the Absa board in 2019 and became lead independent director in June 2020. He had previously served as chair of AngloGold Ashanti from 2015 until his resignation in December 2020. A succession committee within Absa tipped him as the preferred candidate to replace the outgoing Absa chair, Wendy Lucas Bull, who was due to vacate the position in March 2022. Read more Manufacturing PMI falls to lowest level since April 2020 — bad news for GDP The succession committee then held informal engagements with the PA, which had started to look into the circumstances surrounding Pityana's resignation at AngloGold Ashanti. ALSO READ: PSA bays for Pityana's blood Sexual harassment allegations The case stems from accusations of sexual harassment against Pityana by an employee while he was serving as chair of AngloGold Ashanti, a charge he has steadfastly denied. Two investigations were carried out into the allegations, the first by AngloGold Ashanti, which was unfavourable to Pityana, and a second, commissioned by Absa itself, which found flaws in the first report for not considering corroborating evidence. Following its engagement with the PA, Absa decided not to appoint Pityana as chair. Pityana took the matter to court, arguing that the PA had acted outside the law and that he had been condemned as an unfit and improper person to hold the position. The informal process between the PA and Absa had also denied him a fair hearing, and should have been conducted under the procedural safeguards built into the Banks Act. ALSO READ: Absa fires Sipho Pityana as its lead independent director Proceed with caution Maria Ramos had been appointed chair of AngloGold Ashanti in December 2020, and was later contacted by Kuben Naidoo, the then deputy governor of the Sarb and CEO of the PA, to enquire about the circumstances surrounding Pityana's resignation from from the gold miner. Ramos advised Naidoo to submit a formal written request which would then be forwarded to Absa's legal team. Naidoo suggested that Absa share a shortlist of candidates with the PA to provide a 'comment or caution on the candidates to ensure that Absa did not go too far into the process before identifying a potential problem'. This was the informal process of that Pityana complained about, which appears to be the norm in the banking industry. Naidoo decided not to write to Ramos but call Lucas-Bull instead, advising that there were concerns over the manner in which Pityana resigned from AngloGold Ashanti, and urged Absa to thoroughly investigate the matter. Lucas-Bull relayed these concerns to Pityana, who said he was bound by confidentiality and non-disparagement agreements that limited his ability to discuss the specifics of his departure from AngloGold Ashanti. Pityana disclosed that there was a preliminary report on the sexual harassment allegations against him, which he disagreed with and had countered. AngloGold Ashanti decided not to take the matter further. ALSO READ: UPDATE: Sipho Pityana to drag Absa to court for sacking him from board Reputational risks Absa then commissioned a second report by senior attorney Peter Harris who found that the first report from AngloGold Ashanti failed to consider all the relevant evidence and was flawed in that it did not obtain corroborating evidence from independent sources. Absa nevertheless decided against the appointment of Pityana, fearing the reputational risks that could arise. Absa claimed that Pityana did not have a right or entitlement under the Banks Act to be nominated for the position of chair. 'I conclude that [Pityana] was poised to be nominated for the chairperson position of Absa. There does not appear to be any credible evidence before me to gainsay this position,' reads the judgment by Judge Flatela Luleka. 'I am of the view that this matter raises a discrete legal issue of public importance that would affect matters in the future and requires the adjudication of this court, notwithstanding the mootness of the issues between the parties. The relief sought by the applicant is justified.' Pityana is also challenging the legality of his removal from the Absa board in a separate case. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
A Tale of Two Forces: Fiscal vs Monetary Policy tug-of-war
The fuel levy makes up approximately 6% of the government's total revenue and is the fourth-largest revenue-generating item in the government budget, collecting R730 billion over the past decade. Image: File 'It was the best of days; it was the worst of days.' In recent weeks, South Africa has dominated international news concerning its US-South Africa relations, which nearly overshadowed the outcomes of Budget 3.0 delivered by Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana on May 21, 2025. The VAT increase proposed in Budget 2.0 was revoked and replaced with a fuel levy increase of 16 cents per litre for petrol and 15 cents for diesel. Although considered a necessary evil, the fuel levy increase affects the economy and households similarly to the scrapped VAT increase. This levy follows a 12.74% rise in electricity prices effective from April 1 and precedes a 25 basis-point repo rate cut on the 29th of May 2025, reducing the prime lending rate to 10.75%. Much appears to be occurring simultaneously or in brief bursts, affecting various economic agents in different ways. South Africa is a fuel-importing nation, relying on nearly 80% of its crude oil on imports, which constitutes a substantial part of the country's import bill. Although fuel prices are regulated in South Africa, they remain influenced by market forces, such as the exchange rate and the dollar oil price. While managing fluctuations in international fuel prices is beyond our fiscal control, levies and fees fall within our remit. 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 ✕ According to the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA), from 2009 to 2014, South Africa's Basic Fuel Price (BFP) was the largest component of domestic fuel prices, ranging between 51% and 58% before decreasing to 30% in 2020. However, taxes and levies have been increasing, accounting for almost 70% of the fuel price in 2020. The fuel levy makes up approximately 6% of the government's total revenue and is the fourth-largest revenue-generating item in the government budget, collecting R730 billion over the past decade. Although it is not the biggest source of government revenue, it generates more revenue than customs duties or alcohol and tobacco excise duties, which should have been the sacrificial lamb protecting the local market. As reported by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), in December 2021, the price of inland 95-octane petrol stood at R20.29, comprising a basic fuel price of R9.74 (48%), taxes and levies of R6.67 (33%), retail and wholesale margins of R2.74 (14%), and storage and distribution costs of R1.14 (6%). The Road Accident Fund levy of R2.18 (1%) was not included. South Africa's fuel prices are heavily influenced by levies and taxes rather than by global market fluctuations. According to the Stats SA 2021 report, there are 13 different charges depending on the type of fuel and one's place of residence. Are we undermining our economy by self-sabotaging? The South African Petroleum Industry Association (Sapia) reports that fuel prices rose by 21% in 2017/2018, leading to cost-push inflation and economic growth falling below 1%. This latest levy increase is likely to have a similar impact in an already frail economic environment. Higher electricity and fuel prices raise production and operational costs, leading to a decrease in aggregate supply, as businesses rely on the transportation of goods for production and retail purposes. This ultimately results in lower output, which, in turn, affects employment, wages, and investment as firms implement cost-containment measures to remain productive. As businesses pass the burden onto consumers by charging higher prices for their products and services, this leads to cost-push inflation pressures that alter spending behaviour, as consumers make trade-offs between food, repaying debt, electricity, commutes, and other essential household expenses. Consequently, aggregate demand in the economy will dampen as disposable income is eroded, thereby hindering economic growth. Although businesses and consumers were cushioned by the R1.27 drop in the basic fuel price shortly after the increase in the fuel levy, in the long term, the higher levy undermines South Africa's economic growth. An additional financial relief for consumers was a 0.25% reduction in the prime rate from 11% to 10.75%. Although this interest rate reprieve was moderately welcomed by South Africans, if higher fuel levies drive inflation, the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) may hesitate to cut rates further, limiting growth stimulus. Additionally, a fuel levy hike raises costs immediately, while rate cuts have a lag effect, thus taking time to stimulate growth. Rate cuts benefit indebted middle-class borrowers, boost borrowing, encourage business expansion, and stimulate economic activity, but do not offset fuel inflation for the poor. The fuel levy increase risks hurting short-term growth and rising inequality, disproportionately affecting low-income earners and households. These two policy decisions have opposite impacts. The fuel levy hike increases inflation, thereby reducing economic activity, while an interest rate cut spurs growth. To counter this challenging balancing act, the economy must grow at a higher rate to increase tax revenues and productive government spending. A higher growth rate will create jobs, reducing the number of economically inactive workers who rely on social grants as they shift to personal taxpayers. Growth also signifies positive business performance. This will broaden the tax base as more individuals gain employment, diverting the government's spending from social grants to more growth-enhancing initiatives. Moreover, corporate taxes will also increase. Very little can be accomplished with the low growth rate of 0.6% recorded in 2024 and 0.1% during the first quarter of 2025. If growth continues on this downward trajectory, government revenue and public expenditure will remain constrained.
