Gauteng ANC accuses Gwarube of delaying release of BELA Act guidelines
JOHANNESBURG - The African National Congress (ANC) in Gauteng has accused Basic Education Minister Siviwe Gwarube of delaying the release of guidelines for the implementation of the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act.
The Department of Basic Education is in the process of drafting the regulations, norms, and standards that will govern the rollout of this controversial legislation.
Although Gwarube has pledged to publish the regulations by the end of June, the ANC in Gauteng argued this timeline was holding back the act's implementation.
ANC Gauteng coordinator, Hope Papo, said the sooner the guidelines were released, the better.
"The minister of education from the Democratic Alliance (DA) is delaying in issuing the guidelines. We want the regulations to be issued speedily. That process needs to be unlocked at national level by the minister and MECs, so that we can get on with the implementation of the BELA Act."
ALSO READ: BELA Act will be implemented whether people like it or not
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
11 hours ago
- IOL News
GNU's Fragile Unity: Israel and the Ideological Crisis Within SA's Ruling Coalition
A child waits with others to receive food at a distribution point in Nuseirat, central Gaza Strip, June 2, 2025. The supposed GNU is not united on core policy pillars, particularly foreign affairs. This dissonance undermines South Africa's moral authority and strategic coherence, says the writer. Image: Eyad BABA / AFP Clyde N.S. Ramalaine Since the 2024 national elections, South Africa has been governed by a new coalition misleadingly branded as a Government of National Unity (GNU). This alliance, led by the African National Congress (ANC) and the Democratic Alliance (DA), excludes major opposition parties like uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) while it accommodates much smaller parties like the PA. Despite its name, the coalition resembles a Grand Coalition formed out of electoral necessity, and political machinations, not ideological consensus. This dissonance is increasingly visible in policy disputes, most glaringly in the lack of a unified foreign policy, especially on South Africa's stance toward Israel. While the term 'GNU' is repeatedly invoked by the state and its coalition members, some of us have persistently argued that it inaccurately describes the coalition's identity and structure. The 7th Administration, inaugurated in June 2024, has already faced serious internal tensions: National Budget : The DA and Freedom Front Plus (FF+) voted against it, exposing fiscal division. BELA Bill : The DA challenged President Ramaphosa's assent to the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill through legal action. Expropriation and NHI Bills : The DA declared formal disputes, accusing the ANC of violating coalition commitments. Internal Trust : The ANC has been accused of unilateralism, particularly after Ramaphosa claimed the ANC remained ' in charge ' despite lacking a majority. Cabinet Disputes : The DA initially rejected the six ministerial positions offered, demanding greater power. Policy Vacuum : The coalition lacks a coherent agenda, with criticism that economic and industrial interests are prioritised over urgent social needs. While each of these tensions merits attention worth unpacking, this article focuses on the coalition's failure to articulate a coherent foreign policy, with particular attention to the South African state's position on Israel. The ICJ case against Israel, alleging genocide in Gaza, was initiated under the ANC-led sixth administration before the coalition's formal establishment. However, its continuation under the 7th Administration places shared accountability on all coalition partners. The critical question: Can these parties, having entered into government, reasonably distance themselves from state actions on the international stage? Can coalition members simultaneously maintain pro-Israel positions while serving in a government prosecuting Israel for genocide? These contradictions expose not just fragility within the coalition but a deeper ideological incoherence. This has implications for both domestic accountability and South Africa's credibility on the world stage. A closer look at the DA and Patriotic Alliance (PA), two vocal coalition partners, reveals shared support for Israel. Often painted as ideological rivals, both parties converge in their staunch backing of Israel, underpinned by different but overlapping motivations. 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 ✕ Ad Loading The DA frames its support through a purported liberal-democratic lens, casting Israel as a fellow constitutional democracy. It has routinely criticised the ANC's pro-Palestinian stance as biased, reaffirming Israel's right to security and sovereignty. This position is echoed by party leaders and in parliamentary debates, often aligning with mainstream pro-Israel rhetoric. The PA's support is more overtly religious, grounded in its alignment with Coloured Pentecostal and Charismatic communities. The party has sent several delegations to Israel, praising its economic and security frameworks. This pro-Israel stance is not incidental; it reflects both ideological affinity and, arguably, strategic political alignment. Though unproven, allegations persist that both parties receive support from Israeli-linked institutions. Regardless of their accuracy, the frequency and visibility of DA and PA engagements with Israel, amid a state-led genocide case against that very country, raise at least three critical questions. 1. Can coalition partners conduct parallel diplomacy that contradicts official policy? Parallel diplomacy by coalition members, especially when it directly opposes formal state positions, raises serious constitutional and political challenges. It undermines South Africa's diplomatic identity, weakens international trust, and confuses global partners about who represents the state. While ideological diversity is inherent to coalition governance, the lack of a binding foreign policy framework risks turning pluralism into instability. 2. Does public support for Israel breach collective governance and cabinet responsibility? In parliamentary systems, coalition members with executive roles are bound by collective governance and cabinet responsibility. Public dissent, especially on significant matters such as the ICJ case, can erode cabinet cohesion and undermine state credibility. Yet, the current coalition lacks a transparent agreement that clarifies such responsibilities. Without a formalised framework, parties like the DA and PA may argue their actions fall within party autonomy, especially if they do not control foreign affairs portfolios. 3. What does this reveal about South Africa's foreign policy credibility under the so-called GNU? The contradictory positions of coalition partners on Israel reflect a broader governance crisis. The supposed GNU is not united on core policy pillars, particularly foreign affairs. This dissonance undermines South Africa's moral authority and strategic coherence. Without a clear, binding coalition framework, foreign policy risks becoming a terrain of partisan expression rather than a reflection of national interest. The ANC's long-standing solidarity with Palestine, rooted in anti-colonial struggle, clashes with the DA and PA's pro-Israel stances. This ideological disconnect renders key diplomatic positions vulnerable to internal sabotage or ambiguity, weakening South Africa's moral clarity and domestic trust in the state's international engagements. The invocation of 'national unity' masks what is, in reality, a fragile arrangement between actors with divergent worldviews. The absence of a formal coalition agreement available to the public deepens concerns about the ad hoc nature of governance. Foreign policy, like other key domains, appears to be negotiable rather than principled. The Israel question thus becomes a prism for understanding deeper contradictions within South Africa's coalition government. Until the 7th Administration resolves these ideological fractures, it remains a government of convenience, not unity. The claim of national consensus is untenable when major foreign policy initiatives are undermined by internal dissent. Conversely, it can be argued that parties like the DA and PA have every constitutional right to maintain independent foreign policy positions. The coalition was not founded on ideological unity or a detailed agreement binding all members to specific international stances. The Grand Coalition 'GNU', born of electoral arithmetic and political sophistication rather than shared vision, does not require unanimity on all matters.
IOL News
12 hours 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
15 hours 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.
