How international pressure fast-tracked policy changes that prioritise foreign profits over local ownership
Image: Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto/AFP
On May 21, we witnessed an embarrassing scene of the presidential delegation in the Oval Office. Patrick Gaspard, a former American ambassador in South Africa under the Barack Obama administration, explained that Trump had turned the meeting with Ramaphosa into a "shameful spectacle" and "savaged him with some phoney snuff film and brutal rhetoric" (Gaspard, 2025).
This was purportedly done to remedy the very high already present tensions between the US and South Africa that have escalated since the Trump administration took office.
Interestingly, just 48 hours later, Communications Minister Solly Malatsi gazetted a new direction of policy to ICASA, permitting Starlink and other foreign investors to "harmonise" current ICT sector requirements (Department of Communications & Digital Technologies, 2025). The regulations previously demanded that at least 30% of shares be held by historically disadvantaged individuals. Current ICT Sector Rules
Due to the expansive and strategic nature of the telecoms sector – controlling how South Africans communicate, access information, and participate in the digital economy – the previous requirement for foreign telecommunications licensees to sell 30% of their local subsidiaries to historically disadvantaged groups ensured that black South Africans didn't just use these services, but owned and profited from the infrastructure serving their communities (Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, 2003).
ICASA's Role
ICASA is the regulator of South Africa's telecommunications sector, essentially the gatekeeper that licenses all companies wanting to provide internet, phone, or TV services (Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Act, 2000). Because they enforce the ownership requirements, they're the ones who need to ease these regulations to make room for Starlink and other prospective foreign investors. As the Department of Communications & Digital Technologies noted, this wouldn't just benefit one company but would apply to all ICT companies, including those from China and the Middle East (Department of Communications & Digital Technologies, 2025). Equity Equivalent and Ownership 'Workaround'
The 'sidestep' or 'harmonising' commonly referred to speaks to Equity Equivalent programmes – this is when companies are permitted to avoid giving up ownership but instead can contribute through community projects worth the same value as what that 30% ownership would have been. This usually takes the form of skills and training development, job creation, and supporting black-owned suppliers (Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, 2019).
In 2019, the South African government piloted this approach through the automotive industry, where BMW, Ford, and Toyota did not have to give up ownership but instead committed to ploughing back through skills development and funding for black-owned suppliers (Automotive Industry Development Centre, 2019). Essentially, companies keep their investments, shareholding, and decision-making power, but offer communities the equivalent value of what they would have given up in ownership.
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
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.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Aphelele Mtwecu, a proud member of the Activate Change Drivers Network and a2016 Activator. She is a content writer, activist
Image: Supplied
Contentions of Timelines and Due Processes
So, how exactly does a presidential delegation meeting occur on Wednesday and have a new policy gazetted by Friday? The credibility of how this gazette played out is questionable. According to reports, the delegation included three other officials who were familiar with what Starlink would bring to the South African economy, granted this wasn't a spontaneous engagement.
However, here is the problem: South Africa, with all its flaws, values and upholds consultative processes. A major economic policy shift such as this one would normally require public hearings or parliamentary reviews to protect the Republic from exactly these kinds of overnight decisions (Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000). In this matter of harmonising BEE laws, regardless of existing contentions, this is an important historical policy that would impact our state of affairs deeply.
It is further alarming how these kinds of events occur under the supposed sensitivity of the GNU government, where consensus-building across coalition parties should be central to major decisions. Unless it is the citizens who are blindfolded, and we simply do not know there was a prior agreement between parties to fast-track this change.
Pseudo Altruism
According to Statistics South Africa's latest general household survey, only 1.7% of rural households had an Internet connection at home in 2023 (Statistics South Africa, 2024). This devastating statistic has become the most compelling reason for the urgency of Starlink's operations in South Africa.
As we understand it, Starlink has been piloted in some South African rural communities and has indeed yielded positive results for farmers as well as the education sector. The need is undeniable – rural communities lack the same coverage and access compared to urban areas. This digital divide is real and valid. Currently, technology optimisation is everything, especially in education, and for children to have access to connectivity is critical.
But here's my question: out of all telecommunications services globally, can we prove that Starlink is the crème de la crème of satellite coverage? Have other avenues been exhausted before we convinced ourselves we had no choice?
And if Starlink had indeed piloted programs in rural areas and seen the benefits, why wouldn't they yield further to South Africa's legislative and broader economic equity by accepting a BEE partner under ICT BEE laws? If rural connectivity was so important to them, why was this condition such a deal breaker?
In these cases, material interests and profit margins trump everything else. And that makes me question their philanthropic intent "to save rural communities" entirely.
Digital Inclusion* (*Economic Participation Sold Separately)
The Department of Communications highlighted a significant issue, emphasising that the policy is not just about Starlink but is intended to address the growing digital divide. However, I do not agree with the methodology. We must ensure that our approach to digital inclusion does not compromise future sustainability.
We have identified the need, but here's the broader question: how can you give a society tablets when they cannot even harvest food to sustain themselves and their families? How is this different from any other interventions that have squandered the hopes of our people, only to leave them hanging with false hope and shattered dreams?
What's the point of digital inclusion without economic participation? We're essentially saying to rural youth: 'Here's access to the internet, but the profits from connecting you will flow to foreign shareholders.' This is the bread vs. bandwidth dilemma – we're trading long-term ownership for short-term access, creating dependency rather than empowerment.
Communications Minister Solly Malatsi gazetted a new direction of policy to ICASA, permitting Starlink and other foreign investors to "harmonise" current ICT sector requirements (Department of Communications & Digital Technologies, 2025).
Image: X / IOLGraphics
Racial Capitalism in Real Time
We are not oblivious to the sequence of events unfolding in the terrain we find ourselves in. The actions of certain global leaders have influenced policies that affect digital inclusion and economic participation.
After our ambassador was dismissed, claims emerged about land confiscation in South Africa, which were used to support allegations of land grabs and genocide. He curtain-calls this performance to the globe, summons 'Cupcake' to the Oval Office, and at the brink of our president making pleas for him to stop, the Trump-Musk axis asks: 'What will you give us in return?'
Our president suggests Starlink as a solution, which raises questions about the underlying motives.
But these dynamics of power and racial manipulation speak deeply to what Cedric Robinson identified as racial capitalism, where racism isn't incidental to capitalism, but fundamental to its operation (Robinson, 2000). As Robin D.G. Kelley reflects on Robinson's work, this system not only exploits black labour but also uses black societies as laboratories for testing how far capital can push without resistance (Kelley, 2017). Du Bois saw this clearly: the colour line isn't just about prejudice, it's about who gets to own, who gets to profit, and who gets relegated to being grateful for scraps (Du Bois, 1903).
We need to critically examine these issues, as seen in 2019 when BMW, Ford, and Toyota used 'equity equivalent' programs to avoid ownership responsibilities. But where's the evidence that this worked? Are there measurably more black-owned automotive companies today? Now they want us to accept the same promise in telecoms, dressed up as digital inclusion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Cape Town journalists march in solidarity with media workers targeted and killed in Gaza
A march in Sea Point, Cape Town, on Sunday was the latest in a series of protests aimed at spotlighting the targeted killing of media workers in Gaza. Local journalists led the demonstration, expressing solidarity with their colleagues on the other side of the world. Hundreds of people marched along the Sea Point promenade in Cape Town on Sunday, 17 August, to protest against the targeted killing of journalists in the Gaza Strip. The march was led by local journalists holding a sign bearing the names of more than 200 Palestinian media workers who have reportedly been killed since 7 October 2023. The march was organised by Journalists Against Apartheid, with support from other organisations including Gift of the Givers, South African Jews for a Free Palestine and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. The demonstration comes exactly a week after an Israeli airstrike on a media tent near Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City killed six journalists. Among those killed were Al Jazeera correspondents Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qreiqeh; camera operators Ibrahim Zaher and Mohammed Noufal; local freelance reporter Mohammad Al-Khaldi; and Moaman Aliwa, a camera assistant. The Israeli military released a statement claiming it had targeted Al-Sharif because he allegedly headed a Hamas cell. However, the Israeli government has not provided evidence to back up these claims. The Al Jazeera Media Network and the South African National Editors' Forum (Sanef) have condemned the killing of Al-Sharif and his colleagues as an assassination and a 'blatant and premeditated attack on press freedom'. Sharif Mosa, a Palestinian photojournalist living in South Africa, spoke at Sunday's demonstration, describing the targeted killing of Gazan journalists as an attempt to 'steal' the Palestinian story by eliminating witnesses. 'Every colonial project survives on two weapons: physical extermination of the colonised people and control of the narrative. The power to erase, distort and rewrite reality,' said Mosa. '[These journalists] were killed not because they were in the wrong place, but because they were in the right place. Journalists are the antidote of colonial propaganda… Killing journalists is how Israel tries to maintain control over the narrative. But every journalist killed makes the truth louder, and today is a statement about that.' Crystal Orderson, a South African journalist, condemned the 'brutality' meted out against journalists in Gaza who were attempting to document the reality on the ground. 'The question today is, since when has journalism become a crime? Clearly, for the journalists like Anas [al-Sharif]… reporting the truth has become that crime,' she said. 'We're standing here today in solidarity… We grew up under apartheid, we knew the role of the media under apartheid… I want to remind the young journalists that it's important to tell the story of truth… [and] human suffering. We can't be silent. In newsrooms across South Africa, we need to stand up for the truth.' Al-Sharif and his colleagues were among many Palestinian journalists who have been documenting the devastation wrought by Israel's attacks on the Gaza Strip in the wake of the 7 October 2023 Hamas assault on Israel that killed 1,200 people and saw 251 taken hostage. Since then, Israeli forces have killed more than 60,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza. This includes a large number of media workers on the frontline. Waiting for death In the month before Al-Sharif was killed, both the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and Irene Khan, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, released statements expressing concern about his safety. This followed 'online attacks and unfounded accusations by the Israeli army' about Al-Sharif's affiliation with Hamas, according to the UN. Khan said that fears surrounding Al-Sharif's safety were well founded as 'there is growing evidence that journalists in Gaza have been targeted and killed by the Israeli army on the basis of unsubstantiated claims that they were Hamas terrorists'. The CPJ said the Israel Defense Forces had previously made unfounded claims that journalists it killed in Gaza were terrorists, including four Al Jazeera staff. At Sunday's march, Journalists Against Apartheid demanded that: Media organisations call Israel's killing of media workers 'what it is – a war crime'; Israel must immediately release all arbitrarily detained Palestinian journalists in the West Bank and Gaza; and The Israeli media ban must end, allowing foreign correspondents entry to Gaza. 'We stand in solidarity with protesters around the world who have condemned Israel's reprehensible killings this week. Governments must act immediately to protect remaining Palestinian journalists before all of Gaza's media workers are killed. We stand with international human rights organisations who recognise that Israel's military actions and policies in Palestine amount to apartheid and genocide,' said Journalists Against Apartheid. In late 2023, South Africa filed a case asking the International Court of Justice to declare that Israel was in breach of its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention. Almost two years later, the case is still ongoing. International media ban Since 7 October 2023, no international journalists have been permitted entry to Gaza, other than a few controlled visits alongside Israeli soldiers that restricted independent reporting. Human rights investigators have also been barred. This has made Palestinian journalists working in the region the primary source of facts and reports about the effects of bombardments by Israeli forces and the growing threat of starvation among Gazans due to the blockade on aid. International media and human rights organisations, including the CPJ, have called for Israel to allow media workers and investigators into Gaza to document the situation on the ground. Restricted access to the region has made it challenging to establish the exact number of journalists killed. Sara Qudah, regional director for the Middle East and North Africa at the Committee to Protect Journalists, told Daily Maverick the organisation was often forced to rely on media reports when tracking the loss of life. 'The grave reality of documenting attacks on the press in the Israel-Gaza war is that we have known of instances where whole families have been killed in strikes, leaving no one to contact to verify details of a journalist or media worker's case. Other times, we face challenges getting hold of the outlet, or remaining family members don't even have information about the outlets the journalists worked at,' she said. The CPJ puts the number of journalists and media workers killed in the Israel-Gaza war between 2023 to 2025 at more than 190, which exceeds the number of press members that were killed worldwide in the previous three years (2020 to 2022). However, some organisations have estimated that the death toll is higher. DM
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA's crypto regulations ‘deny investors access to best-performing asset of past decade', says Luno GM
Luno's general manager for Africa and Europe has harsh words for SA's financial regulators, saying that keeping pension funds out of exchange-traded funds is denying them billions of rands in liquidity. South Africa's crypto regulation debate has, at its centre, an ominous-sounding 'Board Notice 90'. No, it's not an order for Anakin Skywalker to go lightsabre-happy on younglings; it is an obscure piece of regulation that, in practice, keeps the country's most popular investment structures (pension funds) locked out of the global crypto boom. Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana insists that prohibition is necessary. When asked why in Parliament, he said cryptocurrencies were 'risky investments' and the rules were designed to protect 'unsophisticated investors.' But Marius Reitz, Luno's general manager for Africa and Europe, isn't buying it. 'It is becoming increasingly irresponsible for South African regulators and financial institutions to deny investors access to the best-performing asset of the past decade: bitcoin,' he said. The art of protection Reitz argues the minister's reasoning is inconsistent. Retail investors are already free to open an account with Binance, Luno or VALR and put their savings into bitcoin or ethereum directly. What they can't do is gain exposure through a Collective Investment Scheme (CIS) — the family of unit trusts, hedge funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that anchor South African retirement and savings products. 'The surprising part,' said Reitz, 'is that unsophisticated investors are free to invest directly in crypto but are prevented from doing so via structured and professionally managed portfolios.' Globally, crypto ETFs have moved from niche to mainstream. In the United States, BlackRock's bitcoin ETF became the fastest fund in history to hit $70-billion under management. Local investors, meanwhile, can only watch from the sidelines. History casts a long shadow To understand how we got here, you have to go back more than six decades. South Africa's exchange control regime was created in 1961, in the aftermath of the Sharpeville massacre. Capital fled the country, and the apartheid government introduced sweeping controls to put a stop to this. Those regulations are still largely in place, despite the democratic transition. A 2020 Reserve Bank position paper even admitted that exchange controls 'do not govern the transfer of cryptocurrencies in and out of South Africa'. In practice, that means a regulatory vacuum. The vacuum was finally punctured in October 2022, when the Financial Sector Conduct Authority declared crypto assets to be 'financial products', forcing service providers to obtain licences. Two months later, Godongwana designated crypto-asset platforms as 'accountable institutions' under the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, subjecting them to anti-money laundering rules. Changing the game Then, in a landmark judgment in May 2025, Judge Mandlenkosi Motha ruled in the North Gauteng High Court that cryptocurrencies fell outside the 60-year-old exchange control framework. He called the regulations 'not fit for purpose' to deal with digital assets, adding bluntly: 'A regulatory framework addressing cryptocurrency is long overdue.' That ruling has forced the Reserve Bank into action. Godongwana has confirmed that a new crypto framework will be published later this year, setting out clear parameters for cross-border flows and the responsibilities of crypto platforms. The focus is on preventing illicit financial activity, not enabling local investment. It also followed the first of many bitcoin all-time highs. Hannes Wessels, Binance South Africa's general manager, told Daily Maverick, 'It reflects growing global confidence in digital assets, driven by strong institutional demand and regulatory progress. At Binance, we're proud to support this momentum and remain committed to accelerating crypto adoption worldwide.' What this means for you If the Reserve Bank tweaks the rules, especially by designating locally held crypto as 'onshore', it could open the door for South African ETFs and collective investment scheme (CIS) funds to include bitcoin. That would mean you could get exposure through the same structures that manage your retirement annuity or unit trust. Luno estimates that clearer rules could unlock billions in institutional capital and generate up to R500-million in extra tax revenue. That's not just good for investors, it's money for the fiscus too. Right now, the safest, most regulated investment vehicles in South Africa are shut out of crypto. If Board Notice 90 is amended, the average investor could finally get exposure to the digital asset class, but with the guardrails of professional management. Until then, it's DIY. Execute Board Notice 90 Reitz's real gripe is with Board Notice 90 of 2014. The document prescribes what assets CIS funds can hold. Crypto is explicitly excluded. For Reitz, that means South African pension funds and institutional investors are locked out of the world's fastest-growing asset class. But, to be fair to the lawmakers, bitcoin was only five years old. Between 2015 and 2025, bitcoin's value surged by around 37,000%, moving from about $430.57 to $119,448.49. Reitz argues that South African savers missed the bus, not because they were cautious, but because regulators decided on their behalf. 'A measured allocation to crypto assets could give ordinary investors a stake in the future of digital finance,' he said. Luno wants the Reserve Bank to go further still, by designating digital assets as 'onshore' when held with locally licensed platforms. That would clarify whether bitcoin ETFs count toward the strict foreign asset limits that keep institutional investors cautious. Reitz says such a move could unlock billions in liquidity and generate up to R500-million in extra tax revenue. The road ahead Godongwana has never explicitly opposed changing bitcoin regulations; he is just wary of rushing it. His rhetoric has consistently centred on protecting the integrity of the financial system. 'Trust is fundamental to any financial system's effectiveness and existence,' he told MPs. 'To counteract this, we must adopt a regulatory framework that is as dynamic and proactive as the financial sector itself.' But the clock is ticking. Other jurisdictions are already treating crypto as a legitimate asset class. South Africa's investors, many of whom already hold crypto directly, are left without the safeguards and efficiencies of professional management. For now, Godongwana's caution carries the day. But with each passing year, the cost of sitting on the sidelines grows. DM
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Nato-like protection in focus for Trump meeting with Ukraine, Europe
U.S. may offer NATO-like protection to Ukraine, Witkoff says Rubio highlights potential U.S. security commitment to Ukraine Trump-Putin talks narrowed key issues, Rubio notes Rewrites throughout, adds quotes from Rubio and Witkoff By Trevor Hunnicutt and David Ljunggren 'We were able to win the following concession, that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection,' Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to Russia, told CNN's 'State of the Union' program. 'The United States could offer Article 5 protection, which was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that.' Witkoff was referring to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which regards any attack against one of its 32 members as an attack on all. He suggested that a security guarantee of that scale could be offered to Ukraine in lieu of NATO membership, which Putin has ruled out. Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and has been gradually advancing for months in the deadliest war in Europe for 80 years, Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who were both in the room when Trump met Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, gave a series of TV interviews ahead of a Monday meeting in Washington with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and leaders of some European allies. 'We made some progress, we believe, and now we have to follow up on that progress,' Rubio told CNN's 'State of the Union' about the meeting with Putin. 'Ultimately, where this should lead is to a meeting between the three leaders, between Zelenskiy, Putin and President Trump, where we can finalize, but we got to get this thing closer before we get to that point.' Russian officials are opposed to Western troops in Ukraine, but have not ruled out a security guarantee for Kyiv. Speaking during a joint media appearance with Trump after their nearly three-hour long meeting, Putin said on Friday: 'I agree with President Trump. He said today that Ukraine's security must be ensured by all means. Of course, we are ready to work on this.' Witkoff told 'Fox News Sunday' that Russia had also agreed to passing a law against taking any more of Ukraine by force. 'The Russians agreed on enshrining legislatively language that would prevent them from – or that they would attest to not attempting to take any more land from Ukraine after a peace deal, where they would attest to not violating any European borders,' he said. PEACE DEAL VS SURRENDER Any security guarantees offered to Zelenskiy could also include a commitment from the United States, Rubio told Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures', an option that many of Trump's MAGA supporters have rejected up to now. 'It would be a very big move by the president, if he were to offer a U.S. commitment to a security guarantee,' Rubio said. 'It tells you how badly he wants peace, how much he values peace, that he would be willing to make a concession like that …That's what we'll talk about tomorrow.' In a social media post, Trump wrote, 'BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED!' But he gave no details. Rubio said U.S. officials discussed security details for Ukraine with the national security advisers of multiple European countries on Saturday, adding that the aim would be to build in details that could ultimately be presented to Russia as part of a peace agreement. He told Fox News that the talks between Trump and Putin on Friday had narrowed the number of key issues, which include drawing borders and military alliances for Ukraine as well as security guarantees. 'There's a lot of work that remains,' Rubio added. According to sources, Trump and Putin discussed proposals for Russia to relinquish tiny pockets of occupied Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine ceding a swathe of fortified land in the east and freezing the front lines elsewhere. Rubio said Russia and Ukraine would not be able to get everything they want. 'If one side gets everything they want, that's not a peace deal. It's called surrender, and I don't think this is a war that's going to end anytime soon on the basis of surrender,' Rubio told CNN. In a separate interview on ABC, Rubio said if a deal could not be reached to end the war, existing U.S. sanctions on Russia would continue, and more could be added. When Zelenskiy visited the White House in February, the meeting ended in a shouting match. Rubio, speaking to CBS, dismissed the idea that the European leaders were coming to Washington to protect Zelenskiy. 'They're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelenskiy from being bullied. They're coming here tomorrow because we've been working with the Europeans,' he said. 'We invited them to come.'
