EFF loses fuel levy court challenge
EFF leader Julius Malema. (X)
The
The party's application, lodged against Finance Minister
The EFF argued that it was unlawful because it was not introduced through a Money Bill, as required by section 77 of the Constitution.
The party described the court's ruling as 'a betrayal of the poor and the working class' and accused Godongwana's office of sidestepping democratic procedures in the management of public finances.
'Taxation without representation is arbitrary and unconstitutional,' the party said. The ANC-led government of national unity was doing everything in its power 'to protect the interests of those who continue to benefit from the apartheid economy, while subjecting the masses of our people to economic misery'.
Godongwana has insisted that he acted within existing legislation. In his
He added that it had been frozen since 2021, and the increase was necessary to preserve the real value of the levy in the face of inflation and declining revenue.
He warned that halting the increase would result in a R3.5 billion shortfall for the fiscus, necessitating further borrowing, spending cuts or alternative tax increases.
'The fuel levy is not a new tax. It is a regulatory adjustment falling under existing legislation and its increase does not require a Money Bill,' Godongwana argued in the affidavit, adding that freezing the levy any further would compromise the integrity of the budget and limit the state's ability to deliver services.
The court's ruling allowed the increase to proceed and, on Wednesday, fuel prices rose accordingly for the month of June. However, a dip in global oil prices and modest strengthening of the rand brought slight relief for motorists.
EFF leader
'It is not the EFF that got rejected; it is the people of South Africa who lost. When you increase fuel, you increase everything, transport, food, the cost of living. Our people are already suffering. This is an extra blow to the working class,' he said.
The EFF would not abandon the matter, Malema said, indicating that it was considering further legal avenues, as well as a legislative push in parliament to close loopholes that allow the treasury to act unilaterally.
EFF treasurer general Omphile Maotwe, who has led the party's engagements on budget matters, reiterated its position that the matter should have come before parliament.
'The levy seeks to recover revenue after the courts invalidated the unlawful VAT increase proposed earlier this year. By using the Customs and Excise Act to bypass section 77 of the Constitution, the minister is undermining the democratic function of parliament and the people's right to participate in fiscal policy decisions,' she said.
Maotwe said the EFF would submit proposals to amend the relevant sections of the Customs and Excise Act and the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act to ensure no future taxation could be implemented without a parliamentary vote.
While the EFF's application was dismissed, legal observers say the court did not definitively rule on the constitutional questions raised, which could leave the door open for further challenge.
While the government is technically within its rights to use the Customs and Excise Act to amend levies, the broader question of public accountability in tax decisions remains unresolved, constitutional law expert professor Pierre de Vos said.
'There's a grey area here. The Constitution requires that money bills originate in the National Assembly, but there are long-standing statutes like the Customs and Excise Act that give the executive certain powers. Whether those powers are now unconstitutional is a debate we may see return to the courts.'
The EFF said it would use all platforms, legal and political, to hold the treasury accountable.
'We will not rest while unelected officials continue to impose taxes behind the back of parliament. The people must have a voice in every cent that is taken from their pockets,' Malema said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
17 minutes ago
- Mail & Guardian
Put an end to four centuries of corporate plundering of Africa
Cecil John Rhodes epitomised the consolidation and expansion of white supremacy, corporate interests and state power. For the past four centuries, corporations have exploited — butchered — the African continent, leaving behind scars, open wounds and entrails which can be seen from space. The history of the continent could be told as one of corporate rule briefly interrupted by colonialism or, as the late novelist and scholar Ngugi wa Thiong'o put it, of 'corpolonialism'. South Africa's past and present exemplifies this. The Cape was colonised by a corporation, which then imported enslaved people to provide labour and enable the Dutch East India Company to lay the material and symbolic foundations for the regime of white supremacy and racial domination that culminated in apartheid. When slavery was no longer profitable, and so the British decided to 'abolish' it, the empire 'expropriated' enslaved people across it colonies and formally freed them — but not before paying £20 million pounds in compensation to white slaveholders and their creditors in the name of 'justice and equity'. These 'reparations', paid to white people for the end of slavery, were then reinvested through the new corporate vehicle of the joint-stock company. They were used to finance further colonial expansion and consolidate white domination over land, labour and lives, globally. In the Cape colony, for example, white compensation for black 'emancipation' quintupled the money in circulation in the economy; more than doubled imports and exports; financed the violent settler expansion on the colony's eastern 'frontier' and led to the establishment of its first private bank in 1837. The number of joint-stock companies in the Cape doubled, as white beneficiaries of 'emancipation' pooled their compensation to generate more wealth. White former slaveholders leveraged their land, capital and credit to re-subordinate the newly freed 'apprentice' labourers and become rent-seeking slumlords. The greatest beneficiary of the trade in compensation claims — the London-based merchant house of Phillips, King & Co. — financed the exploration of copper in Namaqualand, drawing a line from 'compensated emancipation' to the mining and extractive monopolies that emerged after the discovery of diamonds and gold. The consolidation and expansion of this three-headed hydra of white supremacy, corporate interests and state power throughout the latter half of the 19th century is epitomised in the figure of Cecil John Rhodes. This race-state-company nexus was also central to the system of colonial apartheid that emerged over the course of the 20th century. Rhodes's successors — who controlled as much of the economy as the apartheid state — were joined by the various corporations established under the volkskapitalisme, many of which dominate the continent today. As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded: 'Business was central to the economy that sustained the South African state during the apartheid years. Certain businesses … were involved in helping to design and implement apartheid policies … Most businesses benefited from operations in a racially structured context.' This unholy trinity of white supremacy, corporate interest and state power is not unique to South Africa. Its global articulation was on full display in the White House two weeks ago as the world's most powerful statesman, the world's wealthiest man and rich white men who chase white balls around for a living put on a spectacular performance of ignorance, entitlement and victimhood. One after another, US President Donald Trump invited each of these unelected white men to roll back the years and weigh in on the present conditions and future prospects of the majority of people in South Africa, who were once again being held hostage to the delusions of a white minority. The ball-hitters obliged, literally speaking over Cyril Ramaphosa, the democratically elected president of South Africa, and Zingiswa Losi, the leader of the country's largest trade union federation, Cosatu. It was all too much for golfer Ernie Els, who momentarily forgot which side he was on and thanked the US for its support in maintaining apartheid. It was the most honest moment of the whole spectacle. President Trump's corporate handler, Elon Musk, loomed large but said nothing. Rather, his ransom was delivered by South Africa's second richest man, Johann Rupert, who declared that he had opposed apartheid from birth — as long as he had benefited from it. He said South Africa must abandon its insistence that corporations operating in South Africa — which for centuries have worked hand-in-glove with colonial apartheid to advance the interests of a white minority — should include a mere 30% ownership stake for the majority of South Africans. This would allow Musk's Starlink — a central part of the US military-industrial complex — to not only colonise space but recolonise the continent. Another demand, made explicit in Trump's recent executive order, is that white beneficiaries of centuries of racial domination who have amassed an absurdly disproportionate amount of the privately owned land (and wealth) should — like their slave-owning forebearers — once more be compensated in the name of 'justice and equity', regardless of whether the land was 'justly' acquired and is being 'equitably' used, or even used at all. Social movements, activists and affected communities have been working to hold corporations to account for their depredations on the continent since the 1900s. An early and instructive example is the work of South Africa's own Alice Kinloch, a pathbreaking pan-Africanist and pioneer of the field of business and human rights, who was born in the Cape in 1863 and moved to Kimberley in the 1870s. In the final years of the 19 th century, Kinloch pointed out that: 'The handsome dividends that a certain company pays are earned at the price of blood and souls of … black men. Shareholders may be in happy ignorance of this, so we would remind them that there are several thousands of fellow-men kept under lock and key for their sole benefit, and that the gems on their wives' hands, and the finery bought by their 'profits' are, to 'seeing' eyes, bespattered with human gore.' Kinloch proceeded to set out 'the state of affairs in South Africa, for which the bloody, brutal and inconsiderate hands of avarice and might are answerable', where '[f]or more than a quarter of a century Kimberley has been the stage for the worst forms of undisguised inhumanity' at the hands of 'their master the Company'. In doing so she pointed to the race-corporation-state nexus, noting that De Beers was 'a company as ostentatiously 'colour-hating' as its chief, Cecil Rhodes'. Kinloch established the African Association in 1897, which organised the first Pan African Conference in 1900. The resolutions of that conference included a call for direct action in respect of 'the situation of the native races in South Africa', including the 'degrading and illegal compound system of native labour in vogue in Kimberley'. The work of Alice Kinloch and her fellow pan-Africans should serve not only to inspire us but instruct us. Last week, social movements, activists and affected communities met in Johannesburg for the 7 th African Regional Indaba on a Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights organised by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, the Alternative Information & Development Centre and Lawyers for Human Rights. The treaty negotiation process began in 2014 following a resolution by the Human Rights Council — co-sponsored by South Africa — to 'elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises'. The future of the treaty is uncertain, as efforts towards corporate accountability more generally are backsliding everywhere. Both the US and the EU are rolling back what little controls they had in place to regulate the actions of corporations. Countries of the Global South are being put under immense pressure to ease regulations to facilitate the second 'scramble for Africa' under the banner of a 'green transition' that relies on minerals the West has declared 'critical'. In South Africa, the Competition Commission is appealing a decision of the competition appeal court which effectively neutered the commission's capacity to hold companies operating beyond our borders accountable for the negative impact of illegal activities in the republic. The appeal arises from the commission's efforts to prosecute the largest banks in the world — whose market capitalisation exceeds $2 trillion, some of which were founded with the compensation paid to white slaveholders — for the coordinated manipulation of the rand. The competition appeal court's 2024 decision threw out the case against 17 of the 28 banks before they had even responded to the allegations. When the Centre for Applied Legal Studies requested permission to intervene as an amicus curiae to place the banks' conduct within the framework of domestic and international human rights law, the constitutional court refused our application. In the face of these challenges, we must continue to hold the line on corporate accountability for what Kinloch rightly described 'handsome dividends … earned at the price of blood and souls', including through defending the treaty process, which has been led from the outset by the Global South. Like Kinloch, we must also insist on a continental response, including by supporting the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights' efforts to draft an African regional treaty to regulate the activities of transnational corporations. Four centuries of impunity for corpolonialism is enough. Professor Christopher Gevers is the director of the Centre for Applied Legal Studies and an associate professor at the School of Law, Wits University.
Eyewitness News
14 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Political parties bemoan inadequate protection for whistleblowers
CAPE TOWN - Political parties have bemoaned the inadequate protection for whistleblowers and the failure to reform the laws that will improve this. During an African National Congress (ANC) sponsored debate calling for guaranteed anonymity, job security and legal support for whistleblowers, every speaker referenced the assassination of Babita Deokaran, who was killed outside her house in 2021 for blowing the whistle on corruption at Tembisa Hospital. Parliamentarians said that despite a raft of laws dealing with whistleblowing, they have given rise to a culture of fear among whistleblowers who are punished rather than protected. Parliamentarians have added pressure on the Justice Department to speed up the process of improving its treatment of whistleblowers. The Protected Disclosure Act and Whistleblowing Act are currently under review by the department. The Democratic Alliance (DA)'s Glynnis Breytenbach is calling for the establishment of an independent whistleblower protection agency with prosecutorial referral powers. 'A dedicated, well-funded, autonomous institution must be created to receive disclosures, provide safe channels, investigate threats and offer physical protection.' Rise Mzansi leader Songezo Zibi said employers should be prohibited from disciplining officials who make protected disclosures, and should refund them the cost of litigation if an employee wins the case. 'We must similarly make it impossible for those people to be dismissed until the matter has been closed.' Members of Parliament (MPs) are also calling for an incentive fund that will encourage people to come forward to lift the lid on corruption. ALSO READ: Freedom Under Law echoes calls for protection of investigators, whistleblowers in high-profile cases
TimesLIVE
17 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
GNU ministers spent R200m of taxpayers' money on travelling since taking office
Ministers in the government of national unity (GNU) have spent more than R200m on travel expenses since July last year. This was revealed by ActionSA through its GNU performance tracker after receiving replies to parliamentary questions sent to ministers. This week, the party said Deputy President Paul Mashatile and his staff splurged more than R2m on travel expenses for transport and accommodation since last year. In a written reply, Mashatile said he has been on four international trips - to Ireland, Botswana, Zimbabwe and, recently, Japan. A total of R613,214 was spent on flights, R1,235,569 on accommodation and R410,926 for ground transport for all trips. Other costs included laundry services at R8,033 and R51,393 for restaurant services. ActionSA MP Alan Beesley criticised the spending, calling it 'executive indulgence' and 'wasteful expenditure'. 'This sort of wasteful expenditure, an extension of ANC excess now rebranded under the GNU, has become business as usual for the world's most bloated executive,' Beesley said. 'South Africans deserve leadership that puts people before perks and not a R200m travel spree by the world's largest cabinet.' The sport, arts and culture department's travel expenses have also raised concern. Minister Gayton McKenzie said he and his staff undertook 11 international trips costing more than R2m. R164,556 was paid for a trip to Burkina Faso that never took place. 'Not only is this spending exorbitant, but it is riddled with red flags, gaps and inconsistencies. The public paid for flights and accommodation for an event that was abandoned, a textbook case of wasteful expenditure, as defined by the Public Finance Management Act. 'Unless the minister can demonstrate that this loss was unavoidable and efforts were made to recover the funds, this reflects a serious failure of financial oversight and internal control.' ActionSA has introduced the Enhanced Cut Cabinet Perks Bill to address unchecked government spending. 'This bill seeks to slash ministerial perks and restore much-needed fiscal discipline.'
