EFF rejects fuel levy as an attack on the poor
EFF treasurer-general Omphile Maotwe has written to Finance Minister Enoch Godogwana rejecting the fuel levy.
Image: Nhlanhla Phillips / Independent Newspapers
By: Omphile Maotwe
On 21 May 2025, the Minister of Finance tabled the third version of the 2025/26 national budget. Instead of solutions to South Africa's deepening fiscal and social crisis, the Minister delivered a cold and calculated betrayal. He proposed an increase to the general fuel levy by 16 cents per litre for petrol and 15 cents for diesel. True to what the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the country has come to expect from the GNU led administration, the proposal was dishonestly framed as a 'regulatory adjustment' instead of a tax increase.
This levy aims to recover R1.3 billion in revenue after the courts struck down the unlawful VAT increase that featured in the initial budget proposal. The EFF is clear that the fuel levy is not a regulatory tweak but rather a tax hike that is being unlawfully imposed through the Customs and Excise Act, instead of through the Money Bill Act, as mandated by section 77 of the Constitution. We reject this proposal precisely because it is illegal and anti-poor.
Our Constitution empowers only parliament to impose a national tax through the money bill. The Minister should therefore not be using administrative regulation to introduce a tax increase. The levy is a tax, even the government's own Budget Review refers to this fuel levy increase as part of 'fuel taxes on petrol and diesel.' Proceeding with it in this manner will only serve to defy the constitution, undermine Parliament's authority, and rob South Africans of their right to participate in fiscal decisions that directly affect their lives.
The judiciary was clear in its handling of the initially proposed VAT increase by the Minister. A 2% VAT increase was proposed which was brought down to 0.5% but ultimately through the work of the EFF, it was recognised as a tax measure implemented outside of the law by the judiciary and subsequently suspended. Yet here we are again with a Minister who is determined to continue to undermine parliament and the courts. As the EFF we recognise this as arrogance, contempt and a blatant disregard of the law.
The economic consequences of this illegal fuel levy will be devastating. While R1.3 billion may seem insignificant to Treasury, its impact on the working class and ordinary people of this country will be economically challenging. Fuel costs are a direct driver of inflation in transport, food, and essential services. For a worker commuting daily, a student relying on taxis, or a small trader transporting goods, this increase is not abstract. It is an attack on their survival.
Our country is facing an economic crisis. That much is clear but as the EFF we will always be the voice that shields the poor from carrying an economic burden that results from poor governance and mismanagement. The crisis was not created by our unemployed youth in Tembisa or the grandmother in Giyani. It was not created by the street vendor in Umlazi or the taxi driver in Mthatha. The crisis was created by the ANC government through corruption, mismanagement, and a neoliberal austerity agenda that punishes the poor and protects the rich.
The EFF has taken decisive action regarding the fuel levy and on 26 May 2025, we wrote to the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance, demanding immediate parliamentary intervention. We called for the Minister of Finance to withdraw the proposed levy because it must be introduced through the Money Bill Act. We further urged the Finance Committee to place this matter on its agenda, summon the Minister to account, and reaffirm Parliament's constitutional authority over all revenue measures.
This matter deserves urgent attention because if the levy is allowed to proceed in its illegal state, we run the risk of further legal challenges and collapsing the fiscal framework. No legitimate parliament would endorse a budget that is tainted by unlawful taxation. What is most alarming is that if the 2025/26 Budget is not adopted by 31 July as required by the Constitution, the government could face an administrative shutdown under section 21.
The EFF however is not opposed to raising revenue legitimately. We support progressive taxation that will fund development, create much-needed jobs, and render services to our people. But taxation must be lawful, fair, and aimed at those with the most. The government needs to urgently impose a wealth tax, close corporate tax loopholes, and end illicit financial flows. Revenue can also be raised by scrapping the bailouts to failing state-owned entities but the EFF is against putting further strain on the poor and working class.
Imposing a fuel levy is a political decision and must be recognised as such. The EFF will not be silenced or intimidated by political bullies who continue to disregard the law, due process and undermine parliament and our constitution. We stand ready to fight against the injustices that will emanate from this tax increase that is disguised as an adjustment. We will fight against it in the corridors of parliament, in the confines of the courtrooms, and ultimately on the streets and on the picket lines. We will challenge this decision because we recognise it for exactly what it is, a bid to squeeze the poor and continue to cushion the rich and politically connected.
Parliament should not allow the fuel levy to proceed as it threatens to render our institutions irrelevant. The people of South Africa did not vote for a government that will govern without notice, and parliament should be at the forefront of protecting the people who have entrusted us to lead and represent them. We call on all progressive forces to demand accountability, consultation, and for parliament to reclaim its power. The time has come for parliament to decide if it will stand with the people of South Africa or bow down to an unaccountable executive. The EFF stands with the people.
* Omphile Maotwe is the Treasurer General of the Economic Freedom Fighters and a Member of Parliament
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Western Cape High Court rules against Dr John Hlophe's appointment to Judicial Service Commission
The Western Cape High Court has delivered a significant ruling against Dr Mandlakayise John Hlophe, the impeached former judge, declaring that he cannot be part of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The court's decision, handed down on Monday, underscores the imperative of judicial integrity and the constitutional responsibilities of South Africa's legislative body. In a judgement that has reignited debates about the judiciary's independence, the High Court found that the National Assembly (NA) had failed to appropriately exercise its discretion when approving Hlophe's appointment, an oversight that effectively undermined the credibility of the JSC. The court's order reflects a broad consensus that rigorous standards must be upheld in judicial appointments, especially for a body entrusted with safeguarding the country's constitutional commitment. The implications of the ruling are profound, as the JSC is constitutionally mandated to recommend judicial appointments and hold judges accountable. The court stated that failing to act responsibly in Hlophe's nomination could jeopardise the very independence the JSC is supposed to protect. Hlophe was nominated to the JSC last year but subsequently resigned amidst a flurry of controversy. The court explicitly stated that "Dr. Mandlakayise John Hlophe may not be designated to serve on the Judicial Services Commission in terms of section 178(1)(h) of the Constitution," marking a rare judicial rebuke of a parliamentary appointment. The judgment comes after a legal challenge by organisations including Freedom Under Law, Corruption Watch, and the Democratic Alliance (DA). These groups argued that including an impeached judge in the JSC threatened the integrity and independence of South Africa's judiciary. 'The judiciary is essential to the maintenance of constitutional democracy,' they asserted, solidifying their stance against any attempts that could compromise its impartiality. Dr Hlophe became South Africa's first judge to be impeached in its democratic era in February 2024, following charges stemming from a misconduct case dating back to 2008. He faced serious allegations of attempting to improperly influence Constitutional Court Justices Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta in a matter concerning then-President Jacob Zuma. After a protracted legal battle, the JSC finally recommended his removal in 2021, with Parliament voting in favour of impeachment only three years later. In response to the court's ruling, DA federal chairperson Helen Zille stated, "The High Court order to bar an impeached judge from serving on the Judicial Services Commission is a victory for the rule of law and the Constitution." She emphasised that the JSC must consist of members who are "fit and proper" and hold the public's confidence, reflecting the broader societal imperative for transparency and accountability within the judiciary. This latest development stands as a testament to the ongoing efforts to reinforce the principles of lawful governance within South Africa, propelling the conversation about judicial integrity into the national spotlight once more. DAILY NEWS
Eyewitness News
7 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Access to details on decision to sign NHI Bill into law is a privilege, argues Ramaphosa
JOHANNESBURG - President Cyril Ramaphosa has argued that access to a record detailing what informed his decision to sign the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill into law is a matter of privilege. The president has petitioned the Constitutional Court in an application for leave to appeal a High Court judgment over the NHI Act. In May, the court found that his decision to sign the bill into law was reviewable, ordering him to submit to the court the record of what led to his decision. However, the president argues that furnishing the court with the record is not a legal requirement. In papers before the Constitutional Court, Ramaphosa submits says various factors are considered before assenting to and signing a bill into law. ALSO READ: Ramaphosa takes his appeal against high court ruling on NHI to ConCourt Among them are the inputs by legal advisors, which the president says he has never been required to produce before and may be of a privileged nature. He adds that the record is at the heart of his performance in executing his obligations as enshrined in the constitution, and the order that he furnish the court with the record engages issues regarding the office of the presidency. This, Ramaphosa says, breaches the separation of powers doctrine, unnecessarily allowing courts to 'check the homework' of the head of State. The president further submits that the non-disclosure of the record in no way impedes parties from launching a constitutionality challenge, as this is a mechanism provided for by the Constitution.
Eyewitness News
7 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
WC High Court finds its former Judge President John Hlophe unfit to serve on JSC
CAPE TOWN - The Western Cape High Court has found its former Judge President, John Hlophe, to be neither fit nor proper to serve on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). It's consequently set aside a decision by the National Assembly (NA) last July to endorse the recommendation of the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party to have him serve as one of its six parliamentarians. The matter was heard in February by a full bench of judges from outside the division, after the court previously granted an interdict in favour of the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Under Law and Corruption Watch, preventing Hlophe from participating in the work of the commission pending this matter. The NA has in previous administrations never second-guessed the candidates political parties nominate from within their ranks to serve on the JSC. But in a judgment handed down on Monday, the court said the NA had fundamentally misunderstood the nature of its powers to designate members to serve on the body that interviews candidates to become judges. ALSO READ: • MK Party says if it were in govt, it would've scrapped Constitution in favour of parliamentary sovereignty • MK Party withdraws nomination of Hlophe to serve on JSC The court says while it does not dispute arguments made by the MK Party that Hlophe is highly qualified, his removal from the bench on charges of gross misconduct is the issue. This, the court says seriously threatens the independence of the judiciary and his presence on the JSC would prejudice the commission's ability to do its work. 'Dr Hlophe's academic ability does not cure this,' reads the judgment. 'Through the impeachment of Dr Hlophe, the National Assembly has effectively already determined that his continued involvement in judicial affairs would diminish public trust.' The court says by Hlophe trying to appeal this judgment in the first part of this case, he's shown disregard for the authority and integrity of the courts. For this reason it's made an order that a judge removed for gross misconduct may never serve on the JSC. Hlophe has also been ordered to pay costs on a punitive scale for disparaging remarks he's made about the litigants and the judges in this matter.
