Treasury defends fuel levy increase
CAPE TOWN - The Treasury has defended an increase in the fuel levy, saying if it doesn't raise it in line with inflation, it would become worthless over time.
The fuel levy has been left unchanged for three years to mitigate the impact of high oil prices at the time it was frozen.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) is going to court next week to challenge the legality of imposing an increase as part of the national budget, saying that the finance minister had failed to issue a government notice to this effect, nor had he introduced a bill in Parliament.
The price of petrol will increase by at least 16 cents per litre on Wednesday.
ALSO READ:
• Ntshavheni says EFF free to challenge national budget in court
• EFF accuses finmin of 'undermining' Parly in court papers seeking to stop fuel levy hike
• MPs say impact of fuel levy increase will be 'far worse' than VAT hike
• EFF accuses Treasury of replacing VAT increase with fuel levy hike
• Automobile Association slams new fuel levy hike
The Treasury said that increasing the value-added tax (VAT) rate could not be equated with raising the fuel levy.
Responding to public submissions on the budget in Parliament on Friday, Treasury's head of tax policy, Chris Axelson, said that the fuel levy was the country's fourth-largest revenue source, contributing about five percent to total tax revenue.
"This is a specific tax, a cents per litre, so these kinds of specific tax, which is the same as excise duties, they need to be adjusted by inflation, otherwise the real value of that tax will go down over time."
Axelson said that by not adjusting the fuel levy, Treasury would lose about R3.5 billion in revenue.
"The vast majority of the tax revenue increase is all on the personal income tax side. Around R16.7 billion of the R18 billion in increases is all on personal income tax."
While the finance minister is empowered through the Customs and Excise Act to implement an interim fuel levy adjustment by a notice in the gazette, Parliament can intervene to change the duration before it's formalised in the taxation act.
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
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
IOL News
11 hours ago
- IOL News
Rule of Law: Judicial Accountability is Healthy for Democracy
Protest: EFF leader Julius Malema led a march to the Constitutional Court demanding that President Cyril Ramaphosa be held accountable for the Phala Phala scandal. The question regarding the judiciary's independence is not so dissimilar to the former President Thabo Mbeki's reaction to the ANC's parliamentarians' vote to squash the establishment of a Multi-Party Committee to investigate whether President Ramaphosa has a case to answer on the Phala Phala farmgate scandal, says the writer. Prof. Sipho Seepe Umkhonto we Sizwe Party (MKP) argues that 'Members of Parliament are required to declare their assets; therefore, the same standards should apply to judges, who wield immense constitutional power and influence. Judges must be held to a higher standard of scrutiny and accountability. South Africa cannot afford to have a judiciary shielded from the same transparency expected of other arms of state.' The self-appointed guardians of our democracy would have none of it. The judiciary is a no-go area. After all, conventional wisdom dictates that judges are paragons of virtue. They cannot be compared to corruption-prone politicians and public officials. Counterposing MKP's call is an argument that says, 'Judges are already subject to the most stringent asset and income declarations of all public office bearers'. Also, subjecting judges to lifestyle audits would imply suspicion of corruption. If stringent processes for probing judicial integrity are in place, MKP's call should not pose a problem. A case of suspicion has been made. According to the 2018 Afrobarometer survey, a publication of the Institute for Justice & Reconciliation, 32% of South Africans suspect that judges are involved in corruption. In 2002, the level of mistrust was 15%. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya is on record that there are issues that require urgent attention including 'the report of the 2021 Afrobarometer survey that the public's trust in the judiciary has declined…loss of confidence in the judiciary does not augur well for the rule of law and our democracy'. She concluded that 'the judiciary itself needs to do an introspection and check if we are to blame for this change of attitude towards the institution.' Delivering the Nelson Mandela Lecture, former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng raised a similar concern. 'There is an attempt to capture the judiciary…. any captured member of the judiciary will simply be told or will know in advance, when so and so and so and so are involved, we'd better know your place. Or when certain issues are involved, well, the decision is known in advance'. Far from being denialists, Mogoeng and Maya have approached the subject with a certain degree of maturity. Theirs is to call for vigilance against attempts to undermine (or shield) the judiciary. All that MKP has done is put the matter up for public debate. For Joe Soap in the street, the question regarding the judiciary is not so dissimilar to the former President Thabo Mbeki's reaction to the ANC's parliamentarians' vote to squash the establishment of a Multi-Party Committee to investigate whether President Ramaphosa has a case to answer on the Phala Phala farmgate scandal. Mbeki asked. 'Are we saying that we suspect or know that he (Ramaphosa) has done something impeachable and therefore decided that we must protect our president at all costs by ensuring that no Multi-Party Committee is formed?...... We acted as we did [as if] there was something to hide'. MKP's call for judges to be subjected to lifestyle audits coincides with President Ramaphosa's initiation of the process for the appointment of the Deputy Chief Justice. The position became vacant following the elevation of Justice Mandisa Maya to lead the apex court. For his part, President Ramaphosa nominated four judge-presidents. With Mahube Molemela (Supreme Court of Appeal having declined the nomination, the remaining contenders comprise Dunstan Mlambo (Gauteng), Cagney John Musi (Free State), and Lazarus Pule Tlaletsi (Northern Cape). The Judicial Service Commission, headed by Chief Justice Maya, is expected to pronounce itself on the suitability of the nominees for the position. To be clear, this is a political appointment. With the recycling of Mlambo after his failed bid for the position of Chief Justice, it is a safe bet that Mlambo will get the position. Hopefully, this time around, President Ramaphosa will not go for a demonstrably weak candidate. This would be a case of history repeating itself. A knee-jerk response to MKP will not remove the lingering suspicions of bias. First, far from ubiquitous misconceptions, judges are neither necessarily wise nor omniscient. They are no angels. They are as human and as fallible as all of us. They are prone to self-interest and self-preservation, which may not cohere with the principles of justice. Second, judges do not exist in a vacuum. They are socio-cultural and political animals. There are many instances where history and politics cloud their judgments. The Constitutional Court's ruling regarding a tussle between the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and AfriForum on changing street names is a case in point. In challenging the Tshwane Municipality regarding its decision to change street names to names of struggle icons, AfriForum had, among other things, argued that doing so would violate the constitutional right of the Afrikaner people to enjoy their culture. The Gauteng High Court had ruled in favour of AfriForum. A majority judgment by Mogoeng CJ concurred by Moseneke DCJ, Bosielo AJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J, Nkabinde J, and Zondo J, upheld the appeal against the lower court. Justices Cameron and Froneman dissented. This couldn't be a mere coincidence that all black judges saw things differently from their white colleagues. It is highly possible that socio-political and cultural experiences played a role in arriving at this ruling. Another instance relates to a case in which a full bench (three judges) of the Gauteng High Court decided to offer a political commentary on a matter involving Eskom. Nailing their political flags to the mast, the three judges contended that the 'new dawn that engulfed the country in 2018 did not miss Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (Eskom). It brought life to Eskom in that in January 2018, Eskom's old and inactive leadership was replaced by new leadership with new life to undo years of maladministration and corruption within the organization.' It didn't take long before the country was plunged into rolling blackouts. The fall from Ramaphoria to Ramaruin happened at lightning speed. Lastly, members of the judiciary have not covered themselves in glory. We need not go further than recall the unseemly spectacle that played itself during the publicly televised interviews for the position of Chief Justice. It was evident that Justice Raymond Zondo was a spectacularly poor performer. Only three commissioners reportedly gave Zondo a thumbs-up against the current Chief Justice Maya's twenty-one votes. A discerning individual would have declined the appointment. We must not underplay the extent to which many of our judges are beholden to neo-colonialism. After all, they are part of 'a native elite faithful and [compliant] to the needs of the colonialists. It was largely through educational processes at all levels that these elites were moulded and culturally turned.' It is not an accident that we have courts that foreground 'colonially borrowed languages; languages that are hardly understood by [their audience], and languages, which even these speakers handle with difficulty and grammatical inadequacies.' The sooner we demythologize members of the judiciary, the better for us. * Professor Sipho P. Seepe is an Higher Education & Strategy Consultant. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Trump's pastor Mark Burns speaks out against Malema and EFF's 'Kill the Boer' chant
Described as US President Donald Trump's top pastor, Mark Burns, is visiting southern Africa and said he is convinced that there is no genocide against white Afrikaner farmers. Image: Timothy Bernard / Independent Newspapers US based Pastor Mark Burns, a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump believes the EFF and its leader Julius Malema should not be taken seriously and are attention-seekers for chanting the 'divisive' 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer' chant. The African American televangelist, described by Time magazine as Trump's top pastor, was in South Africa on a fact-finding mission following widespread and repeatedly disputed claims of genocide against white Afrikaner farmers. In an interview in Johannesburg this week, Burns suggested that the EFF is losing steam and is slowly fizzling out. 'To my understanding he (Malema) is a minor character and he is slowly fizzling out. I don't want to keep bringing his name up to give him a platform but the reality of it is, that most South Africans don't take him seriously at all, whether you're black or white,' he said. 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 ✕ 'I don't want to give oxygen to his name to be honest with you. He doesn't have the steam he may once have had and when those videos (were taken) of him singing that song 'Kill the Boer' there were massive crowds but he doesn't have that type of steam anymore'. He dismissed Malema as 'just a character who is screaming, trying to garner attention for himself'. 'That song is a divisive song and I am saying that as a black man, who is very proud that the apartheid government is no longer here, as a man of faith, anything that will cause my brother to stumble should not happen,' Burns explained. He said he understood the historical significance of the song. 'Being a black man, speaking from a black perspective, coming from a nation that once had slaves and up until the 1960s the modern day civil rights movement, many of us didn't even have the right to vote. So it's still not too long ago. "I understand the struggle, I understand the significance of Negro spirituals that were sung during slavery time periods as people were picking cotton, working the fields and it was a way of communicating messages between each other,' added Burns. He explained that some of the songs were designed around killing or about fleeing but they were special. 'They had a significant part then but they don't play a role in society today. You place them in a history book, you may teach people about it but you don't actively bring it to modern day society when apartheid doesn't exist in South Africa,' Burns maintained. Trump played a video of Malema chanting "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer" a recent Oval Office meeting with President Cyril Ramaphosa, with the US President asking Ramaphosa why the EFF leader had not yet been arrested. Last weekend, Malema said he would not be silenced and intimidated by Trump and added that South African courts have ruled there is nothing wrong with the chant, which was not his as he had not composed it. Malema added that Struggle heroes composed the chant and he is defending the legacy of the chant as part of the Struggle heritage. Burns, the founder and chief executive of the NOW television network also expressed his opposition to the country's broad-based black economic empowerment (B-BBEE) policies. 'Yes, it (B-BBEE) is designed to help people of colour to gain access to equal opportunities for economic empowerment while at the same time it should not alienate other people who also want to come to the forefront regardless of the colour of their skin,' said Burns. He said he believed B-BBEE is prohibitive to investment and is causing people to revisit investing in South Africa. 'It blocks other people from around the world, especially the US if they feel coming to South Africa will prevent other people prospering simply for the colour of their skin,' Burns insisted. He proposed revisiting B-BBEE while accepting that 'it is desirable to those who traditionally for 300 years did not have access to the opportunities that now exist'.
