New donation thresholds approved by National Assembly to enhance political funding transparency
The National Assembly has adopted a report that recommended that the upper limit of donations be set at R30 million and the disclosure limit be set at R200,000 in a financial year.
Image: Armand Hough / Independent Newspapers
The National Assembly on Tuesday adopted a report proposing increased disclosure thresholds and upper limits for donations to political parties and independent candidates.
This unanimous decision, except for dissent from the MK Party, Build One South Africa, Al Jama-ah, and the ATM, is a sequel to the public hearings undertaken by the Home Affairs Portfolio Committee after Parliament was taken to court by lobby group, My Vote Counts, when it passed the Electoral Amendment Act without setting the upper limits for donation and disclosure thresholds before the 2024 elections.
Before the amendment, the disclosure threshold was R100,000 per financial year, and the upper limit for donations was R15 million per financial year to political parties.
When the newly amended law was passed, which also catered for independent candidates in line with the Political Party Funding Act, the National Assembly was required to pass a resolution to enable the president to make regulations relating to the amounts and set out factors to consider in regulating the amounts.
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 ✕
However, when the amended legislation came into operation in May, there were no amounts determined for disclosure threshold or upper limits or donations received.
This prompted My Vote Counts to lodge an application in the Western Cape High Court in May seeking an order.
The Western Cape High Court ruled that a legal lacuna had been created and inserted a read-in provision, which was essentially the reinstatement of the old amounts.
In its report to the House, the portfolio committee recommended that the upper limit of donations be set at R30 million and that the disclosure limit be set at R200,000 in a financial year.
Committee chairperson Mosa Chabane said the motion took into consideration the balance of running political parties and the need for transparency.
MK Party MP Sihle Ngubane said transparency was a procedural necessity for democracy that enabled voters to know the funders of political parties to make informed decisions when they vote.
Ngubane noted that there were concerns with the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) enforcing compliance, in a move that may lead to potential loopholes.
He said the IEC should be provided with resources, and enforcement should be strengthened.
Ngubane said the elephant in the room was the sealed bank statement for the funding of President Cyril Ramaphosa's election to the ANC presidency.
'Till today, we have unresolved sealed bank statements funded through trusts, no accountability, transparency, and disclosure,' he said.
Ngubane also said there should be lifestyle audits of all, including judges, who must be held to the same standards as politicians.
'Their role in politics is growing daily; they choose sides instead of being impartial,' he said, adding that the Phala Phala scandal should come back and be subjected to scrutiny.
DA MP Adrian Roos said they supported the technical amendments to the Act to set the disclosure of donations and disclosures.
'These figures remain unchanged since the Act came into effect despite the inflation and rising campaign costs. For legitimate political activity to remain viable, the regulatory framework must evolve within the economic context,' Roos said.
He called for a relook of the Political Funding Act to asses whether it pursued promotion of transparency and accountability in political finances.
'Is the Act achieving the constitutional purpose of promoting openness and fairness? Has it discouraged legitimate donations?' said Roos.
EFF MP Thapelo Mogale said there was a need to ensure that the disclosure was done in a manner that did not create an administrative burden to parties as some don't have the capacity to monitor and report every donation they received.
Mogale also called on the portfolio committee to summon the four major donors of political parties to explain their motives in funding them.
ANC MP Moleboheng Modise-Mpya said the amended legislation reaffirmed the spirit of the Constitution to enhance multi-party democracy.
'We will continue to play our oversight role to ensure there is accountability and transparency on funds allocated to political parties and independent candidates.
'Our ideal situation is to have the state provide the necessary resources for political parties from the fiscus. That will go a long way to minimise reliance of political parties on private donors,' Modise-Mpya said.
mayibongwe.maqhina@inl.co.za
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Eyewitness News
41 minutes ago
- Eyewitness News
IFP suspects shooting of members is related to external political motives
JOHANNESBURG - The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) suspects the shooting of three of its members is related to external political motives. On 31 May 2025, IFP member of Parliament, Petrus Sithole, was shot dead while two other party members were seriously injured. The incident took place at the Buyafuthi hostel in Katlehong, where the party was holding a meeting. On Thursday, two men accused of the killing and attempted murder appeared at the Palm Ridge Magistrates Court in Katlehong, east of Johannesburg. Khethakuthula Sithole and Nontando Ximba abandoned their bail applications. ALSO READ: 2 suspects in murder of IFP MP Khethamabala Sithole abandon bail bids In doing so, they relinquish the opportunity to share personal details about themselves and whether they intend to plead not guilty or not. The IFP's Gauteng chairperson, Bonginkosi Dhlamini, says the party is hoping the truth will eventually come out. 'Both us as a party and the family, we are satisfied with the investigation that it's not political, it's not internal within the IFP – it's outside, but we cannot say where because it is still under investigation.' Some IFP members in Gauteng are still wary of holding large gatherings. However, Dhlamini says they won't be scared into hiding. 'It's not politically motivated at all, the investigation tells you it's not. Even at the funeral, the family confirmed with us it's not political, but we are interested why would you choose an IFP meeting to kill an IFP leader… what is your motive?' Dhlamini hopes that when the case returns to court on 29 July 2025, police will have made another breakthrough. Meanwhile, Gauteng police have issued a R60,000 reward for any information that leads to the successful arrest and conviction of Zamani Ngila Ximba, who is suspected to be the mastermind behind the shooting. They added that he should be considered armed and dangerous.

IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
High court rejects call for South Africa to declare Israel an enemy state
The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, has dismissed the Society for the Protection of Our Constitution's attempt to force the government to declare Israel its enemy over the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Image: Jacques Naude / Independent Newspapers The Society for the Protection of Our Constitution has failed in its attempt to force the South African government to declare Israel its enemy for its acts of genocide against the people of Palestine. The society approached the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, on an urgent basis in a bid to compel the government and a dozen other sovereign states to declare Israel an enemy of South Africa. Brazil, Russia, India, China, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Ireland, and France were among the countries cited by the organisation, which wanted them to take reasonable measures, including using force, to enable the about 3,000 trucks, containing food, medicine, water, vaccines and aid, currently stuck at the border between Egypt and Gaza to gain entry into Gaza. The society wanted the court to direct the South African government to call upon the relevant organs of the United Nations (UN) to take such action under the UN Charter as they consider appropriate to suppress Israel's infliction of acts of genocide upon the people of Palestine. 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 ✕ In addition, the high court was also asked to direct the Government to take measures to impose economic, cultural, sport, and academic sanctions against Israel. The society wanted the government to direct Israel's ambassador to South Africa to return to his/her place of origin. Denmark filed a notice in which it can raise a point of law only without having to submit an answering affidavit with detailed factual averments, and stated that the society had not complied with the Foreign States Immunities Act and international service requirements. The Act requires that the service of legal process on a foreign state must occur through the Department of International Relations and Cooperation for onward transmission to the Foreign Ministry of the state concerned. In terms of the Act, no direct receipt by the Foreign Ministry by service on an embassy or diplomatic mission is valid, and there is a mandated two-month waiting period after proper service to safeguard foreign states from rushed proceedings. The society later withdrew its application against the 12 states, but Judge Sulet Potterill found that Israel could not be declared an enemy of the South African state if it is not a party to the proceedings. She said the blockage of aid to vulnerable people is horrific and is ongoing, but the society did not set out what triggered its application and failed to set out explicitly the circumstances that render the matter urgent. The judge added that the society also did not set out why it cannot be afforded substantial redress at the hearing in due course. 'Directing the government to impose sanctions against the State of Israel and withdrawing Israel's ambassador is incompetent due to the withdrawal, but also because this would breach the separation of powers principle,' the judge ruled. Judge Potterill said the orders sought by the society were all aspects of foreign policy, which is essentially the function of the executive and will be better served by diplomats than the judiciary. 'A court cannot tell the government to make diplomatic interventions, it is within the prevue of the government,' reads the judgment delivered on June 4. Additionally, the order sought to call upon relevant UN organs was also incompetent as it would be vague and impractical, according to Judge Potterill.


The Citizen
4 hours ago
- The Citizen
‘Luxury cloaked in secrecy' – Ntshavheni explains why she won't disclose her official travel expenses
ActionSA has accused Ntshavheni of evading public accountability by refusing to disclose her travel information. Minister in the Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, says she will not compromise national security for political expediency by disclosing information not meant for the public. The minister was responding to ActionSA, which on Tuesday wrote to the Speaker of Parliament, Thoko Didiza, to demand urgent intervention and 'defend the integrity of Parliament's oversight role'. The party sent a parliamentary question to the minister, requesting a breakdown of all her official travel and that of her deputy ministers since they assumed office on 3 July 2024. ActionSA had requested an explanation of the purpose and justification for each trip, destination details, costs incurred, and the names of the accompanying staff. ALSO READ: MK party calls for 'immediate suspension' of Khumbudzo Ntshavheni In her response, the minister wrote: 'The reply to this question is forwarded to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence.' However, this was not a satisfactory response, according to ActionSA. Ntshavheni 'brazenly evaded public accountability' The party released a statement chastising the minister for 'brazenly evading public accountability' with her response, which was sent 'four months late'. 'This is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to further shield her spending from scrutiny. This conduct cannot be allowed to stand, and the reply must be made public immediately,' said the party. 'Every minister in the government of national unity (GNU) was asked the same question on travel expenses. All others who responded did so in a transparent manner. Only the Minister in the Presidency has opted to hide, and we ask, 'why?'' ALSO READ: DA tells Ramaphosa to fire Ntshavheni: 'SA deserve better than growing list of crooks in your Cabinet' 'Is it because ActionSA recently exposed over R200 million in excessive GNU spending, including the Deputy President's outrageous R950 000 bill for four nights of accommodation in Japan and the R160 000 spent by the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture on a trip to Burkina Faso that never took place?' ActionSA accused the GNU of turning the public purse into a private travel slush fund, and the minister of disregarding the public's right to know how their taxes are spent. 'South Africans deserve leaders who serve with humility, not luxury cloaked in secrecy.' Briefing the media on the outcomes of the post-Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Ntshavheni said she does account for her actions, just not in the way ActionSA wants. ALSO READ: SSA employees over 50 years not being forced to take early retirement, says Ntshavheni The minister said her work on state security requires that some of her travel plans be kept confidential, as sharing them could compromise national security. 'Nothing wrong' Ntshavheni said the state security only discloses summits that the ministers are attending, not private meetings. 'It's just not the travel to say which country you have gone to, it's to say what meetings and all those other details. If you understand the nature of my work, you'll realise that 80% of my travel is for work related to state security. If we release it in public, it would compromise some of the initiatives we're working on,' said Ntshavheni. 'You'll recall when the Russia-Ukraine war started and the African leaders initiative led by Ramaphosa to go to Ukraine, it required some of us to take that type of preparatory work for that and if you disclose such details, you compromise the operations that you are running as a country and thus fail national security. ALSO READ: SSA corruption accused will be brought to book, MPs told as independent panel takes shape 'It is for that reason that the National Strategic Intelligence Act has provided the joint standing committee on intelligence for us to fully account for those things that cannot be fully shared in the public domain. 'There are meetings that we attend that we do not post at all, because what we have posted are summits, not meetings. There is nothing wrong because we are allowed by law to provide the committee, unless ActionSA wants to claim the committee has no capacity to hold us accountable. Those members were appointed by parliament and sworn in to hold us accountable. We will not sacrifice national security for political expediency.' READ NEXT: Ntshavheni says AfriForum admitted farm murder stats are accurate, Kriel accuses her of lying