Starlink triggers black ownership row in South Africa's parliament
South Africa's proposal to amend the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Act has provoked political outrage, with Elon Musk's Starlink at the forefront.
The retaliation responds to Solly Malatsi's (Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies) Friday announcement, recommending they restructure the Electronic Communications Act, which requires 30% of foreign telecoms equity to be black-owned.
Malatsi's proposition occurred two days after South African President Cyril Ramaphosa visited the White House, during which Cape Town-based billionaire Johann Rupert requested Musk's technology to tackle the nation's high murder rate.
Starlink is yet to operate in South Africa as several neighboring countries grant access.
Portfolio committee chair and African National Congress (ANC) member Khusela Diko declared Malatsi's scheme as bending the rules for Musk in a Parliamentary hearing on Tuesday. Moments later, Economic Freedom Fighters member Sixolise Gcilishe said, 'We are not going to accept a situation where our laws are going to be rewritten in Washington.'
Meanwhile, ANC's Tshehofatso Chauke saw the policy as a threat to domestic business owners, believing it to offer an 'opportunity for international players to come through the back door' and 'favor big business rather than the interests of South Africans and those who are previously disadvantaged.'
Democratic Alliance member Malatsi denied that Starlink played a role in the recommended policy change, stating that the amended framework had been internally discussed since around September of last year.
'We are not attempting to open a special dispensation for Starlink or any other company or an individual… There is no conspiracy on our part with regard to this policy direction,' Malatsi stated.
The Minister revealed his intentions were driven by the need to attract investment and tighten business regulations. He believes the policy to be as domestically benefiting as the current BEE requirements, outlining that the reform offers foreign companies two avenues: an equity equivalent scheme or 30% black ownership.
'We advocate for smarter, scalable approaches that deliver meaningful impact and restore policy clarity, consistency, and investor confidence,' South Africa's Association of Communications and Technology said in a statement supporting Malatsi.
The proposal has divided South Africa's cabinet, with some calling for legal intervention while others believe it doesn't object to current domestic laws.
South Africa's BEE act, introduced after the conclusion of Apartheid, has been infamously criticized by Pretoria-born Starlink CEO Musk, who views the policy as 'openly racist.'
Starlink has become increasingly prevalent in Africa – connecting pockets of rural Africa to fast internet – while steering clear of South Africa but operating in neighbors Eswatini, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique. Other African locations include Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, and Benin.
South Africa's lawmakers will continue to discuss Malatsi's policy reform, suggesting that, amid the backlash, the door remains narrowly open to restructuring the ICT sector's current black ownership requirements, enabling Starlink to open up shop.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
28 minutes ago
- Mail & Guardian
A future without broad-based BEE and affirmative action is not possible
There has been progress since 1994. South Africa now has a black middle and upper middle class but the means of production remain largely owned by white people and black people swelling the ranks of labour. Photo: Mujahid Saofodien/AFP) We are witnessing the different calls to end broad-based black economic empowerment (broad-based BEE) and transformation in general. There seems to be a layer of peddling specific narratives across society about the failures and consequences of broad-based BEE and affirmative action, which are gaining momentum, and thus a response is necessary to remind each other of what transformation is. In the words of former Black Management Forum president Lot Ndlovu, 'The new economic dispensation should match the aspiration for economic freedom and the fulfilment of the highest ideals of our democracy.' The political changes in the country in 1994 did not amount to transformation in and of itself, but the new political order created conditions for transformation to take place. Building a school, sporting facilities or a clinic does not amount to transformation in its fullest extent. These activities are part of economic development of any society in the world and should not be seen and understood as the end result of transformation. The argument that is tabled by Ndlovu's words is that our aspirations as a country are embedded and anchored on how we can conduct our economic affairs in a new way, by separating from the past and embracing these noble ideals that democracy has afforded us. Democracy cannot thrive in an environment where the economic order underuses or undermines human freedom and capabilities. Therefore, the economic order that we run must match our aspirations for economic freedom, otherwise our efforts in becoming a world class country will not be achieved. So, the focus after 1994 under new conditions is that we need to unleash the potential of the country by being bold and intentional about our development and uplifting black people and freeing our white compatriots from the past. We have seen since 1994 the behaviour of both black and white people in the process of transforming the country. On the one hand, we have experienced detractors of transformation coupled with tokenism and silence from some quarters. On the other hand, we have also seen the power of legislation and how it can unlock opportunities through business and the public sector. The prevailing noise in the country today is that the transformation process has not yielded the expected outcomes, which in the main is true, but throwing out the baby with the bath water cannot also be equally true. The understanding of the Constitution should lead us to view transformation in a variety of different ways. Here is my proposed approach, which I have written about before, that incorporates three facets of transformation. Transformation as a science seeks to measure the progress of black people in terms of their socio-economic prosperity in a democratic dispensation. This centralises research and development as a cornerstone of economic transformation, forcing both government and business to invest in proper research . Transformation as a craft seeks to create policies and frameworks that will drive the inclusion of black people into the mainstream economy. This is then the legislative framework and the work of government. All policies and pieces of legislation must be driven by eliminating poverty, inequality and unemployment. In business this would take the shape of having transformation as the life blood of business, from top leadership to the last employee. Woven into the life of business should be breathing and thinking about transformation, daily. The power of management would be charged with creating a more equitable working environment from remuneration policies, appointments, recruitment, skills development, ownership and ESD, supply chain to procurement. Transformation as an art seeks to deal with the mindset of society around creating a new society, which is fundamentally distinct from what was there prior to transformation efforts. Building it from the ground up and focusing on values and principles. This would entail accepting that Apartheid succeeded in developing unethical leaders in both government and business who intentionally abused the majority to build their wealth. Business fulfilled the economic mandate of apartheid. Therefore, a new value system is needed that will create the kind of leaders who will champion this transformation. Every sector of society will need to be clear on their role in this regard, as to how a new value system can be created and maintained. Business would need to denounce its racism and demonstrate that it is on a new path, and not what we are seeing today by crowding out black leadership and black business. It is pleasing to see that through the work of So transformation is not just about change, it is a fundamental shift in all areas of society, in how we think and make decisions, in how we develop law and policies, how we do business, with a deep understanding our past and wanting to create a different country based on good social values and giving equal opportunity to all. Economic theory can also assist us here. We know that the factors of production are the following — land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship. In the country today we are well aware that we have acute challenges with all four factors, with heavy concentration of white people owning the means of production and black people swelling the ranks of labour in most cases. This cannot be the future of our country, where the majority are narrowly focused on being labourers and not owners. In most sectors we still have three to four major players that dominate, and this is part of the legacy of the past. Therefore, broad-based BEE is the engine of transformation, and the economy is the engine of reconciliation. We cannot talk of reconciliation without talking about the economy, and we cannot talk about the economy without talking about broad-based BEE as its engine. Ownership is the engine of broad-based BEE, coupled with controlling and managing the economy. The three keys to transformation are therefore ownership, control and management. These ought to be the key focus of every transformational discussion and discourse. They are also supported by other elements and the whole transformation infrastructure in the country. Business and government have been invited to embrace broad-based BEE and affirmative action as a tool and measure of transformation. Business is central to society, for it produces goods and services that are needed by society. Therefore it must look like the society it operates in, not just in rhetoric but in substance. When people identify with the business they work for, energy and commitment follow effort and drive higher productivity. The government must protect the transformation process by ensuring that the conditions for business to operate are conducive so that goods and services can be produced. Therefore we need to create a critical mass through these three key aspects to unleash the potential of the country. A critical mass in simple terms is the minimum size or amount needed to propel a process or system forward, without any further intervention. When we pay attention to the damage caused by both colonialism and apartheid, which succeeded in their mandate to desecrate black people, a critical mass of black people is needed at every sphere of economic activity to unleash the potential of the country. Without reaching critical mass at all levels will harm all efforts to resuscitate the dilapidating economy. There is also an attempt to separate economic growth and transformation and positioning transformation as a costly exercise that needs to be scrapped, including that only a few black people have benefited. This logic is greatly flawed and disingenuous. We today have the black middle class and upper middle class because of these laws. Second, broad-based BEE ownership transactions have created value for shareholders, communities and employees. While not sufficiently adequate, this can be measured. Affirmative action through employment equity has opened the door to black people moving into management, but at top leadership Africans remain below 20%. We remain the most unequal society in the world, and if broad-based BEE and affirmative action — which drives ownership, control and management in transformation — is removed, what will drive ownership, control and management control in the country? As Ndlovu said, our aspirations of economic freedom must match our economic dispensation, we have a right to be ambitious, to be this clear that the economic order in our country must be aligned to our collective aspirations to be economically free, free to move, free to think, free to be, free to create a new country. Monde Ndlovu is the managing director of the Black Management Forum.
Daily Maverick
8 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA almost has a Budget — finance committee adopts fiscal framework, despite MK and EFF rejections
After multiple false starts, a key aspect of the 2025 Budget was adopted in Parliament on Wednesday, with the support of the ANC and DA. When the second iteration of the 2025 Budget came before Parliament's finance committee in April, the divisions in the Government of National Unity (GNU) were on full display. The Democratic Alliance (DA) refused to support the adoption of the fiscal framework and it only moved through the committees and then the National Assembly thanks to the support of non-GNU parties such as ActionSA. On Wednesday, 4 June, the GNU's largest members, the African National Congress (ANC) and DA, finally found each other and the fiscal framework was passed by a vote of seven to three. The passing of the fiscal framework is a key step in the budgeting process. This framework establishes economic policy and revenue projections and sets the overall limits to government spending. This report must be adopted within 16 days after Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana tables the Budget. While the DA opposed the fiscal framework in Budget 2.0, Wednesday's situation was different, with both the ANC and DA supporting the measure against the opposition of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party. Wednesday's meeting was briefly halted to find a bigger venue in Parliament to accommodate all the MPs, journalists and officials, as well as ensure it was recorded, in line with MPs' requests. There were several comments and queries by MK party MPs, including axed finance minister Des van Rooyen and former Eskom boss Brian Molefe. At one point, Molefe said the fiscal framework should include the expanded unemployment rate (43.1%) rather than the narrow definition (32.9%), but his suggestion was shot down. The MK and EFF also criticised the increase in the fuel levy, with Molefe describing it as 'regressive' and 'not pro-growth'. On Tuesday, the Western Cape Division of the High Court dismissed the EFF's urgent bid to block the fuel levy increase. Issues were raised on whether the Budget was that of an austerity budget, denied by the ANC – an answer the MK party and EFF continued to reject. It was questioned several times during the meeting whether MPs were making points simply to grandstand 'because there were cameras'. This seemed evident when EFF MP Omphile Maotwe raised objections over a section of the report that dealt with 'not providing bailouts' to state-owned entities (SOEs), rather than 'capitalising SOEs'. Maotwe said she was at Transnet when she claimed it had been successful under the management of fellow finance committee member Brian Molefe – the former Transnet CEO turned State Capture accused, and now a member of the MK Party on its parliamentary benches. Next week, the National Assembly will vote on whether to adopt the fiscal framework in a sitting at the Cape Town International Convention Centre. When the fiscal framework is passed, other steps in the budgeting process include the passing of the Division of Revenue Bill and the Appropriation Bill. During the tabling of the fiscal framework in the National Assembly in April, the ANC appeared jubilant when it was passed without the DA's support, while the DA had harsh words for the ANC and other parties who supported that version of the Budget. It's unlikely there will be such acrimony next week. DM
Daily Maverick
8 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The NPA illustrates the rot within South African institutions
The decision by the Free State High Court to withdraw charges against Moroadi Cholota, the former assistant to former ANC secretary-general Ace Magashule, reveals the level of crisis within the NPA. But the NPA is just one example of a government institution in which officials either resist change or simply refuse to work, often aided by politicians. There will, no doubt, be several legal examinations of Tuesday's decision, in which Judge Phillip Loubser said his court had no authority to try former Free State premier Ace Magashule's former assistant, Moroadi Cholota, because the NPA had instituted her extradition from the US, while legally it should have been the Justice Ministry. While the legal correctness of this decision might be examined by higher courts, the public perception is likely to be dominated by a question of why legal technicalities matter so much. Of course, to lawyers, judges and the rule of law, they absolutely matter. But to many people, they are simply a way for people to avoid justice. The best example of this is former president Jacob Zuma, who has been able to avoid a fair trial since 2003. No accountability for the powerful The message this sends is that there is no accountability for those in power. But it also suggests that despite the reams of evidence heard at the Zondo commission, and the findings that it made, no convictions will come from it. For the moment, it seems that there is no big desire by voters to change our legal system, to remove some of the rights of those accused of wrongdoing. Considering our past, this is entirely legitimate. But if those in power continue to be able to avoid accountability, it is likely that first, trust in the justice system will continue to decline, and second, parties that propose limiting the rights of the accused will grow stronger. One of the important lessons from the NPA is that despite having independent leadership that appears determined to deliver justice, the institution itself is still very weak. The history of how the NPA was captured was being written almost in real time. People like Lawrence Mrwebi or Nomgcobo Jiba were in leadership positions there for many months. Both were found by the courts to be 'not fit and proper' for their positions. During the time they were there, it is likely that they packed the NPA with people who either supported their views or would never challenge their views. Ramaphosa But politicians have played an important role in keeping the NPA weak, too. Perhaps the person who has played the biggest role in weakening the NPA is President Cyril Ramaphosa. One of the important figures in the NPA during the State Capture period was the head of prosecutions in Johannesburg, Andrew Chauke. He was involved in delaying cases against former Gauteng Health MEC Brian Hlongwe and helped to bring a now debunked case against former KwaZulu-Natal Hawks Head Johann Booysen (Chauke has delivered a robust response to the claims against him, including in a TV interview with this writer). In 2023, National Director of Public Prosecutions Shamila Batohi formally asked Ramaphosa to suspend him from his position (under the law, only the President can suspend someone in this job). Two years later, Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi said that the matter was at an 'advanced stage'. This is nonsense. If Ramaphosa really believed in the rule of law, and if he wanted a properly independent NPA, he would have suspended Chauke the moment he could. Worse for the NPA has been the Justice Ministry's refusal to share the Zondo commission database with it. Again, this must be deliberate. Even if there is some legal reason to make this difficult for the NPA, this would be for the courts hearing State Capture prosecutions to determine, not the Justice Ministry. However, it must be remembered that the situation at the NPA is repeated in many other institutions. Culture of resistance On Monday, the chair of the National Lotteries Commission, Barney Pityana, told 702's Bongani Bingwa about the difficulties he is facing in fixing the organisation, after the incredible corruption that happened there. Pityana appeared to be particularly critical of former Department of Trade, Industry and Competition minister Ebrahim Patel. One of his problems is that only the minister can appoint distributing agents to distribute funds, and the commission only had two or three when it should have had 11. As Pityana put it, 'For a long time, minister Patel was stuck with this appointment for reasons best known to him.' Pityana also said that within the organisation, 'There's internal resistance to some of the changes being made in the organisation, therefore compliance, we admit, has been a very difficult issue.' Pityana is almost pointing to a culture of people in important organisations that resist change. In some cases, it may simply be that they do not believe there is any reason for change. Or that workers in many government institutions feel that there is no reason for them to work, because it seems virtually impossible for them to be fired. The Sunday Times published an important report last weekend about the situation in Gauteng metros. It would appear that many permanently employed workers tell bosses that they can't be fired, and thus can't be forced to work. This culture has been evident in councils for many years. It could explain why services do not improve, whether it is a DA-led coalition taking over from an ANC-led coalition or the other way round. This toxic mix of a refusal by workers to change, and political interference (or so often just a refusal to act), may help to explain why so many institutions are not improving. Unfortunately, coalition politics is unlikely to make major changes. In institutions where this culture exists, workers may feel they can just outlast a new boss, knowing that they will still be there after she becomes frustrated and leaves. Ministers and others with political authority are likely to continue interfering or just doing nothing. This means that we can continue to expect the NPA, and so many institutions like it, to simply keep stumbling. DM
