South Africa's PIC Gives Funds to Chicken Producer to Save Birds
The Public Investment Corp. will allocate 74 million rand ($4.1 million) to provide immediate working capital for Daybreak's liquidity needs, according to an emailed statement. The amount was initially earmarked for capital expenditure and is part of a 250 million rand facility that was set aside for the company earlier.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Analysis: Did Trump really end six wars?
President Donald Trump is not just trying to end the vicious war in Ukraine. He's claiming he's already ended almost one war for each month of his second term — spanning the Middle East; Africa; and Central, South and Southeast Asia. 'I've done six wars — I've ended six wars,' Trump said in his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders on Monday. 'Look, India-Pakistan, we're talking about big places, you just take a look at some of these wars. You go to Africa and take a look at them.' The White House proclaimed in a statement this month that 'President Trump is the President of Peace,' listing claimed diplomatic agreements between Armenia and Azerbaijan; Cambodia and Thailand; Israel and Iran; Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Egypt and Ethiopia; and Serbia and Kosovo, as well as the Abraham Accords, a normalization pact signed in Trump's first term between Israel and some Arab states. Some of this is classic Trumpian hyperbole. And the president's team is scanning the globe looking for fires to extinguish to claim quick wins for his transparent campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize. Trump hasn't suddenly reinvented American foreign policy. Every administration works to halt wars and to advance US interests. Most don't take constant victory laps — indeed, such triumphalism can often destroy quiet diplomacy. Yet Trump has saved lives. In some cases, he's used presidential power in novel ways to stop sudden conflicts from escalating into full-scale wars. But his success raises new questions that also apply to Ukraine. Is Trump in it for the long haul or just for deals he can hype, much as he licensed products as a businessman and stamped his name on them? And will Trump's evisceration of the US Agency for International Development and downsizing of the State Department deprive him of the tools the US needs to turn breakthroughs into lasting peace agreements that solve underlying causes of wars? Trump kept insisting Monday — as he tried finesse his adoption of Russia's opposition to an immediate Ukraine ceasefire — that he was more interested in final deals. Ironically however, some of his 'six wars' deals are closer to ceasefires than peace agreements that permanently end generational disputes. And in the case of Iran and Israel, Trump's claims to have made peace after their 12-day conflict are complicated by US involvement in strikes against Tehran's nuclear program. While an informal truce is in place, there's no sign a slow-boiling state of war involving all three nations since Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979 will end. Trump is also conveniently forgetting his failed attempt to end the war between Israel and Hamas. And global outrage over reports of widespread starvation in Gaza and the president's staunch support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could thwart his hopes for a Nobel Prize — whatever happens with Ukraine. His record is also blotted by the failure of his first-term peace efforts with North Korea. Leader Kim Jong Un now has more nuclear weapons than before Trump offered him fruitless, photo-op summits. Some of Trump's biggest successes have been behind the scenes. 'I'm struck by the fact that the ones that were helpful, especially India-Pakistan, were conducted in a professional way, quietly, diplomatically … laying the ground and finding common ground between the parties,' said Celeste Wallander, a former assistant secretary of defense who is now with the Center for a New American Security. The most recent triumph was a joint peace declaration signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan on their long-running conflict in the Caucasus. The agreement, inked at a lavish White House ceremony, commits the two former Soviet republics to recognizing each other's borders and to renouncing violence against the other. But complex negotiations loom on knotty constitutional and territorial issues before a full peace agreement. This deal is notable for two things — the way foreign states flatter Trump to get what they want, and an imperialistic streak in much of his peacemaking. The rivals, for instance, agreed to open a transportation corridor to which the US will have full development rights and to call it the 'Trump Route for Peace and Prosperity.' Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev declared, 'President Trump, in six months, did a miracle.' This is smart deal for the US as it counters the influence of rival powers Russia and Iran in the region. But it will need Trump's constant attention. 'Wishes and verbal declarations are not enough,' two former US ambassadors to Azerbaijan, Robert Cekuta and Richard Morningstar, wrote in a recent Atlantic Council commentary. They called on Trump to deploy officials from the State Department, the Commerce Department and other agencies to lock in the agreement. Another of Trump's recent triumphs came in Southeast Asia, where he threatened to shelve trade deals with both Thailand and Cambodia to halt a border war last month that killed at least 38 people. The leverage pressed home in calls to leaders of each country was effective, and it might not have occurred to another president. But Trump didn't work alone. The agreement was brokered by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet knew the drill, however. He nominated Trump for the Nobel Prize for 'extraordinary statesmanship.' Pakistan took a similar step, as part of a successful diplomatic offensive to win over Trump and to disadvantage its nuclear-armed rival India after the president intervened in a border clash in May. But the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, an erstwhile Trump buddy, dismissed Washington's claims of a pivotal role. And other states, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Britain, were also involved. Trump's claims to have ended a war are selective. The agreement is fragile and doesn't solve the territorial dispute that sparked the fighting — over the Himalayan region of Kashmir, which has caused three full-scale wars. Trump has proclaimed a 'glorious triumph for the cause of peace' in a deal brokered between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This contains important first steps on recognizing borders, renouncing war and disarming militia groups. However, no one expects the conflict to end soon, since the main Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group has rejected the agreement. Some analysts see the initiative, also brokered by Qatar, as a US attempt to secure mineral rights as part of an African 'great game' against China. Trump's claim to have brokered peace between Egypt and Ethiopia is a stretch. He's referring to a dispute over a Nile dam in the latter nation that Egypt fears will reduce the flow in its share of the key strategic waterway. He has called for a deal over the dam, but no binding agreement has been reached. The White House claims on Serbia and Kosovo originate in Trump's first term, when the rivals agreed to economic normalization steps. But they still don't have diplomatic relations, 17 years after Kosovo declared independence from Serbia. And recent normalization efforts have involved the EU more than the Trump team. In many ways, Trump's claims to have ended six wars are typical of a presidency that claims massive wins that often add up to less than what they seem. But there are real achievements in his record, and the possibility of genuine long-term breakthroughs if Trump can maintain application and patience. That's a good lesson for his nascent Ukraine peace drive.
News24
an hour ago
- News24
A setback for democracy - MVC slams Ramaphosa doubling amount of money parties may receive
Lucas Ledwaba/AFP President Cyril Ramaphosa has signed a proclamation doubling the political donation threshold to R200 000 and the cap to R30 million annually. This means political parties can take more money with less transparency. Lobby group My Vote Counts criticises the move, arguing it increases secrecy in political funding and allows wealthy donors more influence. A setback for democracy - this is how lobby group My Vote Counts (MVC) described the doubling of the limit and threshold for political donations, which means political parties can accept more money from donors, with less transparency. President Cyril Ramaphosa's proclamation to double the threshold and limit for the donations political parties and independent candidates may receive was gazetted on Monday. This means that political parties must now declare donations received higher than R200 000 - the threshold - and may not receive donations totalling more than R30 million per year from a single donor - the limit or cap. Ramaphosa was empowered to do this after the National Assembly in May adopted the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs' report, which empowers the president to set regulations that would allow political parties to get more money with less transparency. It was the ANC's idea to simply double the previous threshold of R100 000 and limit of R15 million. 'This is indeed a setback for our democracy. We cannot allow those in power to jeopardise our democracy and water down constitutionally protected rights for their narrow, self-serving interests,' said Joel Bregman, MVC project lead on money in politics. READ | Ramaphosa signs proclamation allowing bigger political party donations with less transparency He said MVC would continue to advocate and litigate when necessary to ensure the Political Finance Act (PFA) is constitutional and upholds the principles of transparency and accountability. Bregman said, 'The immediate impact of a higher disclosure threshold and donation limit is that we will have more secrecy in political funding.' Noting that the details of all donations under R200 000 would not be known to the public, Bregman said it is 'an enormous sum for most South Africans, and donations of such amounts should be made public knowledge to facilitate scrutiny of parties' relationships with donors and ensure that donors are not receiving anything in return'. 'Further, when a right is to be limited - in this case, the two rights mentioned above - there needs to be adequate justification for doing so. The State has never provided a legitimate reason why all donations should not be disclosed to the public.' Bregman said that since disclosures became mandatory in 2021, the data shows that a handful of wealthy individuals dominate the private political funding landscape. He said: Doubling the amount a donor can donate to a party in a year to R30 million will give donors an even greater ability to have an outsized influence on our political system. It will also make parties more susceptible to undue influence. 'And because the law does not regulate donations from related parties through the different legal entities they control, wealthy donors can now have an even more significant impact.' Bregman is referring to the currently perfectly legal situation where mega-donors - like entities linked to Capitec founder Michiel le Roux and mining magnate Patrice Motsepe - make donations to the same party, going over the limit. For instance, Le Roux donated R30 million to the DA in each of the previous three years, while the previous limit was R15 million per year. He donated R15 million through his private company, Fynbos Ekwiteit, and R15 million through the investment holding company, Fynbos Kapitaal. READ | R15m donation 'cannot reasonably' have improper influence, govt argues in party funding case Similarly, Motsepe's companies, Botho Botho Commercial Enterprise, with R10 million, and African Rainbow Minerals and Harmony Gold Mining, with R6.9 million each, donated a combined R23.8 million to the ANC in the 2023/24 financial year. Bregman said that while MVC recognises the importance of the PFA, it is clear that the law has many defects that limit its ability to achieve its objectives. 'Considering this, in 2023, we initiated legal proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of the PFA. 'After lengthy delays, MVC's case was heard before a full bench of the Western Cape High Court in February 2025. A key component of our challenge is that the original limits were not formulated with reference to empirical evidence and were therefore irrational and unlawful. We asked the court to find the limits unconstitutional, and refer them back to Parliament for remedying. 'We also asked the court to find that the President's power to make the final determination on the limits (a power that arose through an amendment to the law after our initial papers were filed) was also unconstitutional because it placed too much power in a conflicted officeholder who is both head of the executive and (in most cases) the head of a political party.' The High Court's judgment in this matter is still awaited. 'Should our case succeed, the amendments to the act will be set aside with full retrospective effect, including the determination of these new limits,' said Bregman. 'While we await judgment, we are considering other legal options to address the president's action. We will also be writing to the president to request that he release the reasons and full record of factors that were considered as he applied his mind to this matter.'
News24
2 hours ago
- News24
After Trump tariff hit, Lesotho turns to SA and other markets
Lesotho is courting buyers in Asia and elsewhere for its textiles after producers were battered by the uncertainty surrounding US President Donald Trump's new tariff regime, and has already secured new business from neighbouring South Africa. 'We are pursuing alternative markets from all over,' Trade Minister Mokhethi Shelile said in an interview. 'That's in Southeast Asia, Asia, Africa and Europe.' The Southern African Customs Union, a free-trade bloc that comprises Lesotho, Botswana, Eswatini, Namibia and South Africa, is a priority market, and its members are 'positively responding to us,' he said. The US threatened to impose a 50% tariff on imports from the mountain kingdom in April — the highest in the world at the time — when Trump unveiled sweeping reciprocal levies on trading partners. Orders from the US, Lesotho's largest export market for textiles, dried up almost overnight, causing factories to halt operations and severe job losses. After a more than three-month pause, the levy was lowered to 15%. While positive, the reduction 'is not good enough for our textile industry,' as buyers may switch to nations with even lower reciprocal tariffs, Shelile said. Goods from competitors Eswatini and Kenya are being subjected to 10% duties. The textile sector — Lesotho's biggest private employer — employs 12 000 people and supports 40 000 indirect jobs. US buyers include retailers such as Walmart, JC Penney and Levi Strauss & Co. The tiny African nation, surrounded by South Africa, is angling for a tariff of 10% or less and sees room for further talks with the Office of the US Trade Representative as it looks to diversify sales beyond its biggest garment buyer. 'Already we're looking to pivot away from the US and some factories are exporting to South Africa,' Shelile said. The main issue which remains is how fast orders for the textile industry can pick up to avert disaster, he added. A two-year national state of disaster that Lesotho's government declared last month amid soaring unemployment will remain in place.
