Billboard launches Billboard Africa, a game-changer for the continent's music industry
More than only recognition, the initiative is about building infrastructure.
Brandon Martin, CEO of Global Venture Partners, emphasised the long-term vision: 'We're not only raising visibility for artists but laying the groundwork for an infrastructure that supports sustainable growth. Billboard Africa is about amplifying potential and encouraging investment in the continent's creative economy.'
At the helm of the ambitious rollout is Nkosiyati Khumalo, editor-in-chief of Billboard Africa, who brings a deep understanding of African culture and storytelling.
'Bringing Billboard's thought leadership home to Africa, and sharing more African stories with the world, is an immense honor,' said Nkosiyati. 'This is about supporting the diverse artists and professionals who drive African music forward.'
From curated events to awards shows, artist spotlights to industry insights, Billboard Africa is setting the stage for a cultural and economic renaissance. As the world tunes in, the continent's musicians are ready to turn up the volume.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
an hour ago
- Mail & Guardian
Closing the gender wealth gap needs systemic change — but women must also act
South African women retire with only 71% of the wealth that men do. Photo: File South African women still face major challenges when it comes to building wealth. In fact, the wealth gap between men and women in our country is wider than the global average. According to the WTW Global Gender Wealth Equity report, South African women retire with only 71% of the wealth that men do. This is lower than the global average of 74%. The difference becomes even greater in senior positions, where women who are managers and executives retire with just 62% of the wealth their male colleagues accumulate. There are many reasons for this. One of the biggest is unequal pay. Women's Report Africa points out that, in 2021, South African women earned only 78 cents for every rand earned by men. Shockingly, this was a decline from 89 cents in 2008. Furthermore, fewer women than men in South Africa are actually employed. Only 54.3% of working-age women are active in the economy compared to 64.9% of men. And the unemployment rate for women remains unacceptably high at 35.7%, according to date from Women are also more likely to take breaks from work to care for children or other family members. This often means lower earnings and less money saved over time. As a result of all these factors, many women struggle to save enough for retirement, which is a significant problem when you consider that, on average, women tend to live about six years longer than men. This means women actually need more money to cover those extra years. Even for high-earning women, the path to wealth creation is hindered by investment hesitancy. A 2023 study by Maya on Money and Satrix found that only 15% of women felt very confident about investing, compared to 42% of men. About a third of the women surveyed said they avoid investing because they don't know enough about it and nearly one in five said it makes them feel anxious or uncertain. Many women say they hold back from investing because they feel pressured to be financially cautious for the sake of their families. To change this, women — and those on the path to building wealth — need to start seeing investing as the powerful tool it can be to achieve financial independence. This journey starts with the understanding that they have to do more than just save in a bank account or stokvel. Investing in things like shares or exchange-traded funds can help money grow faster over time. Targeted education is one of the keys to investment success and programmes like the JSE's #SheInvests are useful ways for women to build skills and confidence in investing. Using tax-friendly products such as retirement annuities, pension funds and tax-free savings accounts can also make a big difference. These products offer tax breaks and help protect savings. It's especially important for women to take advantage of these during peak earning years to help make up for times when they might earn or save less. Women should also rethink how they see risk. Being cautious is smart but avoiding all risk can mean missing out on opportunities. Taking calculated risks, such as maintaining equity exposure within a diversified portfolio, is essential for achieving growth that keeps pace with inflation. Finally, good financial planning plays a critical role. A trusted adviser can help build a holistic strategy that balances short- and long-term goals, optimises tax efficiency and effectively incorporates retirement planning. Women may also have access to more sophisticated vehicles like managed portfolios or offshore investments, which require professional insight to manage effectively. Having a good financial adviser is especially helpful during life changes like a career break or divorce. Having support, especially at these times, can boost confidence and keep women on track on their wealth building journeys. But closing the gap certainly isn't the responsibility of women alone. It also requires that we improve the systems that hold women back. Businesses and the government have a key role to play in this. Employers need to look at how they pay and support women, offering flexible work, fair promotions and support for mothers returning to work. Ultimately, financial independence and personal wealth growth for women are more than just personal milestones — they are powerful drivers of broader social progress. When women thrive financially, households, communities and entire economies benefit. So, closing the gender wealth gap isn't just the right thing to do; it's essential for building a stronger, more resilient South Africa for all. Hein Klee is an executive at Nedbank Financial Planning.
The Herald
5 hours ago
- The Herald
Standard Bank CEO to retire by end-2027, strong half-year result boosts shares
The Standard Bank Group said CEO Sim Tshabalala would retire by the end of 2027 as it reported higher half-year earnings that sent shares to an all-time high on Thursday. Tshabalala, one of corporate South Africa's best-known figures, will not be subject to a recent bank decision to raise the retirement age for its executives to 63 years from 60 after a review. Tshabalala and CFO Arno Daehnke are expected to retire towards the end of 2027, Standard Bank, Africa's largest by assets, said. The bank reported headline earnings of R23.8bn for the first half of 2025, up 8% from R22bn a year before, while its return-on-equity improved to 19.1% from 18.5%. Shares jumped more than 5% in early trade to hit an all-time high before paring back gains to about 3% by 12.30 GMT. The bank's financial results were 'solid' and the time frame for Tshabalala's departure gave 'a lot of time for transition', said Shaun Murison, senior analyst at wealth manager and securities broker Rand Swiss. Murison said South African banks were offering a high yield and relative value in the local market. The JSE's All-share Index has repeatedly hit record highs this year, bolstered by factors such as rising global gold prices and a view held by some investors that the South African economy is in better shape than official data suggested. Tshabalala has served as CEO of Africa's biggest bank by assets since 2013, while Daehnke has been CFO since 2016. Reuters
Mail & Guardian
a day ago
- Mail & Guardian
High court victory for coastal communities against TotalEnergies, Shell over offshore drilling
The high court in the Western Cape has set aside the government's approval of the environmental authorisation for TotalEnergies EP South Africa to drill for oil and gas in offshore areas known as Block 5/6/7 along the country's south-west coast. The high court in the Western Cape has set aside the government's approval of the environmental authorisation for TotalEnergies EP South Africa The court has sent the matter back to the department of minerals and petroleum to make a fresh decision, following further studies, the addition of further information and public participation. While the authorisation was initially granted to TotalEnergies, the company intends to transfer the environmental authorisation to Shell to conduct the drilling. Wednesday's In addition to setting aside the environmental authorisation, the court ordered that a fresh decision be made. Before any approval can be reconsidered, Total — or Shell — must submit new or amended assessments. These must fully examine the socio-economic impacts of a well blowout on coastal communities; the project's full life-cycle climate impacts; all factors required under the The bulk of the applicants review grounds were premised on the final environmental impact assessment report failing to meet the standards imposed by the Specifically, they contended that the decisions to grant the environmental authorisation were unlawful and irrational in six respects. Among these were that the final environmental impact assessment report failed to properly assess — and the state respondents failed to consider — the socio-economic effects of the proposed project, 'which a well blowout and consequent oil spill will have on the fishing industry and small-scale fishers'. The applicants argued that the state respondents failed to consider the factors prescribed by the Integrated Coastal Management Act and failed to properly assess and consider the need and desirability of the proposed project in relation to the climate change impacts, 'which will be caused by burning any gas discovered by the proposed project'. The state respondents failed to assess and consider the transboundary effects of the proposed project both on Namibia and on international waters. Neither the final environmental impact assessment report, nor the environmental management programme report, included Total's oil spill or blowout contingency plans, they argued. The respondents were the ministers of environment and energy, the director-general of the department of mineral resources and energy, TotalEnergies EP South Africa Block 567 and Shell Exploration & Production South Africa. In its judgment, the court found that the environmental impact assessment failed to fully examine the consequences of a major oil spill on local and neighbouring coastal communities, ignored coastal protection laws and omitted critical climate and fairness considerations, said Shahil Singh, the legal adviser to the Green Connection. 'A critical omission, the oil spill and blowout contingency plans were withheld from the public until after approval, denying communities the chance to comment on emergency preparedness,' Singh said. 'Total and Shell will now need to undertake additional studies, make these plans publicly available and properly assess both coastal and cross-border risks before any decision is taken.' The court found that the lack of oil spill and blowout contingency plans meant that there had not been a full assessment and description of the manner in which Total intended to respond to pollution or environmental degradation, as required by the National Environment Management Act. The court found it even more problematic that there was no public participation in relation to the response plans. Singh termed the court victory a significant win for transparency, precaution and for the rights of coastal communities and small-scale fishers who refuse to be sidelined in decisions that affect their livelihoods and the future of our oceans. While the project's final environmental impact assessment report admitted that an oil spill or blowout could cause serious damage to the coastal environment, it did not assess the full economic and social impacts on the small-scale fishers and coastal communities who depend on these waters for food and income. To the extent that there were or are limitations in conducting such assessments, Total was compelled to adopt a cautious approach and take protective and preventive measures before the anticipated harm of an oil spill or blowout materialised. 'Once the final environmental impact assessment report identified the potential blow out and oil spill as potentially significant impact or risk, it was obliged to assess the consequences and the probability of the impact or risk, including those with a low degree of probability of a blowout or oil spill,' the judgment read. That is in light of the risk-averse and cautious approach espoused by the National Environment Management Act and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, in terms of which the limitation on present knowledge about the consequences of an environmental decision must be taken into account. 'The precautionary approach entails that where there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage to a resource, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. 'It means that, where there exists evidence of possible environmental harm, such as a possible blow-out or oil spill as the final environmental impact assessment report accepts, a cautious approach should be adopted, and if necessary decision-makers may compel the party to take protective and preventive measures before the anticipated harm materialises.' Scientific spill modelling for the project showed that oil from a disaster could reach the waters and shores of Namibia. International law, and South Africa's own laws, require that the impacts on neighbouring countries should be considered, and that there was an obligation for the environmental impact assessment to consider the harms caused by transboundary impacts, and for this to be considered by the decision-makers. The court found they did not. According to the judgment, at the very least, it has been established that there is a risk of oil spill and a blowout occurring, and a risk of the oil reaching Namibian waters and the Namibian shoreline. The approach adopted by the respondents, to the effect that the National Environment Management Act and the environmental impact assessment regulations do not require environmental impact assessment to assess and predict transboundary harm is 'inconsistent with the customary international law and international law obligations. 'It is also contrary to the [ National Environment Management Act] principles and Integrated Coastal Management Act, which recognise the need to discharge global and international responsibilities,' the court found. The court confirmed that the assessment of climate change impacts should form part of this assessment. 'While it is correct that the specific activity for which the environmental authorisation in this case is granted is exploration and not production, and that the former process will not always result in the latter process, the two processes are intertwined,' the judgment noted. There would be no point in conducting an exploration activity unless an entity hoped to proceed to the next phase of production. 'And it is not speculation to conclude that by the time such an entity applies for authorisation to conduct the next phase, it is armed with information that places it at an advantage to proceed to the next phase.' Climate change is relevant to both exploration and production activities. 'It makes no sense to rely on the positive consequences of the production stage for purposes of considering an application at the exploration stage, only to resist considering the negative consequences of the production stage when it comes to consideration of climate change.' The judgment is 'a victory in the growing opposition to oil and gas exploration in our country', said Melissa Groenink-Groves, the defending rights programme manager at Natural Justice. 'Recently, a number of oil and gas projects have been given environmental authorisation but this judgment again confirms that companies must follow due process, undertake comprehensive assessments and provide communities with an opportunity to have their voices heard, in respect of all relevant information. 'It confirms that our fight for our environmental rights is strong and that we must continue for the future for our children,' she said. Lesai Seema, director at Cullinan & Associates, which represented the applicants, said the judgment makes it clear that the granting of environmental authorisation for offshore oil and gas exploitation will be unlawful if the decision-maker does not carefully consider a range of factors necessary to 'safeguard the long-term collective interests of people and other living organisms who depend on the coastal and marine environment'.
