Latest news with #PAIA
Daily Maverick
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Presidency condemns DA's ‘latest effort to embarrass' special envoy Mcebisi Jonas
Ramaphosa's spokesperson said, 'The DA is trying cheaply but dangerously to exploit a critical engagement between South Africa and the United States to protest President Ramaphosa's removal of Mr Andrew Whitfield.' The Presidency has hit back at the Democratic Alliance (DA) for what it calls 'disinformation' and 'harassment' targeting President Ramaphosa's special envoy to the US, Mcebisi Jonas. 'The Democratic Alliance's latest effort to embarrass President Ramaphosa's Special Envoy to North America, Mr Jonas Mcebisi, involves claims — in the DA's framing — that the United States has rejected Mr Jonas's 'credentials' and that Mr Jonas is therefore unable to perform his role as special envoy. 'The DA seeks to add sensationalism to its claim by suggesting President Ramaphosa and Mr Jonas face a crisis in view of the United States' pending implementation of trade tariffs announced several days ago by President Donald Trump. 'The facts around this matter include the reality that special envoys do not present diplomatic credentials to host countries in the way designated heads of mission or other diplomats are,' said Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya in a statement on Tuesday, 15 July. Magwenya's statement comes after the DA claimed Ramaphosa had for months been concealing the fact that his special envoy to the United States 'is not welcome in Washington'. Emma Powell, the DA spokesperson on international relations and cooperation, claimed in a statement on Tuesday that the US had denied Jonas a diplomatic visa in May. She said the Presidency 'continued to mislead the public by insisting that Jonas remained the president's special envoy' to the US. Powell said these facts were coming to light with just two weeks to go before devastating 30% trade tariffs on SA exports to the US were to take effect, a result which Jonas was supposed to help prevent. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) has rejected her claim and accused her of working against SA's interests. 'The US government has formally rejected Jonas' credentials and has informed the Presidency that he would not be recognised as South Africa's official interlocutor. The Ramaphosa administration was explicitly advised on multiple occasions that Jonas was not acceptable to Washington and was urged to appoint an alternative envoy,' said Powell. 'This week, when confronted with the DA's announcement that it would submit a Promotion of Access to Information (PAIA) request detailing Jonas' official engagements over the past 90 days, instead of coming clean with the truth … Magwenya lashed out on social media, accusing the DA of 'encroaching' on the President's powers,' she added. Powell called on the Presidency to explain why it continued to back Jonas as SA's envoy when his 'credentials have been officially rejected by the host government'. Powell said that following the expulsion of Ebrahim Rasool as SA's ambassador to the US, Ramaphosa was more concerned about 'saving face than safeguarding livelihoods'. She said the DA would ask Parliament to request an urgent briefing from the Presidency on Jonas' appointment. Daily Maverick approached Jonas and his spokesperson, Ranjeni Munusamy, for comment, but Munusamy referred us to the Presidency. 'Right-wing nexus' In a statement on Monday, Powell said that more than 90 days after his appointment as Ramaphosa's special envoy to the US, Jonas was 'nowhere to be seen'. She noted that Jonas' appointment came on the back of the expulsion of Rasool, 'and was billed as a critical intervention to stave off the impending collapse of vital export industries under punitive liberation day tariffs. 'With just over two weeks to go before the 30% tariffs come into effect on 1 August, industries that support hundreds of thousands of jobs — from citrus to automotives — remain on a knife's edge,' said Powell. Magwenya said that Jonas' role did not 'supersede the leading role' of the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) and Dirco in SA's 'difficult but constructive' trade negotiations with the US. 'Mr Jonas has, however, played an important role in working with the DTIC to develop the trade proposals in which South Africa is currently engaging the United States in good faith and with the expectation of mutually beneficial terms. 'Similarly, he has been assisting Dirco in government's efforts to reset diplomatic relations and all areas of cooperation between South Africa and the United States,' said Magwenya. He said that while these processes were underway, Ramaphosa had not required Jonas to visit the US on urgent business. 'The Presidency is therefore concerned about the Democratic Alliance's persistent campaign against South Africa's national interest and its posture of trying to embarrass and belittle our country, and in this specific circumstance, Mr Jonas. This campaign has its origins in a Democratic Alliance visit to the United States earlier this year, to advance an ideological agenda rather than our national interest,' he said. 'The DA has positioned itself as part of a right-wing nexus that seeks to use a foreign state to effect changes to democratically developed national policies in our own country. 'The DA is trying cheaply but dangerously to exploit a critical engagement between South Africa and the United States to protest President Ramaphosa's removal of Mr Andrew Whitfield as deputy minister of trade, industry and competition.' Last week, Trump sent Ramaphosa a letter confirming that the US would impose a 30% tariff on all imports of South African goods from 1 August — 'separate from all sectoral tariffs'. He originally announced the 'reciprocal' tariffs on SA and almost all other countries in April and said the new tariffs would kick in after 90 days, on 9 July. This was supposed to give countries time to lower their tariffs on US imports. But although the DTIC said it had presented a draft Framework Deal to the US on 20 May, and requested an extension of the 90-day pause for further negotiation, Trump confirmed the 30% tariffs last week. He again said that if SA eliminated its trade barriers, the US would 'consider' adjusting the 30% tariffs. DM
The South African
15-07-2025
- Business
- The South African
DA says US rejected Jonas as envoy, Presidency misled public
The Democratic Alliance says the United States denied Mcebisi Jonas a diplomatic visa in May and rejected his credentials as South Africa's special envoy. According to a statement by DA MP Emma Louise Powell, President Cyril Ramaphosa allegedly knew for months that Jonas was not welcome in Washington, D.C. The president allegedly continued to claim Jonas was still acting as his envoy. The US government reportedly told the Presidency several times to appoint someone else. The DA says Ramaphosa ignored the warnings and misled the public. In a June interview, Ramaphosa allegedly said that Mcebisi Jonas is still the North American envoy and has done good work. The DA says the President made that statement knowing Jonas had already been barred from official diplomatic work. The DA now plans to submit a PAIA request for Jonas's official activities over the past 90 days. In response, Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya allegedly accused the party of overstepping. The DA says Ramaphosa is more focused on saving face than protecting South African jobs. The party warns the country could lose billions in exports once 30% US tariffs take effect in two weeks. The party will write to the Speaker of Parliament to demand answers. It is calling for a new envoy who is recognised by the US and able to fix the damage. 'It has become undeniable that the President is now more concerned with saving face than with safeguarding the livelihoods of South African businesses and workers who will ultimately pay the price for his inaction,' the statement said. 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.
IOL News
15-07-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
DA claims President Ramaphosa misled the public on Mcebisi Jonas's US visa rejection
Mcebisi Jonas, MTN chairman, was appointed by President Cyril Ramaphosa as the country's Special Envoy to the US. Image: Supplied The Democratic Alliance (DA) has alleged that President Cyril Ramaphosa's special envoy to the United States, Mcebisi Jonas, was rejected by Washington in May 2025. Jonas was appointed by Ramaphosa to the role of special envoy after the expulsion of former ambassador Ebrahim Rasool from Washington earlier this year, following Rasool's incendiary comments labelling US President Donald Trump a leader of a global white supremacist movement. The DA claims that Jonas's application for a diplomatic visa was denied, with the US formally communicating to the Presidency that Jonas was not recognised as the country's official representative. Despite these revelations, Ramaphosa has remained publicly silent, leading the DA to accuse the administration of misleading the public regarding Jonas's position and suitability. "Despite being fully aware that Jonas had been denied a diplomatic visa by the US and would not be formally received, President Ramaphosa doubled down on national TV, declaring Mcebisi Jonas is still my North American envoy and has done good work. "...When confronted with the DA's announcement that it would submit a Promotion of Access to Information (PAIA) request detailing Jonas' official engagements over the past 90 days, instead of coming clean with the truth, Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya lashed out on social media, accusing the DA of 'encroaching' on the President's powers. "The Presidency owes South Africans a full and honest explanation as to how it can justify having doubled down on the appointment of a rapporteur whose credentials have been officially rejected by the host government,'' said the DA. 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 ✕ Ad loading Jonas was notably absent during the high-profile meeting between Ramaphosa and Trump in May. In response, the presidency released a statement that aimed to clarify his absence, affirming that both Jonas's visa and credentials were indeed valid. However, speculation regarding Jonas's absence arose after reports suggested that the Trump administration raised concerns over past remarks he made, in which he reportedly labelled Trump 'a racist, a homophobe, and a narcissistic right-winger.' The DA added that with no recognised representative currently championing South African interests in the US, the economy stands to lose billions of rands when the tariffs come into effect. "The DA will be writing to the Speaker of Parliament to request an urgent parliamentary briefing from the Presidency on the failed Jonas appointment. The DA will take all necessary steps to demand the immediate appointment of a credible envoy, capable of repairing the immense damage that has now been done," said the party. IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel
IOL News
05-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Trustworthy: do trustees need to comply with the Promotion of Access to Information Act?
This article explores whether trusts are required to comply with the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) in South Africa, examining legal definitions and recent court rulings. Image: File photo. A recent deadline for relevant entities to submit their PAIA Annual Returns by 30 June 2025 has raised the question of whether trusts are included among the entities covered by the PAIA. The PAIA's primary aim is to grant individuals the right to access information held by both public and private bodies, thereby fostering a more transparent and accountable society. Section 32 of our Constitution states that 'Everyone has a right of access to any information held by the state and any information held by another person that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.' The PAIA, Regulations, 'Professor Google' and guidance by the Court cause more confusion than providing clarity, as it is blatantly clear that trusts, which are considered unique entities by our courts, were never specifically catered for in the legislation. In South Africa, both public and private bodies must comply with the PAIA. This means that nearly all entities, from government departments to private companies, are required to follow PAIA regulations and keep a PAIA manual. Public bodies are defined in the PAIA as any government body, institution, or organ performing a public function. This includes national and provincial departments, municipalities, and state-owned enterprises. Clearly, trusts do not fall under this definition. The only remaining category in which a trust might be classified is 'private bodies'. 'Private bodies' are defined as 'a) a natural person who carries or has carried on any trade, business or profession, but only in such capacity; (b) a partnership which carries or has carried on any trade, business or profession; (c) any former or existing juristic person'. Trusts cannot be seen as 'partnerships', so the only remaining options are (a) and (c). Is a trust a 'juristic person'? 'Professor Google' suggests that for the PAIA, a trust is considered a 'juristic person', similar to a company or close corporation, and is therefore subject to the PAIA because it is regarded as a 'private body'. According to this definition, all 'juristic persons' are deemed private bodies and must comply with the Act, regardless of whether they conduct a business, trade, or profession, since no additional qualifying criteria are specified. Prior to January 1, 2022, certain small private bodies were exempt from the requirement to have a PAIA manual based on sector, number of employees, and annual turnover. However, this exemption has been removed, and now all private bodies, regardless of size, must comply with the PAIA. A private body now includes all juristic persons, regardless of whether they conduct trade, business, or a profession. This means that any trust, including family, testamentary, special, and business trusts, must comply with PAIA. The Trust Property Control Act, however, defines a trust as 'an arrangement' rather than a 'person'. Consequently, a trust is not regarded as an independent entity or juristic person that can be owned, sold, or transferred, as is the case with a company or a close corporation. Instead, a trust is considered a legal institution of its own kind or class (sui generis) in South Africa (Braun v Blann & Botha case of 1984 and Rosner v Lydia Swanepoel Trust case of 1998). This was confirmed in the Tusk Construction Support Services (Pty) Ltd v Independent Development Trust case of 2020, where it was held that even though a trust does not have a legal personality, it 'remains 'a legal institution sui generis''. Therefore, a trust does not possess legal personality (unless a statute defines it as such) because it is simply an accumulation of assets and liabilities administered and owned by the trustees (case of Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa v Parker in 2005). As the PAIA does not specifically include a trust in the definition of a 'juristic person', such as the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act, it cannot be inferred that a trust is considered a 'juristic person' within the meaning of a private body in PAIA. This definition, therefore, will not bring a trust within the PAIA net. Are trustees carrying on, or have they carried on, any trade, business, or profession? The only remaining possibility for including trusts as 'private bodies' that must adhere to the requirements of the PAIA is if the trustees can be seen as natural persons who engage in or have engaged in any trade, business, or profession. In this instance, a 'private body' actually refers to individuals running businesses in their personal capacities (sole proprietors) and not through entities, including trusts. Again, trusts are not explicitly mentioned or included. However, in the case of Kilbourn v Zwemstra and others in 2023, the judge held that 'the trustees are natural persons who carry on the business of the trust, albeit in a representative capacity. In my view, therefore, a trust falls squarely within the definition of a private body. The aforesaid interpretation is consonant with the Constitutional imperative that information should be accessible to persons seeking to exercise or protect a right. Whilst under the pre-democracy regime, secrecy often led to abuses and violations of human rights, under our democratic dispensation, it is important to promote transparency. I can see no reason why a trust should be treated any differently from any other juristic or natural person that carries on a business or trade.' If this interpretation is accepted, the application will be far narrower to the various types of trusts. Unlike the above interpretation, only trusts that carry on trades or businesses will be included, and family, testamentary, and special trusts will be excluded.
The Citizen
11-06-2025
- Politics
- The Citizen
Business Chambers demand access to metro records for forensic investigations
The Pretoria Sakekamer has formally submitted a request for access to 384 cases of municipal records under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). Chairperson Fergus Ferguson told Rekord the request seeks clarity on a range of high-profile forensic investigations, disciplinary actions, and criminal referrals referenced by metro leadership and reported widely in the media. These include: – 129 cases in which disciplinary action was recommended against employees, – 39 criminal referrals for prosecution, – 48 cases identified for financial recoveries, – 67 dismissals, – 31 final written warnings, and – 70 cases referred to the Financial Disciplinary Board. He explained that while the organisation fully supports all efforts to promote consequence management and ethical governance, members believe that accountability must be backed by transparency. 'The public has the right to understand how these figures were derived, what actions have been taken, and whether appropriate processes are being followed. 'As representatives of Pretoria's business community, we are committed to promoting a culture of accountability, the rule of law, and clean governance,' said Ferguson. He sees this PAIA request as a constructive step in ensuring that the metro's public statements are matched with measurable progress and administrative integrity. He has requested that the records be provided electronically and has undertaken to pay any reasonable reproduction or retrieval fees. The metro is expected to respond within 30 calendar days, as prescribed by law. 'We remain hopeful that the City of Tshwane will treat this request with the urgency and seriousness it deserves, and we look forward to engaging further on matters of governance and reform,' said Ferguson. Mayor Dr Nasiphi Moya said recently during a press conference that her administration continues to take steps towards institutional stabilisation and ethical governance. 'The city has made significant strides in strengthening political oversight and processes to ensure that the concerns flagged by the Auditor-General are addressed decisively,' explained Moya. She said this includes 349 instances where disciplinary action has been recommended against officials (up from 126 as of February) and 44 cases referred to for criminal prosecution (up from 39). Over 900 cases have been referred to the Financial Disciplinary Board for the first time (previously 70), and 85 officials have been dismissed (previously 77). Reasons for these dismissals range from sexual harassment and rape to fraud and corruption, bribery, theft and dereliction of duty. She mentioned that the investigations into five officials for their mismanagement of Refilwe and Caledonian stadiums have been concluded. The officials have been issued with letters of intention to suspend. 'In support of our drive for better governance, the 2025/26 draft budget allocates additional resources to Group Audit and Risk, where R36-million has been set aside for forensic investigations in our fight against corruption,' said Moya. Do you have more information about the story? Please send us an email to bennittb@ or phone us on 083 625 4114. For free breaking and community news, visit Rekord's websites: Rekord East For more news and interesting articles, like Rekord on Facebook, follow us on Twitter or Instagram or TikTok At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading! Stay in the know. Download the Caxton Local News Network App Stay in the know. Download the Caxton Local News Network App here
