Latest news with #R300-million
The South African
14-05-2025
- The South African
Bloem court rules on R32 million asbestos corruption scheme
On 13 March 2025, the Bloemfontein High Court made a ruling on properties linked to an asbestos corruption scheme. The court granted the National Prosecuting Authority's Asset Forfeiture Unit, together with Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation, a Preservation Order. The order stated that six immovable properties valued at R32 million and a Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG worth R2 million, would be seized. 'The AFU believes the properties are proceeds of unlawful activities of theft, fraud, corruption and money laundering perpetuated against the Free State Department of Human Settlements', said NPA spokesperson, advocate Mthunzi Mhaga. All the alleged perpetrators have direct ties to the Free State Department of Human Settlements. They had access to monies during their time at the department. 'The involved individuals, companies and trusts are alleged to have engaged in a complex web of financial flows, designed to strip the FSDHS of its much-needed resources', Mhaga continued. According to Mhaga, the perpetrators were able to move the proceeds of crime through attorneys, real estate agencies and high-end motor dealers. He said the AFU has shown through financial flows that the assets were purchased directly with monies linked to the FSDHS. 'This preservation order follows a Restraint Order of R300-million granted to AFU by the Free State High Court – Bloemfontein in September 2020', said Mhaga. Mhaga emphasised, 'The preservation order will effectively put a freeze on and thwart any efforts to dissipate the very assets sought to be preserved. This will provide for the subsequent forfeiture of these proceeds of crime to the state'. Mhaga said various persons and entities have since been criminally charged with multiple charges of fraud, theft, money laundering and corruption. They were also charged with contraventions of the Public Finance Management Act. Additionally, they were charged with contraventions of various sections of the Asbestos Regulations. They are set to appear before the Bloemfontein High Court for trial on 15 April 2025. The NPA said pursuing legal action was an ongoing response to the State Capture Commission's recommendation. It was recommended that they recover monies siphoned through an unlawful contract linked to the Free State Asbestos Eradication Project. 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.
eNCA
06-05-2025
- Business
- eNCA
City of Joburg loses R313m Rea Vaya expansion grant
JOHANNESBURG - The City of Joburg has lost a grant of over R300-million. It was meant for the expansion of the Rea Vaya bus system. But the service is struggling with compliance and poor passenger numbers. The Automobile Association says this is a blow to commuters who rely on public transport. The AA's Eleanor Mavimbela said the grant was forfeited because the city wasn't meeting grant requirements. "For us, it's quite concerning losing such a significant grant for the public transport system that was fortunately assisting thousands of people with commuting to the City of Johannesburg every single day," she said.
Daily Maverick
23-04-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Digital platforms have a profound and negative impact on media freedom and sustainability
South Africa's Competition Commission will soon begin finalising its inquiry into Big Tech and its impact on the media. Responses are dropping into its inbox. In part 5 of Daily Maverick's series, Ferial Haffajee asked the Competition Commission's inquiry chairperson James Hodge and panellist and media leader Paula Fray about the impact of the mass media's decline on democracy and whether they are trying to remake a world that doesn't exist. Question: What did the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry (MDPMI) find about the impact of the platforms on media freedom in South Africa? Answer: The MDPMI found that digital platforms have had a profound and negative impact on media freedom and the financial sustainability of South Africa's news industry. Traditional advertising revenue has plummeted as digital platforms dominate the digital advertising space, diverting attention and revenue from news outlets. Platforms extract significant value from news content, creating a value imbalance of R300-million to R500-million [a year]. Platforms increasingly keep users within their ecosystems, drastically reducing click-throughs to news websites, undermining monetisation opportunities for media houses. The impact on journalism was laid bare at the public hearings held in March 2024, which heard of a halving of journalist numbers, increasing juniorisation and casualisation of newsroom staff, closure of regional bureaus and community newspapers, and a decline in coverage of rural and even secondary city areas. The cumulative effect is a systematic weakening of the media's financial base, which in turn threatens its ability to uphold its public mandate and thus ultimately poses a threat to media freedom, diversity and democratic accountability. Q: Your findings on the search engines (Google and, to a lesser extent, Bing) versus the social media companies are pretty different. Why is this? A: The remedies for both are the same in the long run: to increase referral traffic and offer the media a chance to monetise on their websites. It is only in the short term that it is proposed that Google compensates the media [at R300-million to R500-million a year for three years]. There are a few reasons for this. First, the two are very different markets. Search responds to user queries, whereas social media determines what goes into a user's feed. Search value is derived from being able to use media content to respond to news queries, whereas social media can decide whether to show media content at all. This is the unintended consequence we have seen elsewhere, namely the removal of news pages from Facebook. Second, it is only more recently that platforms like Meta have deprecated news content, and some, like TikTok and YouTube, have not done so at all. In contrast, search has drawn value from the media for a much longer period. Third, as social media platforms control the feed, they can address the referral traffic issue quickly, whereas it may take more time for search to address biases and user behaviour. Q: Why is media freedom important to democracy? This may seem obvious to some, but in a time where billionaire Elon Musk has made a catchphrase of the term 'you are the media', doesn't it suggest that with access to be your own media by all, this may no longer be that obvious a link? A: Media freedom is essential to democracy because it upholds the right to freedom of expression, a cornerstone of a democratic society. Media as a public good enables citizens to make informed decisions; by scrutinising government, corporations and other institutions, it holds power to account; and it amplifies diverse voices, fostering inclusivity and social cohesion. The MDPMI is unique because it recognises the media as essential to upholding the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Expression and other rights. Since digital platforms don't produce content, harm to the media threatens these rights. Section 39(2) of the Constitution requires the commission to interpret the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (as amended) in line with the Bill of Rights, making the protection of a strong, independent and diverse media vital to our democracy. The MDPMI thus explicitly connects media freedom to constitutional rights and sees the news media as key agents in fulfilling these rights. Their decline has constitutional implications. However, in the digital age, the link between professional journalism and democracy may appear less obvious. In a country with high levels of inequality, we know that not all voices are held equal. Access to platforms doesn't equate to reach, credibility or journalistic rigour. The information ecosystem is now filled with misinformation, disinformation and low-quality content. Professional journalism is governed by ethical codes, editorial standards and verification processes that all citizens deserve. Citizen-generated content is often not verified or held to similarly high standards. However, just because people can publish doesn't mean they will be seen. Platforms determine visibility, often amplifying sensationalism over substance. Journalism has social value that transcends commercial interests. A plurality of media voices creates a well-informed public and functioning democracy, and influencers or AI bots cannot replace this role. The internet has brought great opportunity for everyone to be heard, but the illusion of everyone being their own media can mask the decline of independent journalism, which remains irreplaceable in a democratic system. Q: How do you link the inquiry into platforms to the health of South African democracy? A: A weakened media landscape undermines the watchdog function essential to a healthy democracy. When the media cannot afford to cover rural areas or conduct investigations, the public loses access to vital information. The inquiry found that platform dominance has concentrated power, threatening the plurality and diversity of voices, particularly impacting vernacular, community and independent outlets that serve marginalised populations. We have seen that the platforms' gatekeeping role (via algorithms and monetisation strategies) can profoundly shape public discourse without public oversight or accountability. The MDPMI is therefore critical to the future of the South African democracy, and not just South African media. Without robust media, citizen agency, state accountability and democratic integrity are at risk. Q: The Competition Commission has made rigorous and remarkable recommendations in its interim report. Among these is that Google should capitalise a fund at the value of up to R500-million annually over three to five years while a relationship with the South African media is negotiated. That is audacious. Is it an opening gambit? A: The inquiry sought to determine the value of the news content relationship between Google and the media, and the distribution of that value. This was possible because the inquiry has evidence-gathering powers, which are absent in legislative processes that have resorted to bargaining models to find the balance in shared value. It was also necessary as Google and the mainstream print media had been in negotiations since the launch of the inquiry, but without success, given the very different estimations of value from both sides. This is partly a result of a lack of information available to the media. The estimation by the inquiry using evidence enables a reset in those negotiations around realistic values or the basis for an imposition by the Commission if no agreement is reached. Q: The interim report sets out a carrot and stick approach: if the platform companies (notably the search engines) do not agree to pay reparations, then the Commission will consider a 10% digital tax on their revenues. Have regulators or competition authorities in other countries done this? A: Given the difficulties faced with implementing the bargaining model in other countries, there has been a shift to considering digital taxes as an alternative. The reason is that it is unlikely to result in unintended consequences of reducing news content, as the platforms pay regardless of their algorithmic approach. As we understand in Australia, this has recently been considered as a fallback if no bargaining outcome is achieved. This is similar to the inquiry's approach, but our proposal differs fundamentally insofar as it looks to address the underlying cause of the imbalance, namely the choking of referral traffic, rather than simply looking to put in place indefinite transfers. Q: Your recommendations on the social media companies are different: you find, for example, that YouTube should increase its fee to content creators and that the others should not deprecate news posts. Could you explain this? A: There is a difference in how news media can monetise traffic on video-sharing platforms like YouTube instead of feed-based social media. On YouTube, the video is consumed on the platform rather than referring the traffic to the news site. This means that the only opportunity to monetise is through a share of revenue from in-video advertising. Hence, the focus has been on the fairness of the revenue-sharing model and the opportunities to sell their in-video ads at higher rate cards. In contrast, the feed-based social media has provided opportunities for text-based posts with links where consumers are redirected to the news website, which can then monetise the traffic through digital ad inventory sales. Hence, the focus has been on ensuring news is not deliberately deprecated, which chokes off the referral traffic. Where the feed-based social media includes video posts viewed on the platform, the inquiry has included a similar requirement to ensure a fair revenue-sharing arrangement. This applies to Meta. Q: How did you weigh up risk versus opportunity when making the findings? So-called Big Tech is ascendant in its power, given that US President Donald Trump has become its advocate. He has, for example, warned EU regulators against further efforts to mediate their market power. A: The mandate provided by the Competition Act requires that the Commission address market distortions to ensure a competitive and inclusive economy. The Competition Act applies to all behaviour that has an effect on the SA economy, which the conduct of global tech firms clearly does. This effect is even more so in this case, given the impact on the Constitutional rights of our citizens. The approach to remedies has also sought a win-win solution for both platforms and the media, that is sustainable for both, rather than simply taxing them. Given that the platforms face similar calls for compensation in other markets, we trust that the platforms see the opportunity in this approach to find resolutions and use SA as a testing ground for alternative remedies to address similar concerns in other jurisdictions. It is only if they choose not to that the recommendation for a potential digital levy or tariff is triggered. Q: What is the optimal outcome of the process? A: In an inquiry, the objective as set out in the Competition Act is to identify market factors that adversely affect competition and comprehensively remedy those in a practical and proportionate manner. The optimal outcome is therefore for the inquiry to make correct findings on what factors are adversely affecting competition and to put in place comprehensive remedies for those factors. The inquiry aims to achieve this by ensuring its findings are evidence-based and to retain an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to ensure their concerns are fairly heard and assessed, whilst seeking to find some common ground on practical and proportionate remedial actions. Q: Some may say that the interim report seeks to return the horse to a stable that no longer exists. By this, I mean that the old media world of linear print products and a dated public broadcaster is in rapid decline everywhere. Does the Competition Commission's interim report grapple fully with how, where and why South Africans are taking their news as they do? A: The inquiry has included in its remit an understanding of the news consumption trends as well as their impacts and has undertaken a consumer survey to deepen that understanding. Far from trying to roll back time, the inquiry is deliberately forward-looking in seeking to understand the digital consumption landscape and the media's relationship with digital platforms, and to see how the market can be adjusted to ensure a fair balance between them. This contrasts with other countries, which focus on indefinite transfers rather than changes in market conduct. DM Further reading
