Latest news with #R500-million
The South African
24-05-2025
- Business
- The South African
Officials worry SA's spaza shop fund will fall prey to ‘sticky fingers'
There is widespread concern the R500-million SA spaza shop fund will be misappropriated if it is not well managed from the start. This is the view of the President of the South African Spaza and Tuckshop Association (SASTA), Kgothatso Ramautswa. Ramautswa said the spaza shop fund has the potential to stabilise the hard-hit informal industry. However, the associated also expressed concern that aid may be misappropriated due to 'sticky fingers.' And the launch of the fund has also seen 'vultures circling.' 'Ultimately, it depends on how effectively and transparently the funds are managed. Our primary concern lies in the management and accountability of the spaza shop fund,' confirmed Ramautswa. Moreover, the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD) has warned of copycat fund scams. And says spaza shop owners should be cautious of individuals/organisations claiming to assist with the application process. Furthermore, the DSBD confirmed that no official may handle the administrative payment process. Applicants for the new spaza shop fund had to lead through a series a administrative requirements to be eligible with local government. Image: File Likewise, the DSBD outlined several measures it will take to ensure the R500-million spaza shop fund isn't looted. The goal herein is to ensure the funds reach the intended beneficiaries in the form of business assets, rather than cash, it said: Primary, it will deal in stock (up to R40 000 worth) rather than cash. worth) rather than cash. Stock can only be claimed by beneficiaries at wholesalers identified by major retailers. Municipalities and township associations at ward level will also be stakeholders in the fund administration. A trackable point-of-sale (POS) system will observe trading activity and prevent beneficiaries from selling stock illegally. Meanwhile, the informal trading industry is valued at nearly R200 billion in South Africa. And the new spaza shop fund will be able to make the following available to eligible clients: Financial support, training, and business development services. Up to R300 000 per shop through a combination of grants and low-interest loans. per shop through a combination of grants and low-interest loans. Training in hygiene and regulatory standards. Promotion of digital payment systems, inventory management tools, and financial literacy. 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.
Daily Maverick
13-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Controversial ambulance companies ordered to pay back over R500m to Free State government
The Special Tribunal has ordered four ambulance companies run by Thapelo Buthelezi to pay back more than R500-million. The matter relates to contracts awarded by the Free State government that were first reported on in Spotlight's #Health4Sale series of investigative articles in 2018. In the order, signed by Judge David Makhoba, Buthelezi One Stop Emergency Med was ordered to pay back R40.6-million, Buthelezi One Stop EMS to pay back R4.7-million, Buthelezi EMS R305.1-million, and B EMS R182.2-million. Together, this amounts to more than R532-million. The payments from the Free State Department of Health to these companies were declared to be 'unlawful, unprocedural and unconstitutional'. No reasons were given in the order, seen by Spotlight and Daily Maverick. The Special Tribunal's core function is to recover public funds. It is not empowered to conduct criminal prosecutions, although it can refer matters to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). 'Buthelezi and associated companies have been ordered to submit audited statements for expenses incurred, income received and profit made under the unlawful contracts,' said the SIU in a media statement released on Monday. 'Furthermore, the Tribunal ruling, dated 5 May 2025, ordered that Buthelezi pay the legal costs of the application and the SIU's legal representatives.' Outsourcing ambulance services As reported by Spotlight in 2018, the Free State Department of Health took the unusual decision to outsource its emergency medical and patient transport services in 2013. The only other province to do so was North West, in which one of Buthelezi's companies also won a large contract. The decision to outsource was particularly puzzling in the Free State as the province's own ambulance service appeared to be doing well at the time. Besides the questionable decision to outsource, there were several other red flags relating to the contracts in both the Free State and North West. These included whether tenders were appropriately motivated, designed, advertised and adjudicated, and whether health departments were being overcharged once the services started — in North West, Spotlight was shown particularly compelling evidence of systematic overcharging. At the time, Spotlight identified six companies with names that were variations of Buthelezi EMS — we found instances in which company names on invoices did not correspond to the company registration numbers on the same invoices. Eyebrows were also raised over two back-dated price increases for Buthelezi EMS that were signed off while the province's health department was essentially taken out of administration for five days. In both the Free State and North West, healthcare workers interviewed by Spotlight reported that the services provided by Buthelezi EMS were not up to scratch. Several Free State doctors alleged that Buthelezi EMS routinely overloaded ambulances and subsequently charged as if the patients were transported separately. Questions were also raised about an alleged lack of equipment on the company's ambulances. Figures shared by the Free State Department of Health at the time showed that by mid-2018, it had paid Buthelezi EMS more than R1-billion. After the publication of Spotlight's first two articles on Buthelezi EMS, Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi told Spotlight in April 2018 that he had asked the National Treasury to investigate the procurement of services from Buthelezi EMS and Mediosa in the Free State and North West. At the time, the Hawks were also investigating some of the contracts, and the then North West premier, Supra Mahumapelo, had instituted a forensic probe. In June that year, Deputy Health Minister Dr Joe Phaahla told Spotlight that B EMS had overcharged the North West Department of Health by R62-million. A year later, President Cyril Ramaphosa issued a proclamation empowering the SIU to investigate the contracts with Buthelezi's companies. It is that proclamation that set in motion the series of events leading to this week's order from the Special Tribunal. Intent to appeal When Daily Maverick and Spotlight contacted Buthelezi on Monday, he said that he would not be commenting to any journalists at this time since they intended to appeal the tribunal's decision. Spotlight asked the SIU whether it would refer the matter to the NPA for criminal prosecution. The SIU did not provide a direct answer, but in its media statement said: 'The SIU is empowered to institute a civil action in the High Court or a Special Tribunal to correct any wrongdoing uncovered during investigations caused by corruption, fraud, or maladministration. In line with the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996, the SIU refers any evidence pointing to criminal conduct it uncovers to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for further action.' It is thus not yet clear whether any steps will be taken against the officials in the Free State Department of Health who managed the tender process and signed off the payments that have now been found to be unlawful, unprocedural and unconstitutional. Buthelezi has also been in court on other matters. In 2022, he appeared in the Bloemfontein Magistrates' Court regarding the alleged failure of his companies to pay tax on about R1-billion in income from the Free State Department of Health from 2014 to 2019. The South African Revenue Service reportedly recovered close to R100-million from the company. Buthelezi also declined to comment when asked about that case. DM
The Citizen
02-05-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
It's official: Hollywood rescues KZN racing
Bookmaking giant gets go-ahead on eve of winter season. When Owen Heffer was selling rough-printed tipping sheets outside Greyville racecourse in 1984 – for a few rand to keep his young family alive – he didn't dream he'd one day own the place. Yet this week, just over 40 years later, that improbable scenario came to pass. On 1 May, the KwaZulu-Natal Economic Regulatory Authority approved the acquisition of the province's horse racing operator Gold Circle by Hollywood Sportsbook Holdings. The latter, of course, is the holding company of the gambling giant that grew from the tiny seed of those humble lists of tips, through the Winning Form guide and a tiny bookmaking business. In 2023, with Gold Circle in severe financial trouble, Heffer's Hollywoodbets proposed bailing out the company with an initial R500-million rescue injection. Gold Circle's shareholders jumped at the offer. Hollywoodbets had by then become the fairy godmother of many sporting and non-sporting endeavours, ploughing millions back into its heartland community in KZN – and then further afield. Famous buyouts and sponsorships included the takeover and very successful revitalisation of Cape Town horse racing; race sponsorship of South Africa's premier race, the Durban July, and branding of Brentford football club in London. Other tie-ups included sponsorship of the Dolphins provincial cricket side – and their stadium; sponsorship of the Sharks rugby team – and their stadium, sponsorship of South Africa's women's cricketers, and a multitude of helping hands lower down the rungs of sport and charity. Rescue job Owen Haffer's rags-to-riches story is for another day. In the meantime, racing fans are celebrating the rescue job he and his team have pulled off in the place where his initial small punt delivered a sensational return. A Hollywood press release on Thursday declared 'a seriously ambitious and committed plan to resurrect the failing industry in the richly culturally diverse province that has enjoyed a passionate following of the sport for well over a century'. It continued: 'It is a reality that, given the combination of the prevailing economic climate and dramatic changes in the betting landscape, horseracing countrywide has languished in the doldrums for a large part of the 21st century.' The company promised 'a focus on the best utilisation of resources, while embracing a wider universal appeal that will keep pace with ever evolving modern entertainment trends, directed at a wider customer market'. Upgrades and improvements The investment will preserve about 6,000 jobs in KZN. Facilities at venues and training centres will be modernised, prize money will be boosted, the racing programme will be revamped, and incentives to promote racehorse ownership and boost field sizes will be introduced. Already buildings and equipment are being renovated and upgraded – including a revamp of the Hollywoodbets Greyville Polytrack and the course's floodlighting. At Summerveld Training Centre in Hillcrest, money will go into upgrading stabling, accommodation and roads. It will all cost a tad more than the initial R500-million mentioned. The government green light for the buyout comes as the KZN Champions' Season – the unofficial 'national championships' of racing – gets underway at Greyville on Saturday. The famous old Drill Hall Stakes tops the card, alongside the WSB Guineas and WSB Fillies Guineas, with all three races being important pointers to the Hollywoodbets Durban July in two months' time. The cherry on the top is an expected R3-million Pick 6 carryover pool on the day.
The South African
23-04-2025
- Business
- The South African
HOW to secure a share of R500-million informal-trader funding
Township entrepreneurs best act quickly to secure a share of South Africa's R500-million informal-trader funding. Following government's crackdown on spaza shops over poisonings last year, all legitimate traders had to register their businesses with local government. Now, a new Spaza Shop Support Fund (SSSF) promises to support, expand and sustain informal traders with the financial and technical assistance they need to succeed. But they must be compliant … Applications for the R500-million informal-trader funding opened this week (Monday 21 April 2025) through the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD). All eligible spaza shop owners and informal traders are encouraged to to take advantage of the available funds. Basically, the R500-million informal-trader funding will help level the playing field against large retail outlets. A maximum of R300 000 is available per applicant through a combination of grants and low-interest loans. Compliance and meeting hygiene and regulatory standards is essential to secure the funding. Digital payment systems, inventory and accounting management tools are expensive, and financial literacy programmes are offered. Qualifying applicants must be South African citizens or naturalised before 1994. As mentioned, the spaza shop/informal trader must be registered with the local municipality as per the recent business licencing drive. Furthermore, a portion of the R500-million informal-trader funding depends on timeous registration with the South African Revenue Service (SARS). Likewise, the SSSF will prioritise entrepreneurs aged 18-35, as well as female owners and those with disabilities. Business support includes the following: R40 000 for the initial purchase of stock. for the initial purchase of stock. R50 000 for upgrading building infrastructure, systems, refrigeration, shelving and security. for upgrading building infrastructure, systems, refrigeration, shelving and security. R100 000 for training programmes on sale devices, business skills, digital literacy, credit health, food safety and business compliance. for training programmes on sale devices, business skills, digital literacy, credit health, food safety and business compliance. R125 000 will be provided as a free-interest loan. The National Empowerment Fund (NEF) and the Small Enterprise Development Finance Agency (SEFDA) will jointly administer the fund. Applicants for the R500-million informal-trader funding must create an account on the SEFDA SMME Portal. Complete the registration process, accept the terms and conditions, follow all the prompts to submit the application online. Alternatively, you can contact: Spaza Shop Support Fund (SSSF): 011 305 8080 NEF: 086 1843 633 SEDFA: 012 748 9600 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.
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
