HEALTH AND SAFETY

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act: Change in banking details, effective 1 August 2025

Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act: Declaration of controlled mines and risk work      24

STANDARDS

National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act: Regulations: Payment of levy and fees: Amendments

National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act: Regulations: Payment of levy and fees with regard to compulsory specifications: Amendments

Revealed — music publishing giants implicated in report on R62m irregular royalty claims at Samro

SARS issues new mandatory requirement for businesses in South Africa

South Africa’s new employment equity targets face another major legal battle

Remarks by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mmamoloko Kubayi, on the occasion of her participation in a Webinar convened by Judges Matter on Judicial Reforms, 20 September 2025

AGRICULTURE

LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE

Marketing of Agricultural Products Act:

Continuation of statutory measure: Registration by abattoirs and exporters of live pigs

G 53361 RG 11885 GoN 6636

19 September 2025

APPLIES TO: 

Organizations that slaughter Pigs for commercial use or export live Pigs.

Purpose

• To compel registration of:
  • Abattoirs slaughtering pigs for commercial use (excluding own consumption).
  • Exporters of live pigs.

• Aims to ensure accurate and timely market information for all stakeholders in the pork industry.
• Supports efficient marketing and industry viability without harming employment or fair labor practices.

Key Definitions

• Abattoir: As defined in the Meat Safety Act, 2000 (Act No. 40 of 2000).
• Levy Administrator: South African Pork Producers’ Organisation.
• Act: Refers to the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, 1996.

Scope

• Applies to:
  • Pigs slaughtered for commercial use.
  • Live pigs exported.

• Geographical coverage: Entire Republic of South Africa.

Registration & Enforcement

• Annual registration required for abattoirs and exporters.

• Registration forms are free and can be submitted:
  • By mail to: Agricultural Levy Services, 318 The Hillside Rd, Lynnwood, Pretoria.
  • By email to: tina@agrilevy.co.za or Carolien@agrilevy.co.za.

• Exemptions may be granted to welfare organisations under the VAT Act, 1998.

• Red Meat Levy Admin (Pty) Ltd assists with registration on behalf of the levy administrator.

Validity

• Effective from 1 November 2025 to 31 October 2028.

FULL TEXT

DETAILS

SCHEDULE

1. DEFINITIONS

In this Schedule any word or expression to which a meaning has been assigned in the Act shall have that meaning and, unless the context indicates otherwise —

“abattoir” means a slaughter facility as defined in section 1 of the Meat Safety Act, 2000 (Act No. 40 of 2000), save for those facilities that have been excluded by the levy administrator after application to the levy administrator as provided for in these regulations;

“levy administrator” means the South African Pork Producers’ Organisation, the juristic person entrusted with the implementation, administration and enforcement of the statutory measure established under this regulation; and

“the Act” means the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, 1996 (Act No. 47 of 1996), as amended.

2. PURPOSE AND AIMS OF THE STATUTORY MEASURES AND THE RELATION THEREOF TO OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT

The purpose and aims of this statutory measure is to compel abattoirs slaughtering pigs and exporters of live pigs to register with the levy administrator. This is necessary to ensure that continuous, timeous and accurate market information relating to pigs slaughtered, marketed and live pigs exported is available to all role-players. Market information is deemed essential for all role-players in order for them to make informed decisions.

The establishment of the statutory measure should assist in promoting the efficiency of the marketing of pork. The viability of the pork industry should thus be enhanced.

The measure is not detrimental to any of the objectives of the Act and, in particular, shall not be detrimental to the number of employment opportunities or fair labour practice in the pork industry.

Confidential information of any person subject to this statutory measure obtained by the levy administrator through the implementation, administration and enforcement of this statutory measure shall be dealt with in accordance with section 23(2) of the Act.

The measure shall be administered by the levy administrator, who appointed the Red Meat Levy Admin (Pty) Ltd to assist them with the registration of the identified roleplayers. The latter shall act in terms of the mandate and on behalf of the South African Pork Producers’ Organisation.

3. PRODUCT TO WHICH THE STATUTORY MEASURE SHALL APPLY

This statutory measure shall apply to —

a) pigs slaughtered by abattoirs for commercial use other than own consumption; and

b) pigs exported live.

4. AREA IN WHICH STATUTORY MEASURE SHALL APPLY

This statutory measure shall apply within the geographical area of the Republic of South Africa.

5. REGISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

(1) Any abattoir slaughtering pigs for commercial use other than for own consumption and exporters of live pigs shall on an annual basis register and re-register with the levy administrator.

(2) Registration shall be done immediately upon receipt of a registration form obtainable free of charge for this purpose from the levy administrator, and shall —

a) be submitted, when forwarded by mail, to

The Levy Administrator

Agricultural Levy Services

318 The Hillside Rd

Lynnwood

Pretoria

b) When sent by email, be addressed to:

tina@agrilevy.co.za / Carolien@agrilevy.co.za

(3) Any abattoir as defined in the levy notice may apply to the levy administrator for exemption from the provisions of clause 5(1) and 5(2) of these regulations on the grounds that it is a welfare organisation as defined in terms of section 1 of the Value Added Tax Act, 1998 (Act no 89 of 1998).

(4) The implementation, administration and enforcement of the statutory measure established in terms of these Regulations are entrusted to the levy administrator in terms of section 14 of the Act.

6. COMMENCEMENT AND PERIOD OF VALIDITY

This statutory measure shall come into operation on 1 November 2025 and will expire on 31 October 2028.

LINK TO FULL NOTICE

Marketing of Agricultural Products Act: Continuation of statutory measure: Registration by abattoirs and exporters of live pigs

G 53361 RG 11885 GoN 6636

19 September 2025

53361rg11885gon6636.pdf

LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE

Marketing of Agricultural Products Act:

Continuation of statutory measure and determination of guideline price: Levies relating to pigs

G 53361 RG 11885 GoN 6635

19 September 2025

APPLIES TO: 

South African Pork Producers’ Organisation (SAPPO)

• Acts as the levy administrator.
• Responsible for implementing, administering, and enforcing the statutory measure.
• Oversees the use of levy funds for industry development.

Red Meat Levy Admin (Pty) Ltd

• Appointed by SAPPO to assist with levy collection.
• Operates under SAPPO’s mandate.

Abattoirs

• Must collect levies from pig owners at the time of slaughter.
• Required to forward these levies to SAPPO.
• Only abattoirs slaughtering pigs for commercial use are affected.

Pig Owners

• Must pay the levy when pigs are slaughtered at abattoirs.

Exporters of Live Pigs

• Must pay the levy at the point of export.
• Defined as the owner of the pig at the time of export.

Auditor-General

• Responsible for auditing the statutory levies collected.

SUMMED UP

Purpose

The statutory levy is designed to fund key initiatives in the pork industry, including:

• Business Development (Transformation)
• Consumer Education and Communication
• Consumer Assurance
• Research and Development
• Business Intelligence
• Corporate Governance (Administration costs)

Definitions

• Abattoir: As defined in the Meat Safety Act, 2000.
• Exporter: Owner of a pig at the time of export.
• Owner: Owner of a pig at the time of slaughter.
• Head: One pig, regardless of age, size, or weight.
• Levy Administrator: South African Pork Producers’ Organisation.

Levy Allocation

• 70%: Consumer-related functions (education, assurance, R&D, intelligence).
• 20%: Business development (transformation).
• 10%: Corporate governance (admin costs).

Applicable Products

• Pigs slaughtered for commercial use (excluding own consumption).
• Live pigs exported.

Geographical Scope

• Applies throughout the Republic of South Africa.

Guideline Prices

• R2,740.50 per pig slaughtered.
• R3,800.00 per pig exported live.

Levy Amounts (VAT excluded)

Who Pays the Levy

• Owners pay the levy to abattoirs at slaughter; abattoirs forward it to the levy administrator.
• Exporters pay the levy at the point of exit.

Payment & Enforcement

• Due by the 14th day of the month following slaughter/export.
• Payment methods:
  • Cheque: Sent to Agricultural Levy Services, Lynnwood, Pretoria.
  • Electronic Transfer: Account details available from the levy administrator.

• Administered by the South African Pork Producers’ Organisation, with support from Red Meat Levy Admin (Pty) Ltd.
• Audited by the Auditor-General.

Validity

• Effective from 1 November 2025 to 31 October 2028.

FULL TEXT

DETAILS

SCHEDULE

1. DEFINITIONS

“abattoir” means a slaughter facility as defined in section 1 of the Meat Safety Act, 2000 (Act No. 40 of 2000), save for those facilities that have been excluded by the levy administrator after application to the levy administrator as provided for in the registration notice;

“exporter” means the owner of a pig at the time of export of that pig;

“head” means one pig irrespective of its age, size or weight;

“levy administrator” means the South African Pork Producers’ Organisation, the juristic person entrusted with the implementation, administration and enforcement of the statutory measure established under this regulation;

“owner” means the owner of a pig at the time of slaughter of that pig; and

“the Act” means the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, 1996 (Act No. 47 of 1996), as amended.

2. PURPOSE AND AIMS OF THE STATUTORY MEASURES AND THE RELATION THEREOF TO OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT

This statutory levy is required by the pork industry to fund —

(a) Business Development (Transformation) in the developing sector;

(b) Consumer Education and Communication;

(c) Consumer Assurance;

(d) Research and Development;

(e) Business Intelligence; and

(f) Corporate Governance (Administration cost).

The levy is not detrimental to any of the objectives of the Act and, in particular, shall not be detrimental to the number of employment opportunities or fair labour practice in the pork industry.

The statutory measure shall be administered by the levy administrator, who appointed the Red Meat Levy Admin (Pty) Ltd to assist them with the collection of the statutory levy. The latter shall act in terms of the mandate and on behalf of the South African Pork Producers’ Organisation.

The statutory measure is necessary to finance the above-mentioned functions and the levy shall be utilised in accordance with the levy application. The Auditor-General shall also be responsible for auditing the statutory levies collected.

3. EMPLOYMENT OF STATUTORY MEASURES

It is hereby determined that, in respect of levies collected —

a) approximately 70% of the funds shall be used for functions relating to consumer assurance, consumer education and communication, research and development, business intelligence;

b) at least 20% of the funds shall be used for business development (transformation); and

c) not more than 10% of the funds shall be used for corporate governance (administration cost).

4. PRODUCT TO WHICH STATUTORY MEASURE APPLIES

This statutory measure shall apply to —

a) pigs slaughtered by abattoirs for commercial use other than for own consumption; and

b) pigs exported live.

5. AREA IN WHICH STATUTORY MEASURE SHALL APPLY

This statutory measure shall apply within the geographical area of the Republic of South Africa.

6. DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE PRICE

The guideline price is determined as follows:

a) R2 740.50 per pig slaughtered.

b) R3 800.00 per pig exported live.

7. AMOUNT OF LEVY

The amount of the levy payable:

8. PERSONS BY WHOM LEVY IS PAYABLE

The levy imposed in terms of this notice shall be —

a) paid to the abattoir by the owner at slaughter of such pig and the abattoir will then pay it over to the levy administrator; and

b) payable by the exporter of live pigs at the point of exit and paid over to the levy administrator.

9. PAYMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF LEVY

(1) The levy shall be paid to the levy administrator —

a) by the fourteenth day of the month following the month in which the pigs were slaughtered; and

b) by the fourteenth day of the month following the month in which the pigs were exported.

(2) Payments shall be made by means of a cheque or electronic bank transfer in favour of the levy administrator, and shall —

a) When paid by cheque, be addressed to —

The Levy Administrator

Agricultural Levy Services

318 The Hillside Rd

Lynnwood

Pretoria

b) When electronically transferred, be paid to the account number obtainable from the levy administrator.

(3) The implementation, administration and enforcement of the statutory measure established in this regulation is entrusted to the levy administrator in terms of section 14 of the Act.

10. COMMENCEMENT AND PERIOD OF VALIDITY

 This statutory measure shall come into operation on 1 November 2025 and will expire on 31 October 2028.

LINK TO FULL NOTICE

Marketing of Agricultural Products Act: Continuation of statutory measure and determination of guideline price: Levies relating to pigs

G 53361 RG 11885 GoN 6635

19 September 2025

53361rg11885gon6635.pdf

ACTION

Take note of the levies.

LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE

Marketing of Agricultural Products Act:

Continuation of statutory measure: Records and returns by abattoirs and exporters of live pigs

G 53361 RG 11885 GoN 6637

19 September 2025

o   Abattoirs slaughtering pigs for commercial use (excluding own consumption).

o   Exporters of live pigs.

Purpose and Scope

• Objective: To ensure accurate, timely, and continuous market information on pigs slaughtered and live pigs exported.
• Goal: Enhance decision-making, improve marketing efficiency, and support the viability of the pork industry.

Definitions

• Abattoir: As defined in the Meat Safety Act, 2000 (Act No. 40 of 2000), excluding facilities exempted by the levy administrator.
• Levy Administrator: South African Pork Producers’ Organisation, assisted by Red Meat Levy Admin (Pty) Ltd.
• The Act: Refers to the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, 1996.

Requirements

1.     Who Must Comply:

o   Abattoirs slaughtering pigs for commercial use (excluding own consumption).

o   Exporters of live pigs.

2.     Record Keeping:

o   Must be recorded either digitally or in ink.

o   Records must be kept at registered premises for at least 3 years.

3.     Returns Submission:

o   Forms are available free of charge from the levy administrator.

o   Submission methods:

§  Post:
The Levy Administrator

Agricultural Levy Services

318 The Hillside Rd, Lynnwood, Pretoria

§  Email:

tina@agrilevy.co.za / Carolien@agrilevy.co.za

Geographical Scope

• Applies nationwide within the Republic of South Africa.

Validity

• Effective Date: 1 November 2025
• Expiry Date: 31 October 2028

FULL TEXT

SCHEDULE

1. DEFINITIONS

In this Schedule any word or expression to which a meaning has been assigned in the Act shall have that meaning and, unless the context indicates otherwise —

“abattoir” means a slaughter facility as defined in section 1 of the Meat Safety Act, 2000 (Act No. 40 of 2000), save for those facilities that have been excluded by the levy administrator after application to the levy administrator as provided for in these regulations;

“levy administrator” means the South African Pork Producers’ Organisation, the juristic person entrusted with the implementation, administration and enforcement of the statutory measure established under this regulation; and

“the Act” means the Marketing of Agricultural Products Act, 1996 (Act No. 47 of 1996), as amended.

2. PURPOSE AND AIMS OF THE STATUTORY MEASURES AND THE RELATION THEREOF TO OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT

The purpose and aim of this statutory measure is to compel abattoirs and exporters of live pigs to render records and returns to the levy administrator.

This is necessary to ensure that continuous, timeous and accurate information relating to pigs slaughtered and marketed or live pigs exported is available to all role players. Market information is deemed essential for all role players in order for them to make informed decisions. By prescribing the keeping of records with the rendering of returns on an individual basis, market information for the whole of the industry can be processed and disseminated. The establishment of the statutory measure should assist in promoting the efficiency of the marketing of meat. The viability of the pork industry should thus be enhanced.

The measure is not detrimental to any of the objectives of the Act and, in particular, shall not be detrimental to the number of employment opportunities or fair labour practice in the pork industry.

Confidential information of any person subject to this statutory measure obtained by the levy administrator through the implementation, administration and enforcement of this statutory measure shall be dealt with in accordance with section 23(2) of the Act.

The measure shall be administered by the levy administrator, who appointed the Red Meat Levy Admin (Pty) Ltd to assist them with the administration of the statutory measure. The latter shall act in terms of the mandate and on behalf of the South African Pork Producers’ Organisation.

3. PRODUCT TO WHICH THE STATUTORY MEASURE SHALL APPLY

This statutory measure shall apply to —

a) pigs slaughtered by abattoirs for commercial use other than own consumption; and

b) pigs exported live.

4. AREA IN WHICH STATUTORY MEASURE SHALL APPLY

This statutory measure shall apply within the geographical area of the Republic

of South Africa.

5. RECORDS TO BE KEPT, RETURNS TO BE RENDERED AND THE ENFORCEMENT THEREOF

(1) Abattoirs slaughtering pigs for commercial use other than for own consumption and exporters of live pigs, shall keep such records and render the returns as may be required by the levy administrator.

(2) The records referred to in sub-clause (1) shall —

a) be recorded on a computer or with ink in a book; and

b) be kept at the registered premises of the person required to keep such records for a period of at least three years.

(3) The returns referred to in sub-clause (1) shall be rendered on a form obtainable free of charge for this purpose from the levy administrator, and shall

a) be submitted, when forwarded by post, to

The Levy Administrator

Agricultural Levy Services

318 The Hillside Rd

Lynnwood

Pretoria

b) when sent by email, be addressed to: tina@agrilevy.co.za /Carolien@agrilevy.co.za

(4) The implementation, administration and enforcement of the statutory measure established in these Regulations are entrusted to the levy administrator in terms of section 14 of the Act.

6. COMMENCEMENT AND PERIOD OF VALIDITY

This statutory measure shall come into operation on 1 November 2025 and will expire on 31 October 2028.

LINK TO FULL NOTICE

Marketing of Agricultural Products Act: Continuation of statutory measure: Records and returns by abattoirs and exporters of live pigs

G 53361 RG 11885 GoN 6637

19 September 2025

53361rg11885gon6637.pdf

ACTION

Immediate Actions to Prepare for Compliance (Before 1 November 2025)

1.     Understand Applicability

o   Confirm whether your operations involve:

§  Commercial pig slaughter (excluding own consumption).

§  Export of live pigs.

2.     Designate Compliance Officers

o   Assign staff responsible for record keeping and return submissions.

3.     Set Up Record-Keeping Systems

o   Ensure records are:

§  Digitally stored or written in ink.

§  Maintained at registered premises.

§  Retained for at least 3 years.

4.     Obtain Required Forms

o   Request the official return submission forms from the Levy Administrator:

§  Email: tina@agrilevy.co.za / Carolien@agrilevy.co.za

Ongoing Compliance Actions (From 1 November 2025 to 31 October 2028)

1.     Maintain Accurate Records

o   Track all pigs slaughtered for commercial use and live pigs exported.

2.     Submit Returns Regularly

o   Send completed forms to:

§  Postal:
The Levy Administrator

Agricultural Levy Services

318 The Hillside Rd, Lynnwood, Pretoria

§  Email:
tina@agrilevy.co.za / Carolien@agrilevy.co.za

3.     Ensure Confidentiality

o   Handle all personal and business data in accordance with Section 23(2) of the Act.

4.     Engage with the Levy Administrator

o   Respond to any queries or audits.

o   Apply for exemptions if applicable (e.g., if your facility qualifies for exclusion).

Administrative Support

• The Red Meat Levy Admin (Pty) Ltd will assist with enforcement and administration on behalf of the South African Pork Producers’ Organisation.

CONSTRUCTION

LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE

Landscape Architectural Profession Act:

South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession: Nominations invited

G 53370 GoN 6639

– Comment by 21 Nov 2025

19 September 2025

APPLIES TO: 

Architectural Profession.

FULL TEXT

DETAILS

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

NO. 6639 19 September 2025

SOUTH AFRICAN COUNCIL FOR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION

2nd Floor Lourie Place, Hillcrest Office Park

179 Lunnon Street

Hillcrest

0100

www.saclap.org.za

registrar@saclap.org.za

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO BE APPOINTED AS MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN COUNCIL FOR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION (SACLAP) FOR THE TERM 2026 – 2030

The South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession (SACLAP) is one of six Councils for the Built Environment Professionals (CBEP) in South Africa.

In December 2000, the State President assented to the Landscape Architectural Profession Act, Act no 45 of

2000; herein after referred to as the Act, providing for the establishment of the South Africa Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession. The Council was established in terms of section 2 of the Act in August 2001. The Council, amongst other mandates, registers professionals and candidates in the landscape architecture and landscape management professions, accredits educational institutions, upholds professional conduct, identifies the functions of the profession, and promotes regional and international recognition of such.

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

In terms of sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act and the Rules for the Procedure for Nomination of Council Members (Board Notice 66 of 2018 published in the Government Gazette), nominations are invited from members of the general public to serve on the SACLAP Council. The Council members are appointed on a four-year term by the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure.

The Council will meet at least once every quarter (four times a year). The appointed person may be required to serve on Council committee and/or forums and task teams established by Council, The Council of the Built Environment and the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure. The work of Council is supported by administrative staff.

Nominees must be willing to serve on the Council, on a voluntary basis and contribute in areas such as education, accounting, human resources, legal and governance.

No self-nominations will be accepted.

Each nomination must be in writing and contain the following information in the detail required by the Council. (Please refer to the Council directly for further information.)

i. A Nomination and Acceptance Form duly completed and signed by the nominator and nominee, the template of which can be found on the SACLAP website www.saclap.org.za.

ii. A short Curriculum Vitae of the nominee not exceeding two pages, the template can be downloaded from the SACLAP website www.saclap.org.za.

iii. Certified copies of Academic Qualifications including a Matric certificate or equivalent

iv. Certified copy of Identification Document

v. Completed mie-consent-address-qualifications-criminal form (the template can be downloaded from

the SACLAP website www.saclap.org.za.)

Only South African Citizens are eligible for appointment.

All nominations, duly completed and signed, must be emailed to the Registrar registar@saclap.org.za no later than 21 November 2025.

The email subject heading must read Council Nominations 2026-2030 (Incomplete nominations and nominations received after the closing date will not be considered.) Enquiries may be directed to the Registrar – registrar@saclap.org.za 068 275 1000/068 275 2441

LINK TO FULL NOTICE

Landscape Architectural Profession Act: South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession: Nominations invited

G 53370 GoN 6639

– Comment by 21 Nov 2025

19 September 2025

53370gon6639.pdf

LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE

Agrément South Africa:

Approval of innovative construction products and systems: Panelman Modular Structures: Panelman Engineering (Pty) Ltd

G 53360 GoN 6628

19 September 2025

APPLIES TO: 

1. Government Departments and Agencies

• Department of Public Works and Infrastructure: As the issuer of the notice, they may use or regulate the use of such modular systems in public infrastructure projects.
• Municipalities and Local Governments: For housing, clinics, schools, or emergency shelters.

2. Construction and Engineering Firms

• Companies involved in low-cost housing, temporary structures, or rapid deployment buildings.
• Firms specializing in modular or prefabricated construction.

3. Educational and Health Institutions

• Schools and clinics in rural or underserved areas may benefit from quick-to-assemble structures.
• NGOs or government programs focused on infrastructure development.

4. Disaster Relief and Humanitarian Organizations

• For emergency housing, field hospitals, or temporary shelters in disaster zones.

5. Real Estate Developers

• Especially those working on affordable housing or community development projects.

6. Military and Security Services

• For temporary barracks, command centers, or field offices.

7. Environmental and Sustainability Organizations

• Interested in energy-efficient, low-impact, or recyclable building materials.

8. Regulatory and Certification Bodies

• To ensure compliance with building codes and safety standards, especially for non-Category 1 buildings where only specific panel types are allowed.

SUMMED UP

Product Description:

• Type: Single-story modular building system

• Components:
  • Wall Panels: Galvanised chromadek sheeting with rockwool core (78 mm, 100 mm, or 150 mm thick)
  • Roof Panels: Chromadek sheeting with polystyrene core (75 mm or 100 mm thick)
  • Factory-fitted: Window and door frames (aluminium or Agrément-approved)
  • Surface-mounted: Plumbing and electrical conduits

• Foundation: Conventional raft foundation with thickened-edge beams (must be designed by a registered competent person)
• Roof spans >1900 mm: Also require a registered competent person

Building Categories:

• Category 1 Buildings: Fully applicable
• Non-Category 1 Buildings: Only the 150 mm external wall panels and 100 mm roof panels are permitted

FULL TEXT

DETAILS

LINK TO FULL NOTICE

Agrément South Africa: Approval of innovative construction products and systems: Panelman Modular Structures: Panelman Engineering (Pty) Ltd

G 53360 GoN 6628

19 September 2025

53360gon6628.pdf

ACTION

Actions for Government Departments & Municipalities

• Update procurement guidelines to include Agrément-certified modular systems for public infrastructure projects.
• Inform relevant departments (e.g., housing, education, health) about the availability of this certified system.
• Assess suitability for use in government-funded projects like schools, clinics, and housing.

Actions for Construction & Engineering Firms

• Review the Agrément certificate for technical specifications and compliance requirements.
• Train staff on the installation and design parameters of the Panelman system.
• Ensure registered competent persons are involved in foundation and roof span design as required.

Actions for Developers & Architects

• Incorporate the system into designs for Category 1 buildings (e.g., residential, temporary structures).
• For non-Category 1 buildings, use only the approved panel types (150 mm external walls and 100 mm roof panels).
• Consult with Agrément South Africa or structural engineers for compliance and design validation.

Actions for Regulatory Bodies

• Update building code references to reflect the approval of this system.
• Monitor compliance in projects using Panelman Modular Structures.
• Educate inspectors on the system’s specifications and limitations.

General Actions

• Disseminate the notice to relevant industry stakeholders.
• Access the full certificate via www.agrement.co.za for detailed technical data.
• Contact Agrément South Africa for clarifications or additional documentation.

HEALTH AND SAFETY

LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act:

Change in banking details, effective 1 August 2025

G 53360 GeN 3495

19 September 2025

APPLIES TO: 

All Employers, Beneficiaries, Service Providers and any other Stakeholders.

FULL TEXT

DETAILS

LINK TO FULL NOTICE

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act: Change in banking details, effective 1 August 2025

G 53360 GeN 3495

19 September 2025

53360gen3495.pdf

ACTION

Take note of the new bank account details.

LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE

Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act:

Declaration of controlled mines and risk work

G 53360 GoN 6625

19 September 2025

APPLIES TO: 

Mining industry

FULL TEXT

DETAILS

LINK TO FULL NOTICE

Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act: Declaration of controlled mines and risk work

G 53360 GoN 6625

19 September 2025

53360gon6625.pdf

ACTION

Take note of the list of controlled mines.

STANDARDS

LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE

National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act: Regulations:

Payment of levy and fees: Amendments

G 53360 GoN 6630

19 September 2025

APPLIES TO: 

1. Manufacturers of Electric Motors

• Companies producing electric motors with power ratings:
  • Between 0.75–3 kW
  • Greater than 3–375 kW

• They will need to comply with the updated tariffs and certification fees.

2. Importers and Exporters

• Businesses involved in international trade of electric motors must account for the revised tariffs when bringing products into or out of South Africa.

3. Distributors and Wholesalers

• Entities that sell or distribute electric motors locally will be affected by the cost changes due to the new levy structure.

4. Industrial and Commercial Users

• Companies in manufacturing, mining, agriculture, and utilities that use electric motors in their operations may face indirect cost increases.

5. Testing and Certification Bodies

• Organizations responsible for product certification under VC9113 will be impacted by the new certification type S tariff.

6. Regulatory and Compliance Consultants

• Professionals and firms advising on compliance with compulsory specifications will need to update their guidance based on the new fee structure.

SUMMED UP

Purpose of the Notice:

To correct tariff information published in Government Notice No. 6235 in Gazette No. 52750 (dated 30 May 2025) regarding levies and fees for compulsory specifications in the electrotechnical sector.

Corrected Tariff Details:

Original (to be replaced):

• Code 7823: Electric motors (0.75–3kW), VC 9113 → R8.26 per item
• Code 7824: Electric motors (0.75–3kW), VC 9113 → R12.46 per item

Corrected Version:

FULL TEXT

DETAILS

LINK TO FULL NOTICE

National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act: Regulations: Payment of levy and fees: Amendments

G 53360 GoN 6630

19 September 2025

53360gon6630.pdf

ACTION

Take note of the new set of levies and fees.

LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE

National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act: Regulations:

Payment of levy and fees with regard to compulsory specifications: Amendments

G 53371 GoN 6640

19 September 2025

APPLIES TO: 

1. Manufacturers of Electric Motors

• Companies producing electric motors with power ratings:
  • Between 0.75–3 kW
  • Greater than 3–375 kW

• They will need to comply with the updated tariffs and certification fees.

2. Importers and Exporters

• Businesses involved in international trade of electric motors must account for the revised tariffs when bringing products into or out of South Africa.

3. Distributors and Wholesalers

• Entities that sell or distribute electric motors locally will be affected by the cost changes due to the new levy structure.

4. Industrial and Commercial Users

• Companies in manufacturing, mining, agriculture, and utilities that use electric motors in their operations may face indirect cost increases.

5. Testing and Certification Bodies

• Organizations responsible for product certification under VC9113 will be impacted by the new certification type S tariff.

6. Regulatory and Compliance Consultants

• Professionals and firms advising on compliance with compulsory specifications will need to update their guidance based on the new fee structure.

FULL TEXT

DETAILS

LINK TO FULL NOTICE

National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act: Regulations: Payment of levy and fees with regard to compulsory specifications: Amendments

G 53371 GoN 6640

19 September 2025

53371gon6640.pdf

ACTION

Take note of the new set of levies and fees.

TRANSPORATION

LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE

Railway Safety Act:

Determination of format, form, and content of required safety management system for different categories and types of safety permits and form, content, and manner of submission of safety management system report

G 53360 GoN 6632

19 September 2025

APPLIES TO: 

Primary Railway Operators

These are the core entities directly regulated under the Railway Safety Act:

1.     Network Operators

o   Responsible for the safety, design, construction, maintenance, and integrity of railway networks.

o   Authorize and direct the safe movement of rolling stock.

2.     Train Operators

o   Accountable for the safe movement and integrity of rolling stock.

o   Responsible for the safety of freight and passengers.

3.     Station Operators

o   Manage and control railway stations and associated operations.

4.     Other Designated Entities

o   Any other category of persons designated by the Minister via Gazette notice as requiring a safety permit.

Supporting and Interfacing Organizations

These entities are not primary operators but are legally required to comply with SMS standards due to their operational roles:

1.     Contractors and Subcontractors

o   Involved in design, construction, maintenance, or operation of railway systems.

o   Must meet the same safety standards as Operators.

2.     Suppliers and Service Providers

o   Provide railway-related equipment, systems, or services.

o   Must be selected and monitored based on safety compliance.

3.     Consignors and Consignees of Dangerous Goods

o   Entities involved in the transport of hazardous materials by rail.

o   Must follow strict packaging, documentation, and handling protocols.

4.     Emergency Services and Security Agencies

o   Participate in contingency planning, emergency response, and security management.

5.     Public Authorities and Regulatory Bodies

o   Interface with Operators on shared infrastructure (e.g., ports, interchanges).

o   May be involved in approvals, inspections, or joint operations.

6.     Independent Assessors

o   Required for significant projects to audit compliance across all life cycle phases.

Organizations Across the Project Life Cycle

Any organisation involved in the design, construction, operation, maintenance, modification, or decommissioning of railway systems is affected:

• Engineering firms
• Technology providers
• Asset managers
• Environmental consultants
• Training institutions
• Auditing and certification bodies

Purpose & Legal Basis

• Issued under Section 37 of the Railway Safety Act, 2024 (Act No. 30 of 2024).
• Establishes mandatory requirements for Safety Management Systems (SMS) and Safety Management System Reports (SMSR).
• Applies to all railway operators: Network Operators, Train Operators, Station Operators, and others designated by the Minister.

What Is an SMS?

A Safety Management System is a formal framework that integrates safety into daily railway operations. It includes:

• Safety goals and performance targets
• Risk assessments
• Roles and responsibilities
• Rules and procedures
• Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms

What Is an SMS Report (SMSR)?

A written submission required for safety permit applications that:

• Describes the operator’s SMS
• Demonstrates compliance with legal and regulatory requirements
• Must be reviewed and updated regularly

Please click on the link provided below to view the full document.

LINK TO FULL NOTICE

Railway Safety Act: Determination of format, form, and content of required safety management system for different categories and types of safety permits and form, content, and manner of submission of safety management system report

G 53360 GoN 6632

19 September 2025

53360gon6632.pdf

CONTRACTS AND ROYALTIES ARTICLES

SOUTH AFRICA

Revealed — music publishing giants implicated in report on R62m irregular royalty claims at Samro

In 2022, the Southern African Music Rights Organisation COO, Mpho Mofikoe, commissioned an investigation into allegations of irregular royalty claims amounting to R62m by four of its board members and 56 other publishers or composers/authors. Upon its completion, Samro immediately buried the report, a copy of which Daily Maverick has finally obtained. This is the first instalment in a series of stories unpacking the report’s findings.

In 2020, the Southern African Music Rights Organisation (Samro) launched a new digital platform that opened up its entire undocumented works catalogue to all 156,000+ of its members, instead of just the larger music publishers who dominate the industry.

Despite Samro’s stated good intention of opening the portal to make the claims process easier and more transparent for members, this proved to be a catastrophic decision.

“These royalties are not the property of Samro but belong to our members and cannot remain unclaimed indefinitely,” wrote the organisation in a prepared response to questions from Daily Maverick. “Allowing members to claim their works ensures that the rightful owners receive their due compensation.”

In 2022, almost R62-million in claims made via the platform were investigated by Fundudzi Forensic Services, triggered by a multimillion-rand payment to a company called Sheer Publishing, which was intercepted and deemed irregular.

According to Fundudzi’s report, “Members claimed a combined amount of R61,985,176 for the GY2020 to FY2022 period; of [that] R31,384,854 was paid by Samro.”

Crucially, the report stated, “There is no indication that [the] members [who were] paid submitted proof of copyright for the works claimed.” The report called for further investigation.

Two of the world’s largest music publishers, Sony Music Publishing and Universal Music Publishing Group, were collectively implicated to the tune of millions. Whether their claims were fraudulent or not is the subject of ongoing investigations. These publishers’ record labels have been embroiled in various scandals in South Africa over the past 15 years.

A tsunami of broken data links 

Samro was established in 1961 to ensure artists, composers, authors and publishers of music receive royalty payments whenever their work airs in a public manner or forum. In 2024, those royalty revenues amounted to R683.8-million, according to the organisation.

Those hundreds of millions of rands represent millions of songs, and hundreds of thousands of artists, composers and publishers. In short, a tsunami of data to process, week in and week out. Unfortunately, those data are the only link artists have to the asset they have created after it’s been released into the world — and the system is extremely easy to abuse.

The system Samro has built to administer that tsunami of data links is, confoundingly, still manual in many ways. Administrators receive data that’s been filled in by a radio station manager or a big-box store clerk, sometimes digitally, sometimes by hand. Samro still keeps physical lists of whose songs were played where and for how long.

Administrative mistakes, like leaving the “l” out of the surname of an artist named Katlego or the “g” out of Lategaan, disconnect that unique piece of music from its creator. The link is broken. That piece of music is known as “undoc” — undocumented work. It has earned royalties, but its creator may not know that and, as a result, doesn’t claim them.

To make matters more complicated, there are very few songs on the airwaves that have been made by a single person. The asset is “split” into percentages of ownership. The work’s inherent value belongs in part to the person who wrote the melody or the lyrics; in part to the person who sang it into a studio microphone or laid down a drum track for it, and in part to the person who was asked to publish it, so that it could obtain a commercial value in the first place.

That complex piece of undoc becomes just one of a catalogue of other undocumented works that contains everything from Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos to radio jingles for kitchen cleaners. In other words, a pool of assets so large, opaque and difficult to administer that it can only be classified as a slush fund, as this reporting will reveal.

In the 2021/2022 financial year alone, Samro declared R24-million worth of works undoc, according to the forensic report.

A vending machine of musical works 

A musical work in undoc is like a soda inside a giant vending machine. In theory, if you can prove it’s yours with documentation, it gets released, drops to the dispenser, and you can take it out and claim it. But the “Forensic investigations into allegations of irregular payments of undocumented works”, completed in July 2023 by Fundudzi Forensic Services and now in Daily Maverick’s possession, shows just how easy it could be for Samro’s vending machine to be robbed blind. It also shows how its own employees and board members could have been some of the first to try to shake it down.

Instead of accidentally leaving the “l” out of Katlego or the “g” out of Lategaan, publishers and artists, some of whom were Samro board members, were working with employees on the inside to purposely take them out — changing data in subtle ways, to help them claim works as their own, or claiming works with obscure or general-sounding titles to begin with.

Before the new “undoc claim tool” was launched in 2020, it was only larger publishers, some represented by the board, who were able to access undocumented works.

Daily Maverick can now reveal that Sheer Publishing has been recommended for criminal investigation “in respect of undocumented musical works” that had been claimed, which were “alleged to have been irregular”, between 2020 and 2022.

The report found that Sheer Publishing made these irregular claims on behalf of several different clients, who are all included in the top 60 list — evidence of which will be laid out in an upcoming story.

The report also revealed how Sheer and others could have gone about making those claims, several of which were flagged and intercepted before they could be paid out. The report found that a manager named Clint Louw worked at Samro until March 2018, according to the organisation, and was subsequently “recruited by David Alexander and [Sheer stakeholder relations manager] Mandrew Mnguni to work for Sheer Publishing as a consultant”.

He also went on to work for Sony Music Publishing, which the report also recommended for further investigation. Sony Music Publishing, headquartered in New York, is the world’s largest music publishing company.

Louw did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and Sony Music Publishing declined to comment as the investigation is ongoing.

In a written response to questions, Alexander defended the recruitment of Louw as a necessity and “a common practice for large publishers to use consultants to assist with the practical challenges of properly analysing the undocumented claims.

“These large publishers are responsible for significant amounts of data, which has resulted in practical challenges,” he wrote. “It is for this reason that many large publishing organisations, including Sheer Publishing, have had to use individuals that would assist in the process of working through the information on the portal, to help serve their writers as much as possible, despite these challenges.”

Despite having been a Samro employee at a managerial level, Louw told investigators he was “of the view that members can submit claims against undocumented works, even though [they] do not have any proof that such works belong to them.” Should they be caught out, “such claims can simply be reversed without any consequences”, he told them.

Louw also revealed to investigators that, while at Samro until his resignation in 2018, his clients included David Alexander and Mandrew Mnguni of Sheer Publishing, Rowlin Naicker at Sony Music Publishing and EMI and Ryan Hill at Universal Publishing, as well as the local record label Gallo.

Hill did not respond to a request for comment.

Alexander wrote that Sheer was as defrauded as Samro and the rights-holders were, because Louw abused his role and his access to Sheer’s database to misdirect claims, despite having been hired to assist in the legitimate process of “making accurate claims on the undoc list”.

Alexander, Mnguni, Naicker and Hill are all past and present board members of Samro, and were all sitting board members at the time the Fundudzi investigation was commissioned.

Alexander served from 2018 until 2022, and Mnguni from 2021. In an extraordinary general meeting on 10 July, the then board chair, Nicholas Maweni, told Samro members that Alexander and Mnguni had been asked to resign, a claim which Alexander denies, saying he stepped down because his term was up. Naicker and Ryan were removed from the board in July 2025 by member vote, but were reinstated in August.

Damage control 

In the course of its investigation — which Samro tasked COO Mpho Mofikoe with setting up, before suspending her earlier this year — Fundudzi investigators identified 60 publishers and authors or composers who submitted “the most value of undocumented works” and “the highest number of claims from undocumented works”. Where they identified possible fraudulent activities, they recommended that criminal charges be opened.

Mofikoe was suspended before all 60 of those implicated could be fully investigated by Fundudzi investigators or the Hawks, who launched an investigation of their own. According to the report, “the investigation only covered a small part of undocumented works”.

On June 22, 2023, ostensibly on the basis of the Fundudzi recommendations, an affidavit filed in the public domain at Hillbrow Police Station shows that Mofikoe opened a case with the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, “in accordance with [her] obligations as Chief Operating Officer as well as for and on behalf of [her] employer, Samro with the view to complying with section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 2004”.

In the affidavit, Mofikoe confirmed that publishers and composer/authors who submitted irregular claims were “paid for the works claimed, even though the works did not belong to them … by misrepresentation”, and that “the criminal elements of fraud … is reasonably suspected [but] subject to formal criminal investigation [sic].”

The affidavit further stated that Mofikoe had been formally tasked by Samro to first investigate fraud allegations and then to open a criminal case.

In the forensic report, its authors state that, in its primary role to administer royalties to its members, “any allegations of irregularities made in relation to how Samro deals with its members … should be dealt with decisively by the organisation”.

Instead, Samro buried the report — although it denies this — and suspended Mofikoe two weeks after she revealed details from the investigation at an extraordinary general meeting. Samro said in its response to questions that Mofikoe’s suspension was “precautionary … to allow for a thorough internal investigation into allegations of misconduct”.

By Diana Neille

Daily Maverick

FINANCE ARTICLES

SOUTH AFRICA

SARS issues new mandatory requirement for businesses in South Africa

South African VAT vendors have been reminded of the new compliance rules, which include mandatory VAT apportionment reporting to SARS.

This is according to tax experts at ENS, Africa’s largest law firm with over 600 practitioners and more than 200 years’ experience.

The South African Revenue Service (SARS) has introduced a new compliance obligation for VAT vendors through Binding General Ruling 16 (BGR16) Issue 3, published on 27 November 2023.

This updated ruling, which replaces Issue 2, applies to all financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2024.

It sets out the standard turnover-based method for determining a vendor’s annual apportionment ratio but also introduces new exclusions, adjustments, and a mandatory reporting requirement that vendors cannot afford to ignore.

A key feature of Issue 3 is the introduction of a compulsory “true-up” adjustment.

The experts explained that vendors who use the previous year’s turnover to calculate the current year’s apportionment ratio must adjust for any differences between the provisional and final ratios within nine months of their financial year-end.

This true-up adjustment is included in the vendor’s month eight VAT return, which is due at the end of month nine.

For example, a vendor with a financial year ending 31 December 2024 will need to reflect its true-up adjustment in the August 2025 VAT return, due by the last business day of September 2025 if filed via e-filing.

Failure to make this adjustment exposes vendors to compliance risks and possible penalties. In addition to the adjustment, vendors now face a new mandatory reporting requirement.

Note 8 of Issue 3 obliges vendors to submit detailed VAT apportionment information to SARS at the same time the true-up adjustment is reflected in their VAT return.

This submission must be made by email to the address specified in the ruling and must include the vendor’s registered name, VAT registration number, the apportionment method and formula applied, and the annual apportionment ratio for the year.

How to remain compliant

Importantly, ENS added that vendors applying the new formula for the first time must also provide SARS with the apportionment methods and ratios for the preceding three financial years.

For instance, a vendor with a December 2024 year-end will, in September 2025, need to submit its 2024 apportionment details together with the ratios and formulas for 2021, 2022, and 2023.

This requirement adds a layer of historical reporting that many businesses may not have anticipated.

The changes brought by Issue 3 are particularly relevant for businesses with mixed supplies, where both taxable and exempt activities are involved.

The law firm stressed that the new exclusions and adjustments to the apportionment calculation could significantly alter the ratio, making accuracy even more critical.

Vendors must calculate and apply the true-up adjustment correctly and ensure that the supporting information submitted to SARS is complete and accurate.

Tax specialists have warned that the additional obligations may increase the compliance burden on vendors, particularly smaller businesses with limited resources.

Given the technical nature of VAT apportionment, vendors are strongly advised to seek guidance from experienced tax practitioners.

The introduction of BGR16 Issue 3 aims at improving compliance and tightening reporting standards for VAT vendors.

From January 2024, all vendors must adapt to these rules, with the first round of true-up adjustments and mandatory reporting due in September 2025.

ENS noted that businesses that act early, keep detailed records, and consult with tax experts will be best positioned to remain compliant and avoid unnecessary disputes with SARS.

Malcolm Libera

Businesstech

LABOUR ARTICLES

SOUTH AFRICA

South Africa’s new employment equity targets face another major legal battle

Business Unity South Africa (BUSA) is the next business interest group to take on the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) over its sectoral employment equity targets.

The targets came into effect from 1 September 2025, requiring all businesses in South Africa, employing more than 50 people, to work out a five-year plan to make their workforces demographically representative.

The targets prescribe a set percentage of representation in the workforce, requiring businesses to restructure accordingly.

The department set out specific numerical targets across 18 industries in South Africa that businesses must fill with ‘designated employees’.

These designated groups include black (African, Coloured and Indian), female and disabled workers.

For example, after five years, businesses in the accommodation and food service sector should have 56.7% of top management be from these ‘designated groups’—38.1% of which should be female.

The same industry should have 78.3% of senior management reflect these groups. 84.7% of professional and middle-management positions and 95.9% of skilled technical employees should also reflect individuals from designated groups.

The targets were announced in April 2025 and have already been challenged legally by business lobby Sakeliga and the National Employers Association of South Africa (Neasa).

While the groups have failed in their first court bid to stop the targets from being implemented, they are now trying to get the matter directly to the Constitutional Court.

BUSA’s legal challenge will now add to the pile of legal proceedings.

However, unlike Sakeliga and Neasa, BUSA does not oppose the Employment Equity Act or the targets in principle, but is homing in on the DEL’s implementation.

Specifically, the group said it has been forced to go the legal route to challenge the targets because the department’s consultations with stakeholders ended up being performative, ignoring glaring issues raised.

“In BUSA’s view, the current sector targets are fatally flawed both substantively and procedurally. If allowed to stand, they risk undermining the very goal of an inclusive, transformed economy,” it said.

Performative consultation with business

The group said it had tried to engage with the department in good faith, but what was supposed to be a meaningful consultation ended up as a “presentation” and “performative engagement”.

It said it raised several issues with the targets and the laws, which were simply left unresolved by the department. These included:

• Limited consultation time: Employers were given less than a week to respond; most received draft targets the night before meetings, which lasted only an hour.
• Insufficient information on methodology: The DEL has failed to provide sufficient explanation for how it calculated the targets or the demographic assumptions used. For example, the EE disability target was raised to 3% without DEL providing sufficient supporting data or adequately explaining how this figure was reached, despite acknowledging the lack of disability statistics.
• Insufficient sectoral analysis: Limited assessment conducted to determine whether targets were achievable across industry-specific realities.
• Conflicting compliance frameworks: The targets are not aligned with B-BBEE sector codes, creating regulatory confusion.
• One-size-fits-all targets: DEL’s refusal to differentiate among subsectors ignores operational, geographic, and structural diversity.

“Poorly developed targets risk damaging vital sectors of the economy. If targets are unrealistic or not based on the skills available in each sector, companies may find themselves unable to comply,” BUSA said.

“This creates uncertainty and weakens the integrity of the regulatory process, ultimately undermining the transformation and inclusion that the Employment Equity Act is meant to achieve.”

The business group stressed that it was not trying to undermine the EEA or to work against sectoral transformation. It added that it continues to work with the government to address these issues.

However, it said that rushed, opaque, and procedurally irregular processes not only fail the test of legality but also work against transformation by making compliance impractical and unenforceable.

“The need for transformation is urgent, but urgency must not become recklessness,” it said.

“We’re acting now to protect the credibility of equity policy. Unworkable targets do not advance transformation. They deepen frustration and erode trust in public policy.”

Businesstech

SOUTH AFRICA

Remarks by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mmamoloko Kubayi, on the occasion of her participation in a Webinar convened by Judges Matter on Judicial Reforms, 20 September 2025

In his address at Constitutional Hill, Braamfontein, at the occasion of the celebration of 30 year anniversary celebration of the constitutional court, President Cyril Ramaphosa made the following observation:

“The Bench,… not unlike any other sector in society, will have borne witness to the many debates around transformation, around judicial demographics, and around access to the courts by citizens. The Court has at times found itself dragged into political controversies and has had to manage occasional frictions with the executive over the separation of powers.

“And yet amidst all these, the constitutional court has not been shaken, but stood firm as a credit to the democratic order. What has defined the Constitutional Court that we are proud of is not just the wisdom of its judgments, but the courage of its convictions. It has withstood political pressure, defended the separation of powers, and asserted that no person or institution is above the Constitution. It has done so with a steady voice, grounded in reason, compassion, and principle.”

This was a correct observation and it bears testimony to the judicial independence which our courts have enjoyed in the more than thirsty years of democracy. The judiciary has been at the centre of a new rights-based society in the making which it has shaped and also been shaped by it.

Our courts, especially the constitutional court, have been able to be a steady voice, grounded in reason, compassion and principle without interference from the executive even in cases where the executive vehemently disagreed with the decisions courts.

The debate on judicial governance and court administration within the context of an independent Judiciary has been ongoing since the advent of democracy. The principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary lie at the heart of this debate.

Constitution entrenches and guarantees the independence of the Judiciary and at the same time mandates all Organs of State, through legislative and other measures, to protect courts to ensure their dignity, impartiality, accessibility and effectiveness as per the Section 165 (2) and (4) of the Constitution.

Institutional reforms relating to judicial governance and court administration constitute part of judicial transformation packages aimed at establishing a judicial system suited for our constitutional democracy as mandated by the Constitution.

A meeting was convened by the President on 06 June 2025 between the Executive and the Judiciary to advance the process to ensure institutional independence by accelerating efforts to create a single judiciary, and enhancing the capacity of the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, and High Courts.

Sequel to this meeting, it was agreed that a Task Team comprising the executive and the judiciary would guide the process of transferring identified functions from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to the office of the chief Justice (OCJ) as well as the draft Bill that would serve as the enabling legislation to facilitate the institutional independence of the Judiciary.

This process has been initiated with the understanding that the Constitution dictates that the governance of the Judiciary and administration of the Courts placed under the authority of the Judiciary itself. In this respect, judicial independence includes institutional independence which can only be achieved if the Judiciary enjoys structural including financial and operational independence.

Both the Glenister and Sonke judgments imposes an obligation on the State to take reasonable steps to establish and maintain independent bodies to safeguard fundamental rights. Iindependent institutions must be funded by Parliament free from Executive control. Accounting officers of independent institutions should be accountable to Parliament and not to any government department.

Currently, Section 54(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 2013 empowers the Chief Justice to make requests for funds needed for the administration of the courts, after consulting with the Heads of Courts.

These requests should be submitted to the Minister who must consider and address such requests. The Judiciary argues that section 54(1) of the Superior Courts Act leaves the Minister as the gatekeeper of the OCJ’s budget making. The prevailing belief is that the current OCJ funding model is at odds with the requirement of financial independence.

It is for this reason that the current process led by the task team is aimed at conferring the Judiciary with full scope of competencies required to perform its functions such as HR Management, effect maintenance on court buildings, procure goods and services including capacity to tender, adjudicate bids and acquire equipment, furniture, technical systems and other assets.

Secondly, the Judiciary must be capacitated by a similar legislative framework applicable to Parliament, such as the FMPPLA. Under FMPPLA both Speaker and Chair of the NCOP are jointly the Executive Authority over Parliament and accountable to Parliament to ensure sound financial management.

Secretary of Parliament is the Accounting Officer, accountable to the Executive Authority. An oversight mechanism has been established to maintain oversight of the financial management of Parliament. National Treasury and the Minister of Finance assume a consultative role when budgetary proposals for Parliament are submitted.

A substantially similar dispensation should be enacted for the Judiciary. Under this model it is proposed that the Secretary General will appear before Committees of Parliament to account for the finances. The enabling legislation must provide for financial and operational independence of the superior courts administration promoting governance mechanisms and appropriate checks and balances. OCJ should be a permanent independent entity separate from the Executive authority under the aegis of the Judiciary.

OCJ will be required to administer and provide support to the courts generally, including but not limited to the provision of, information technology services; corporate and logistic services; case flow management; infrastructure services and resource management; operational support; management and maintenance services in respect of court buildings and OCJ offices and premises, including court libraries and other facilities. They also be required to manage human resources; and manage the budgeting and accounting of the courts and the OCJ.

Since the formation of the task team to work on the transition to an administrative and operationally independent Judiciary significant progress has been made to make this vision a reality.

It has been agreed between the Department and the OCJ that the transfer of functions from the Department to OCJ should be done in phases.

Phase 1 will involve the immediate transfer of shared services relating to the Superior Courts from the Department to the OCJ.

These shared services are not provided for in any legislative instrument and the transfer could be effected through a directive from the Minister to the Accounting Officers of the Department and the OCJ.
Phase 1 transfer will be effective from 01 April 2026.

Phase 2 involves, amongst others, the operationalization of legislation aimed at clothing the Judiciary with full institutional independence including the creation of a single Judiciary.

With regards to Phase 2, it is envisaged that the team will have the first draft bill before the end of this year. Concerning the lower courts, we are cognisant that the transfer of the District and Regional courts to the OCJ may be a complex matter.

However, in line with the vision of creating a single judiciary, we believe the transfer of the lower courts to the OCJ will make the judiciary stronger and independent as a third arm of the state.

To this effect, an audit of court-related functions to be transferred to the OCJ has been conducted which indicated that the magistrate commission and various functions performed in respect of court operations at national and provincial level should be transferred to the OCJ.

As I conclude, I would like to reaffirm, on behalf of the executive, our commitment to safeguarding and supporting the independence of the judiciary. We also committed to the creation of a single judiciary that is administratively and operationally independent and led by the judiciary.