Dear Subscribers,
Below are the latest Gazette happenings,
Please see the attached link to a more detailed PDF version of the weekly Gazette and Newsflash for 23 – 28 May 2025:
LC-Gazette and Newsflash 23 – 28 May 2025
|
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
Electronic Communications Act: Proposed policy direction to Independent Communications Authority of South Africa on Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment: Comments invited Independent Communications Authority of South Africa: Appointment of the Councillors of Independent Communications of South Africa State Information Technology Agency Act: Regulations: Amendments
|
|
FINANCE Tax Administration Act: Returns to be submitted
|
|
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act: Letters of Good Standing validity for 2024 return of earnings season: Further extension. |
|
LATEST’S ARTICLES
Malatsi clarifies B-BBEE policy direction. You don’t have to sell shares, but you do have to buy in Watchdog probes illegal use of Starlink service in South Africa How to ensure the lawful cancellation of credit transactions CalRecycle Reissues Draft SB 54 Regulations Targeting California’s Plastic Packaging EPR Program The delay of prescription in claims between close corporations and its members Summary of Health Care Provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” CMMI Unveils New Strategic Direction: Preventive Care, Patient Empowerment, and Competition RAF ‘deliberately withholding’ information from Scopa Gauteng High Court rules against controversial CaseLines tender
|
Alison and The Legal Team
CONTENTS
Competition Act: Notification decision to approve merger: 02 Mergers
Competition Act: Approves mergers
Competition Act: Approved mergers
State Information Technology Agency Act: Regulations: Amendments
Tax Administration Act: Returns to be submitted (English / Afrikaans)
National Policy on Heritage Memorialisation: Comments invited
Employment Equity Act: 2024 Employment Equity Public Register: Correction
Employment Equity Act: 2024 Employment Equity Public Register
Private Hospitals 2025 – 2026: Amendment for Private Hospitals
National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act: Compulsory Specification for Dried Abalone
Malatsi clarifies B-BBEE policy direction. You don’t have to sell shares, but you do have to buy in
Watchdog probes illegal use of Starlink service in South Africa
How to ensure the lawful cancellation of credit transactions
CalRecycle Reissues Draft SB 54 Regulations Targeting California’s Plastic Packaging EPR Program
The delay of prescription in claims between close corporations and its members
Summary of Health Care Provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”
CMMI Unveils New Strategic Direction: Preventive Care, Patient Empowerment, and Competition
RAF ‘deliberately withholding’ information from Scopa
Gauteng High Court rules against controversial CaseLines tender
COMPETITION
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
Competition Act: Various approved Mergers.
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
Competition Act: Notification decision to approve merger: 02 MergersG 52712 GeN 3220 23 May 2025
Competition Act: Approves mergersG 52712 GeN 3221 23 May 2025
Competition Act: Approved mergersG 52712 GeN 3222 23 May 2025
|
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
Electronic Communications Act:
Proposed policy direction to Independent Communications Authority of South Africa on Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment: Comments invited
G. 52712 GeN 3218
– Comment by 22 Jun 2025
|
|
APPLIES TO:
1. ICT SECTOR ENTERPRISES
These include:
2. MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS
3. LICENSE HOLDERS UNDER THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS ACT
4. PUBLIC ENTITIES AND ORGANS OF STATE
5. HISTORICALLY DISADVANTAGED GROUPS (HDGS) AND BLACK-OWNED ENTERPRISES
|
|
SUMMED UP
Purpose of the Policy Direction
Key Objectives
1. Encourage investment in strategic ICT infrastructure. 2. Promote competition and innovation in the sector. 3. Ensure regulatory certainty and harmonization with national laws. 4. Expand broadband access, particularly in underserved areas. 5. Recognize equity equivalent investment programmes as valid B-BBEE contributions.
Legal Framework
Issues Identified
Policy Direction to ICASA
|
|
FULL TEXT |
|
DETAILS
SCHEDULE
PROPOSED POLICY DIRECTION TO THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA ON BROAD-BASED BLACK ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT
1. Background
1.1 The purpose of this policy direction is to clarify the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies’ position on broad-based black economic empowerment including the recognition of equity equivalent investment programmes.
1.2 This is part of an initiative to significantly expand access to broadband connectivity to poor South Africans and people living in remote parts of the country.
1.3 World Bank research shows that, on average, every 10% increase in broadband penetration results in 1.21% GDP growth in middle income countries such as South Africa. Broadband access makes it easier for people to start businesses, grow businesses, seek employment, work remotely, and market goods and services. Giving millions of South Africans access to broadband would therefore constitute one of the biggest empowerment programmes the South African government has ever undertaken.
1.4 The focus of this policy direction is on lowering regulatory hurdles to investment in reliable broadband and ensuring access to the internet. This is in line with the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Codes of Good Practice which recognise that the global nature of multinational corporations’ operations may constrain their ability to comply with equity ownership requirements. Equity equivalent investment programmes, recognised in the Amended Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) ICT Sector Code published in Government Notice No. 1387, Government Gazette No. 40407 of 07 November 2016 (ICT Sector Code) and other sector codes, provide an avenue for factoring in alternative ways for multinational companies to make an impact on South Africa’s socio-economic development.
1.5 Policy clarity on the recognition of equity equivalent investment programmes has long been sought by multinational operators in the ICT industry. This will provide the certainty necessary to attract increased investment in ICT and accelerate universal internet access.
2. Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Framework
2.1 Section 9(2)(b) of the Electronic Communications Act, 2005 (Act No. 36 of 2005) (ECA) provides that individual licences must include the percentage of equity ownership to be held by persons from historically disadvantaged groups, which must not be less than 30%, or such other conditions or higher percentage as may be prescribed under section 4(3)(k) of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Act, 2000 (Act No. 13 of 2000)(ICASA Act).
2.2 Section 4(3)(k) of the ICASA Act provides that the Authority may make regulations on empowerment requirements to promote broad-based black economic empowerment. Broad-based black economic empowerment has the meaning assigned to it in the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, 2003 (Act No. 53 of 2003) (B-BBEE Act).
2.3 The Authority has opted to prescribe regulations on empowerment requirements to promote broad based black economic empowerment under section 4(3)(k) of the ICASA Act and published the Regulations in respect of the Limitations of Control and Equity Ownership by Historically Disadvantaged Groups (HDG) and the Application of the ICT Sector Code in General Notice No. 170, Government Gazette No. 44382 of 31 March 2021, as amended.
2.4 The use of the word ‘or’ in section 9(2)(b) of the ECA is peremptory, and therefore the requirement for equity ownership by historically disadvantaged groups is replaced by the option of adopting regulations prescribed under section 4(3)(k) of the ICASA Act.
2.5 In addition, the B-BBEE Act provides in section 10 that every organ of state and public entity must apply any relevant code of good practice issued in terms of the B-BBEE Act in determining qualification criteria for the issuing of licences, concessions or other authorisations in respect of economic activity in terms of any law. It further provides that an enterprise in a sector in respect of which a sector Code of Good Practice has been issued, may only be measured for compliance with the requirements of broad based black economic empowerment in accordance with that code.
2.6 It follows that enterprises in the ICT sector may only be measured for compliance with the requirements of broad-based black economic empowerment in accordance with the Amended Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) ICT Sector Code.
2.7 The Regulations in respect of the Limitations of Control and Equity Ownership by Historically Disadvantaged Groups (HDG) and the Application of the ICT Sector Code contradict the legal framework for broad-based black economic empowerment by prescribing equity ownership requirements by historically disadvantaged groups and black people and do not recognise compliance with the ICT Sector Code in respects other than ownership.
2.8 The broad-based black economic empowerment status level of an entity is the accepted method to measure overall performance against the ICT Sector Code and promotes broad-based black economic empowerment, including through equity equivalent investment programmes.
3. Policy Direction
3.1 The Authority is hereby directed, in terms of section 3(2) of the Electronic Communications Act, 2005 (Act No. 36 of 2005) to urgently consider alignment of the Regulations in respect of the Limitations of Control and Equity Ownership by Historically Disadvantaged Groups (HDG) and the Application of the ICT Sector Code, with the Amended Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) ICT Sector Code. |
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
Electronic Communications Act: Proposed policy direction to Independent Communications Authority of South Africa on Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment: Comments invited
G. 52712 GeN 3218 – Comment by 22 Jun 2025
|
|
ACTION
Ensure that you submit your comments before 22 June 2025.
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
Independent Communications Authority of South Africa:
Appointment of the Councillors of Independent Communications of South Africa
G 52739 GoN 6223
28 May 2025
|
|
FULL TEXT |
|
DETAILS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS
NO. 6223 28 May 2025
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS AND DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES
APPOINTMENT OF THE COUNCILLORS OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
I, Solly Malatsi, MP, the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, hereby give notice of the appointment of Dr Charles Lewis, Dr Joshua Tshifhiwa Maumela, Ms Karabo Mohale and Mr Andrew Dibi Matseke as councillors of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) for a period of four (4) years with effect from the date of their availability in line with section 5(1B)(c) of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, 2000 (Act No. 13 of 2000) as amended. _____________________________ Solly Malatsi, MP Minister of Communications & Digital Technologies Date: 22 May 2025
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
Independent Communications Authority of South Africa: Appointment of the Councillors of Independent Communications of South AfricaG 52739 GoN 6223 28 May 2025
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
State Information Technology Agency Act:
Regulations: Amendments
G 52720 P 261
23 May 2025
|
|
APPLIES TO:
1. All National and Provincial Government Departments
2. State Information Technology Agency (SITA)
3. National Treasury and Provincial Treasuries
4. Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT)
5. Other Public Sector Entities
|
|
SUMMED UP
This proclamation introduces Regulation 17.8 under Section 23 of the State Information Technology Agency (SITA) Act, 1998, focusing on the efficiency of procurement of IT goods and services by government departments.
Main Provisions of Regulation 17.8:
1. Departmental Autonomy in Procurement:
· If a department believes that SITA cannot meet its needs or that it can procure faster or cheaper under general procurement laws (e.g., PFMA, PPPFA, or the new Public Procurement Act of 2024), it may notify SITA in writing. · The notice must include a business case, user requirements, and the required delivery timeline.
2. SITA’s Response Obligation:
· SITA must respond within 10 working days with: · Confirmation of capacity to deliver, · A procurement schedule, · Cost estimates.
3. Departmental Decision-Making:
· If SITA fails to respond, cannot meet the timeline, or the department still believes it can procure more efficiently, it may proceed independently—after notifying SITA and the relevant treasury.
4. Compliance with Standards:
· Departments must still adhere to any applicable IT standards set by SITA.
5. Coordination if SITA is Used:
· If the department chooses to proceed with SITA after receiving a positive response, it must formally notify SITA to begin procurement.
Effective Date: 1 June 2025
|
|
FULL TEXT |
|
DETAILS
PROCLAMATION NOTICE 261 OF 2025
REGULATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 23 OF THE STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGENCY ACT, 1998, AS AMENDED
I, Solly Malatsi, the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, hereby, after consultation with the relevant stakeholders and the Minister of Finance, insert the following in the General Regulations published under section 23 of the State Information Technology Act, 1998, as amended:
17.8 EFFICIENCY OF PROCUREMENT
17.8.1 If a designated department having complied with regulation 8.1.1, is of the opinion that –
(a) the Agency will not be able to satisfy the department’s requirements; or
(b) the department, in accordance with –
(i) the Public Finance Management Act and its regulations and instructions, and the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and its regulations; or
(ii) on commencement of the Public Procurement Act, 2024 (Act No. 28 of 2024), that Act and its regulations and instructions, (herein called “the general procurement prescripts”), will be able to do so faster or at a lower cost, the department may give written notice to the Agency.
The notice must set out the business case and the user requirement specifications, and the period within which the department requires the information technology goods or services.
17.8.2 Following the receipt of a notice to the Agency in terms of regulation 17.8.1 –
(a) the Agency must respond to the department within 10 working days indicating whether it has the capacity to procure the information technology goods or services required by the department within the period specified by the department, and if so the procurement schedule and the costing, envisaged in regulation 8.2.1;
(b) if the Agency –
(i) does not respond within 10 working days referred to in paragraph (a); or
(ii) responds to indicate that it is unable to meet the department’s requirements within the period specified by the department; or
(iii) responds that it is able to procure the information technology goods or services required by the department within the period specified by the department and provides the procurement schedule for doing so and cost, but the department, is of the opinion that it can nonetheless procure the required information technology goods or services in accordance with the general procurement prescripts faster, or at a lower cost, the department may proceed to procure the required information technology goods or services in accordance with the general procurement prescripts, after notifying the Agency and the relevant treasury of its decision.
17.8.3 17.8.4
When a department acquires goods or services in terms of regulation 17.8.2 the department must comply with any applicable standards set by the Agency in terms of section 7(6)(a) of the Act and are in force at that time.
If the department receives a notice from the Agency in terms of regulation 17.8.2 that the Agency is able to procure the information technology goods or services required by the department within the period specified by the department and provides the procurement schedule for doing so, and the department does not elect to procure the required information technology goods or services in accordance with the general procurement prescripts, then if the department wishes the Agency to effect the procurement the department must notify the Agency to proceed with the procurement through the Agency, in terms of the applicable provisions of these Regulations. Regulation 17.8 will take effect from 1 June 2025. _______________________________ MR S MALATSI MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS AND DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES DATE: 20 May 2025
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
State Information Technology Agency Act: Regulations: AmendmentsG 52720 P 261 23 May 2025
|
|
ACTION
1. Review Internal Procurement Policies
2. Establish Criteria for Bypassing SITA
3. Prepare Standardized Documentation
4. Strengthen Procurement Planning
5. Ensure Compliance with SITA Standards
6. Train Procurement and Legal Teams
7. Coordinate with Treasury and DCDT
|
FINANCE
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
Tax Administration Act:
Returns to be submitted (English / Afrikaans)
G 52712 GoN 6217
23 May 2025
|
|
APPLIES TO:
ALL ORGANIZATIONS
|
|
SUMMED UP
WHO MUST SUBMIT A TAX RETURN?
1. Companies and Juristic Persons:
· Residents with gross income, assets, liabilities, or capital gains/losses over R1,000. · Non-residents with South African source income or capital gains.
2. Trusts:
· All resident and certain non-resident trusts.
3. Natural Persons:
· Residents or non-residents who carried on a trade (excluding employment only).
· Residents with: · Capital gains/losses over R40,000. · Foreign assets/funds exceeding R250,000. · Foreign income or participation in controlled foreign companies.
· Gross income exceeding: · R95,750 (under 65) · R148,217 (65–74) · R165,689 (75+)
4. Deceased Estates:
· If gross income was earned.
5. Non-Residents:
· Earning interest not exempt under section 10(1)(h).
6. Anyone Requested by SARS.
WHO IS EXEMPT FROM FILING?
Natural persons or deceased estates may be exempt if:
DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION
HOW TO SUBMIT
|
| FULL TEXT |
|
DETAILS
SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE
NO. 6217 23 May 2025
RETURNS TO BE SUBMITTED BY A PERSON IN TERMS OF SECTION 25 OF THE TAX ADMINISTRATION ACT, 2011 (ACT NO. 28 OF 2011)
In terms of section 25 of the Tax Administration Act, 2011, I, Edward Christian Kieswetter, Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service, hereby require that the persons specified in the attached Schedule must submit returns for the 2025 year of assessment, as defined in the Schedule, within the periods specified in the Schedule.
E C KIESWETTER COMMISSIONER: SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE
Schedule
1. General
(1) Any term or expression in this notice to which a meaning has been assigned in a “tax Act” as defined in section 1 of the Tax Administration Act, 2011, has the meaning so assigned, unless the context indicates otherwise and the following terms have the following meaning—
“2025 year of assessment” means—
(a) in the case of a company, the financial year of the company ending during the 2025 calendar year; and
(b) in the case of any other person, the year of assessment ending during the period of 12 months ending on 28 February 2025;
“income tax return” means a return for the assessment of normal tax in respect of the 2025 year of assessment, including a turnover tax return if a person is a registered micro business under the Sixth Schedule to the Income Tax Act; and
“trust” means a trust as defined in section 1 of the Income Tax Act.
(2) Notice is hereby given in terms of section 25 of the Tax Administration Act, read with section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, that a person specified in terms of paragraph 2 is required to submit an income tax return within the period prescribed in paragraph 4.
2. Persons who must submit an income tax return
The following persons must submit an income tax return:
(a) Every company or other juristic person, which was a resident during the 2025 year of assessment that—
(i) derived gross income of more than R1 000;
(ii) held assets with a cost of more than R1 000 or had liabilities of more than R1 000, at any time;
(iii) derived any capital gain or capital loss of more than R1 000 from the disposal of an asset to which the Eighth Schedule of the Income Tax Act applies; or
(iv) had taxable income, taxable turnover, an assessed loss or an assessed capital loss;
(b) Every trust that was a resident during the 2025 year of assessment;
(c) Every company, trust or other juristic person, which was not a resident during the 2025 year of assessment, that—
(i) carried on a trade through a permanent establishment in the Republic;
(ii) derived income from a source in the Republic; or
(iii) derived any capital gain or capital loss from the disposal of an asset to which the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Act applies;
(d) Every company incorporated, established or formed in the Republic, but that was not a resident as a result of the application of any agreement entered into with the Government of any other country for the avoidance of double taxation during the 2025 year of assessment;
(e) Every natural person who during the 2025 year of assessment─
(i) was a resident and carried on any trade (other than solely in his or her capacity as an employee); or
(ii) was not a resident and carried on any trade (other than solely in his or her capacity as an employee) in the Republic;
(f) Every natural person who during the 2025 year of assessment—
(i) was a resident and had capital gains or capital losses exceeding R40 000;
(ii) was not a resident and had capital gains or capital losses from the disposal of an asset to which the Eighth Schedule to the Income Tax Act applies;
(iii) was a resident and held any funds in foreign currency or owned any assets outside the Republic, if the total value of those funds and assets exceeded R250 000 at any stage during the 2025 year of assessment;
(iv) was a resident and to whom any income or capital gains from funds in foreign currency or assets outside the Republic was attributed in terms of the Income Tax Act;
(v) was a resident and held any participation rights, as referred to in section 72A of the Income Tax Act, in a controlled foreign company;
(vi) was a resident and had taxable turnover; or
(vii) subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, at the end of the 2025 year of assessment—
(aa) was under the age of 65 and whose gross income exceeded R95 750;
(bb) was 65 years or older (but under the age of 75) and whose gross income exceeded R148 217; or
(cc) was 75 years or older and whose gross income exceeded R165 689;
(g) Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, every estate of a deceased person that had gross income during the 2025 year of assessment;
(h) Every non-resident whose gross income during the 2025 year of assessment included interest from a source in the Republic to which the provisions of section 10(1)(h) of the Income Tax Act do not apply;
(i) Every person who is requested by the Commissioner in writing to furnish a return, irrespective of the amount of income or nature of receipts or accruals of the person; and
(j) Every representative taxpayer of any person referred to in items (a) to (i) above.
3. Persons not required to submit an income tax return
(1) A natural person or estate of a deceased person is not required to submit an income tax return in terms of paragraph 2(f)(vii) or (2)(g) if the gross income of the person during the 2025 year of assessment consisted solely of gross income described in one or more of the following items:
(a) Remuneration (other than remuneration referred to in item (e)) paid or payable from a single employer, which does not exceed R500 000 and employees’ tax has been deducted or withheld in terms of the deduction tables prescribed by the Commissioner;
(b) Interest (other than interest from a tax free investment) from a source in the Republic not exceeding—
(i) R23 800 in the case of a natural person below the age of 65 years at the end of the year of assessment;
(ii) R34 500 in the case of a natural person aged 65 years or older at the end of the year of assessment; or
(iii) R23 800 in the case of the estate of a deceased person;
(c) Dividends that are exempt from normal tax and the natural person was a non-resident throughout the 2025 year of assessment;
(d) Amounts received or accrued from a tax-free investment; and
(e) A single lump sum benefit received from a pension fund, provident fund, pension preservation fund, provident preservation fund or retirement annuity fund, and tax has been deducted or withheld in terms of a directive issued by the Commissioner .
(2) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to a natural person—
(a) who was paid or granted an allowance or advance as described in section 8(1) (a)(i) of the Income Tax Act other than an amount reimbursed or advanced as described in section 8(1)(a)(ii) or an allowance or advance referred to in section 8(1)(b)(iii) that does not exceed the amount determined by applying the rate per kilometre for the simplified method in the notice fixing the rate per kilometre under section 8(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) to the actual distance travelled;
(b) who was granted a taxable benefit described in paragraph 7 of the Seventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act; or
(c) who received any amount or to whom any amount accrued in respect of services rendered outside the Republic.
(3) A natural person is not required to submit an income tax return in terms of paragraph 2 (f)(vii) if—
(a) the person is notified by the Commissioner in writing that he or she is eligible for automatic assessment; and
(b) the person’s gross income, exemptions, deductions and rebates reflected in the records of the Commissioner are complete and correct as at the date of the assessment based on an estimate to give effect to automatic assessment.
4. Periods within which income tax returns must be furnished
Income tax returns must be submitted within the following periods:
(a) In the case of any company, public benefit organisation approved by the Commissioner in terms of section 30(3) of the Income Tax Act, and recreational club approved by the Commissioner in terms of section 30A(2) of the Act, within 12 months from the date on which its financial year ends; or
(b) In the case of all other persons (which include natural persons, trusts and other juristic persons, such as institutions, boards or bodies)—
(i) on or before 20 October 2025;
(ii) on or before 19 January 2026 if the return relates to a provisional taxpayer
(iii) on or before 19 January 2026 if the return relates to a trust; or
(vi) where accounts are accepted by the Commissioner in terms of section 66(13A) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the whole or portion of a taxpayer’s income, which are drawn to a date after 28 February 2025 but on or before 30 September 2025, within 6 months from the date to which such accounts are drawn.
5. Form of income tax returns to be submitted
The forms prescribed by the Commissioner for the submission of income tax returns are obtainable on request via eFiling at https://www.sarsefiling.co.za or downloadable from the SARS website at https://www.sars.gov.za/find-a-form/.
6. Manner of submission of income tax returns
(1) Income tax returns must—
(a) in the case of a company, be submitted electronically by using the SARS eFiling platform;
(b) in the case of natural persons or trusts be submitted electronically—
(i) by using the SARS eFiling platform, provided the person is registered for eFiling; or
(ii) through the assistance of a SARS official at an office of SARS;
(c) in the case of institutions, boards or bodies be—
(i) submitted electronically by using the SARS eFiling platform, provided the person is registered for eFiling;
(ii) submitted electronically through the assistance of a SARS official at an office of SARS;
(iii) forwarded by post to SARS; or
(iv) delivered to an office of SARS, other than an office which deals solely with matters relating to customs and excise.
(2) Returns for turnover tax must be forwarded by post to SARS or delivered to an office of SARS, other than an office which deals solely with matters relating to customs and excise.
(3) SARS may agree that a person, who is required to submit a return in the manner prescribed in subparagraph (1) or (2), may submit the return in an alternative manner.
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
Tax Administration Act: Returns to be submitted (English / Afrikaans)G 52712 GoN 6217 23 May 2025
|
|
ACTION
Ensure that you submit your tax returns on time.
|
HEALTH AND SAFETY
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act:
Letters of Good Standing validity for 2024 return of earnings season: Further extension
G 52722 GeN 3227
23 May 2025
|
|
APPLIES TO:
All Organizations
|
|
FULL TEXT |
|
DETAILS
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR
GOVERNMENT NOTICE
NOTICE 3227 OF 2025
COMPENSATION FOR OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND DISEASES ACT, 1993 (ACT No. 130 OF 1993), AS AMENDED
NOTICE ON FURTHER EXTENSION OF LETTERS OF GOOD STANDING (LOGS) VALIDITY FOR THE 2024 RETURN OF EARNINGS (ROE) SEASON
I, Farzana Fakir, the Acting Commissioner for the Compensation Fund, hereby issue this notice in accordance with Section 6A of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COID Act), 1993 (Act No. 130 of 1993), as amended.
Following the notice published in the Government Gazette regarding the opening of the 2024 ROE filing season on 01 May 2025, the closing date of 31 July 2025, and the initial extension of LOGS to 31 May 2025, the Fund is experiencing high volumes which is affecting the ROE Online system efficiency.
To ensure continuity of service and to support employers, the expiry date of the Letters of Good Standing (LOGs) issued for the 2023 assessment year is now further extended to 30 June 2025.
Employers are advised to submit their ROEs and required supporting documentation timeously to avoid further delays and to maintain their compliance status.
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act: Letters of Good Standing validity for 2024 return of earnings season: Further extensionG 52722 GeN 3227 23 May 2025
|
|
ACTION
Ensure that you have submitted your Returns before 31 July 2025.
|
HERITAGE
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
National Policy on Heritage Memorialisation:
Comments invited
G 52724 GeN 3228
23 May 2025
|
|
APPLIES TO:
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
HERITAGE AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS
PRIVATE SECTOR AND CREATIVE INDUSTRIES
INTERNATIONAL AND MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATIONS
|
|
POLICY SUMMED UP
VISION AND PURPOSE
The policy aims to transform South Africa’s heritage landscape by promoting inclusive, sustainable, and community-driven memorialisation practices. It seeks to:
KEY FOCUS AREAS
The policy outlines nine focus areas for heritage memorialisation: 1. Alternative Forms of Memorialisation – e.g., oral histories, digital archives, community storytelling. 2. Museums and Sites – development and transformation of heritage sites. 3. Monuments, Statues, and Memorials – inclusive representation of diverse histories. 4. Intangible Cultural Heritage – safeguarding living traditions, languages, and practices. 5. Geographical Names – renaming places to reflect democratic values. 6. National Symbols – promoting inclusive national identity through symbols. 7. Library and Information Services – improving access to heritage knowledge. 8. National Archives Services – preserving and digitising historical records. 9. Repatriation and Restitution – returning cultural artefacts and human remains.
POLICY OBJECTIVES
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
|
|
FULL TEXT |
|
DETAILS
DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS, ARTS AND CULTURE
NOTICE 3228 OF 2025
NOTICE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR HERITAGE MEMORIALISATION
This serves as a Notice to request comments and input from interested parties on the draft National Policy Framework for Heritage Memorialisation.
Currently, there is no formal official policy on legacy projects or memorialisation of heritage. Mainly, the National Legacy Project focusses only on large scale heritage infrastructure development. This approach has no and/or does not clearly express clear linkages, integration and alignment with other forms of legacy and memorialisation work being done. It also does not consider the potential socioeconomic impact of these projects, their affordability, sustainability, the lifespan of the National Legacy Project and the potential impact of changes in the environment. It further precludes a clear, integrated, coherent and systematic articulation of the effectiveness of all legacy and memorialisation work being done, in contributing to social cohesion, nation building, socio-economic development, and other national outcomes aligned with the Government Wide-Monitoring and Evaluation System and National Evaluation Policy Framework.
The Draft Policy Framework therefore aims to continue to transform the heritage landscape through heritage infrastructure development and improvement. This depends on availability of resources, through memorialisation and to better coordinate and articulate the linkages among the existing forms of memorialisation to maximise their impact. The policy also aims to consolidate the past efforts towards memorialisation of South Africa’s heritage that recognises and promotes national identity through reconciliation, healing, social cohesion, community involvement and ownership, economic upliftment and education. It seeks to promote integration and coordination of memorialisation programmes across various spheres and sectors by diverse role players and institutions.
The draft National Policy Framework for Heritage Memorialisation is available on the website of the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, under the following link: https://www.dsac.gov.za/DraftNationalPolicyFrameworkforHeritageMemorialization.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments and input into this Policy Framework.
Closing date for comments: 20 June 2025.
For further information and questions, please contact Ms Reinette Stander at reinettes@dsac.gov.za, or Ms Renette Naudé at renetten@dsac.gov.za.
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
National Policy on Heritage Memorialisation: Comments invitedG 52724 GeN 3228 23 May 2025
|
|
ACTION
Click on the link below to view the full Draft National Policy Framework for Heritage Memorialisation: https://www.dsac.gov.za/DraftNationalPolicyFrameworkforHeritageMemorialization
Please ensure that you submit your comments before 20 June 2025.
|
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
International Trade Administration Act:
Expansion of scope of self-initiated investigation for increase in alternate rate of customs duty on various footwear products classifiable under Chapter 64
G 52718 GeN 3225
22 May 2025
|
|
APPLIES TO:
DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS
· Who: South African companies producing safety footwear. · Impact: Likely positive, as increased duties on imports could protect them from cheaper foreign competition and help maintain or grow market share.
IMPORTERS AND DISTRIBUTORS
· Who: Businesses that import safety footwear from countries like China, India, or Vietnam. · Impact: Negative, as higher duties (especially a fixed R50 per pair) could raise costs, reduce margins, or make their products less competitive.
RETAILERS
· Who: Chains and independent stores selling safety footwear (e.g., hardware stores, PPE suppliers). · Impact: May face higher wholesale prices, which could lead to increased retail prices and potentially lower sales volumes.
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUYERS
· Who: Companies in construction, mining, manufacturing, and logistics that purchase safety footwear for employees. · Impact: Could see increased procurement costs, especially if they rely on imported brands.
CUSTOMS BROKERS AND TRADE CONSULTANTS
· Who: Professionals who assist with tariff classification, customs clearance, and trade compliance. · Impact: May need to update tariff strategies and advise clients on the implications of the new duty structure.
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND INDUSTRY BODIES
· Who: Organizations like the South African Footwear and Leather Industries Association (SAFLIA). · Impact: Likely to be involved in advocacy, policy feedback, and industry coordination in response to the proposed changes.
FOREIGN EXPORTERS
· Who: Overseas manufacturers and exporters of safety footwear targeting the South African market. · Impact: Could face reduced competitiveness due to higher duties, potentially leading to a decline in exports to South Africa.
|
|
FULL TEXT |
|
DETAILS
Department of Trade, Industry and Competition
NOTICE 3225 OF 2025
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION OF SOUTH AFRICA EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF ITAC’S SELF-INITIATED INVESTIGATION FOR AN INCREASE IN THE ALTERNATE RATE OF CUSTOMS DUTY ON VARIOUS FOOTWEAR PRODUCTS CLASSIFIABLE UNDER CHAPTER 64
The International Trade Administration Commission (‘ITAC’ or the ‘Commission’) selfinitiated an investigation for an increase in the alternate rate of customs duty on various footwear products classifiable under Chapter 64 in terms of Section16(1)(d)(ii) of the International Trade Administration Act, 2002, read together with Regulation 17(3) of the Amended Tariff Investigations Regulations. The self-initiated investigation was published in the Government Gazette Publication Notice number 2845 of 2024.
Subsequently, the domestic safety footwear industry noted that only 4 of the 27 tariff lines under review relate to safety footwear. In this regard, the industry requested the inclusion of tariff subheadings 6401.10, 6401.99.10, 6401.99.90, 6403.40 and 6403.99.40 into the current review as well as considering the implementation of a uniform combination duty structure with a specific duty of R50 per pair. The industry stated, amongst others, that the expansion of the scope would ensure effective protection against similarly low-priced imports of safety footwear. Furthermore, the Commission is also requesting comment on instances where there may be the possibility that this proposed level of a specific duty of R50 per pair on the relevant safety footwear tariff subheadings, may exceed the current WTO bound rate of 30% ad valorem.
Entity: The International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) 77 Meintjies Street Sunnyside Pretoria 0001
Note: Comments must be provided in the format of a questionnaire obtainable on ITAC’s website at www.itac.org.za, link: Services – Tariff investigations – Government Gazette Notices – Other publication notices
Ref: 11/2024 Enquiries: Ms Khosi Mzinjana, Email: kmzinjana@itac.org.za; Mrs Amina Varachia, Email: avarachia@itac.org.za, Ms Dolly Ngobeni, Email: dngobeni@itac.org.za, Ms Tshepiso Morale, Email: tmorale@itac.org.za ; Mrs Ayanda Gandi, endou@itac.org.za and Mr Joseph Mawasha, Email: jmawasha@itac.org.za; Mr Scelo Mshengu, Email: smshengu@itac.org.za, and Mr Chris Sako, Email: csako@itac.org.za.
PUBLICATION PERIOD:
Representation should be submitted to the above ITAC officials within two (2) weeks of the date of this notice.
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
International Trade Administration Act: Expansion of scope of self-initiated investigation for increase in alternate rate of customs duty on various footwear products classifiable under Chapter 64G 52718 GeN 3225 22 May 2025
|
|
ACTION
Ensure that you submit your comments.
|
LABOUR
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
Skills Development Act:
Reopening of the Call for Nominations for Appointment of Chairpersons of Accounting Authorities for 21 Sector Education and Training Authorities: Correction
G 52729 GoN 6222
– Comment by 13 Jun 2025
23 May 2025
|
|
FULL TEXT |
|
DETAILS
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING
NO. 6222 23 May 2025
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 97 OF 1988) AS AMENDED REOPENING OF THE CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSONS OF ACCOUNTING AUTHORITIES FOR 21 SECTOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING AUTHORITIES FOR THE TERM 2025 TO 2030
1, Dr NP Nkabane, Minister of Higher Education and Training, in terms of section 11(1)(b) of the Skills Development Act, (Act No. 97 of 1998) as amended, hereby reopen the process to invite nominations for appointment of Chairpersons of the Accounting Authorities for twenty-one (21) Sector Education and Training Authorities listed hereunder from interested and relevant stakeholders in the respective sectors:
1. Agricultural Sector Education and Training Authority (AGRISETA): Ref. No. AGR2025
2. Banking Sector Education and Training Authority (BANKSETA): Ref. No. BANK2025
3. Culture, Arts, Tourism, Hospitality and Sports Sector Education and Training Authority (CATHSSETA): Ref. No. CATH2025
4. Construction Sector Education and Training Authority (CETA): Ref. No. CET2025
5. Chemical Industries Sector Education and Training Authority (CHIETA): Ref. No. CHIET2025
6. Education, Training and Development Practices Sector Education and Training Authority (ETDPSETA): Ref. No. ETDP2025
7. Energy and Water Sector Education and Training Authority (EWSETA): Ref. No. EW2025
8. Finance and Accounting Services Sector Education and Training Authority (FASSET): Ref. No. FAS2025
9. Food and Beverages Sector Education and Training Authority (FOODBEV): Ref. No. FB2025
10. Fibre Processing and Manufacturing Sector Education and Training (FP&MSETA): Ref. No. FPM2025
11. Health and Welfare Sector Education and Training Authority (HWSETA): Ref. No. HW2025
12. Insurance Sector Education and Training Authority (INSETA): Ref. No. INS2025
13. Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority (LGSETA): Ref. No. LG2025
14. Manufacturing and Engineering Related Services Sector Education and Training Authority (MERSETA): Ref. No. MERS2025
15. Media, Information and Communication Technology Sector Education and Training Authority (MICTSETA): Ref. No. MICT2025
16. Mining Qualification Authority (MQA): Ref. No. MQA2025
17. Public Services Sector Education and Training Authority (PSETA): Ref. No. PS2025
18. Safety and Security Sector Education and Training Authority (SASSETA): Ref. No. SASS2025
19. Services Sector Education and Training Authority (Services-SETA): Ref. No. SERV2025
20. Transport Sector Education and Training Authority (TETA): Ref. No. TET2025
21. Wholesale and Retail Sector Education and Training Authority (W&RSETA): Ref. No. WR2025
Interested stakeholders in the relevant sectors are invited to nominate suitably qualified candidates, preferably, in possession of NQF level 8 qualification coupled with, amongst others, a blend of knowledge, skills, and experience required for the effective functioning of the SETA and the Skills Development System (preferably competent candidates with intensive wealth of sectoral knowledge, technical experience and leadership capability). Preference will be given to people with disabilities, youth, and women during the nomination within policy and legislative context. The deadline for submission of nominations is 13 June 2025 at 16h30.
Written nominations from nominating stakeholders indicating full names of organisations nominating and quoting the Ref. No. (in the subject line of the email) must contain the following Annexures:
• A – A motivation letter indicating why the nominee must be considered for appointment • B – The nominee’s signed written acceptance of the nomination • C – The nominee’s certified copies of qualifications • D – The nominee’s certified ID copy • E – The nominee’s curriculum vitae • F – Nominees declaration of interest
Candidates who were nominated in response to the previous Gazette may be renominated if they are still willing to be considered for appointment as SETA Chairpersons. Nominations should be submitted for the attention of:
Mr Mabuza Ngubane: Chief Director: SETA Coordination E-mail : SETAChairs@dhet.gov.za Tel. No. : 012 312 5896 Cel. No. : 0793182384
The Chairpersons of Accounting Authorities will assume duty from the date of appointment until 31 March 2030.
DR. NP NKABANE, MP MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING DATE: 23/05/2025
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
Skills Development Act: Reopening of the Call for Nominations for Appointment of Chairpersons of Accounting Authorities for 21 Sector Education and Training Authorities: CorrectionG 52729 GoN 6222 – Comment by 13 Jun 2025 23 May 2025
Skills Development Act: Reopening of the Call for Nominations for Appointment of Chairpersons of Accounting Authorities for 21 Sector Education and Training AuthoritiesG 52719 GoN 6218 – Comment by 12 Jun 2025 22 May 2025
|
|
ACTION
Ensure that you submit your nominations before 13 June 2025
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
Employment Equity Act:
2024 Employment Equity Public Register: Correction
G 52727 GoN 6221
23 May 2025
|
|
APPLIES TO:
Designated Employers
|
|
FULL TEXT |
|
DETAILS
Please click on the links provided below to view the full registers.
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
Employment Equity Act: 2024 Employment Equity Public Register: CorrectionG 52727 GoN 6221 23 May 2025
Employment Equity Act: 2024 Employment Equity Public RegisterG 52712 GoN 6215 23 May 2025
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
Labour Relations Act: National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight and Logistics Industry: Extension to non-parties of the Main Collective Amending AgreementG 52740 RG 11836 P 262 28 May 2025
|
MEDICAL
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
Private Hospitals 2025 – 2026:
Amendment for Private Hospitals
G 52741 GeN 3231
28 May 2025
|
|
APPLIES TO:
Medical Sector
|
|
FULL TEXT |
|
DETAILS
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
Private Hospitals 2025 – 2026: Amendment for Private HospitalsG 52741 GeN 3231 28 May 2025
|
STANDARDS
|
|
LAW AND TYPE OF NOTICE
National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act:
Compulsory Specification for Dried Abalone
G 52705 RG 11835 GoN 6211 23 May 2025
|
|
APPLIES TO:
LOCAL PRODUCERS AND PROCESSORS
These include:
· Abalone farms and aquaculture facilities · Processing plants that dry, package, and prepare abalone for sale · Fishing vessels that handle abalone for commercial purposes
They must:
· Be pre-approved by the NRCS · Implement HACCP-based food safety systems · Use licensed raw material sources · Undergo annual reviews and provide evidence of conformity
TRANSPORTERS AND DISTRIBUTORS
· Companies that transport dried abalone domestically or for export · Must ensure traceability and compliance with hygiene and safety standards
IMPORTERS
· Entities bringing dried abalone into South Africa · Must apply for NRCS approval for each consignment · Provide health guarantee certificates and comply with inspection requirements
EXPORTERS
· Businesses exporting dried abalone from South Africa · Must obtain export permits and health guarantees · Ensure products meet destination country requirements
TESTING LABORATORIES
· Microbiological and chemical testing facilities · Must be accredited to perform tests per referenced methods · Provide testing services for compliance verification
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
· NRCS (National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications): Oversees approvals, inspections, and enforcement · DFFE (Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment): Issues permits and monitors environmental compliance · SARS (South African Revenue Service): Involved in customs and import/export documentation
RETAILERS AND WHOLESALERS
· Businesses selling dried abalone in the local market · Must ensure products are sourced from NRCS-approved facilities and are properly labeled
|
|
SUMMED UP
Outlines the compulsory specifications and regulatory requirements for the production, handling, and sale of dried abalone in South Africa.
Compulsory Specification for Dried Abalone
This specification outlines the requirements for the production, handling, and sale of dried abalone in South Africa, ensuring compliance with national standards and regulations. It mandates approval processes for facilities and products to maintain food safety and quality.
Definitions and Key Terms
This section defines critical terms related to the handling and processing of dried abalone, establishing a common understanding for stakeholders. It includes definitions for applicants, approvals, and relevant authorities.
Production and Safety Requirements
The production of dried abalone must adhere to specific safety and quality standards, including the latest SANS 2329 guidelines and HACCP principles. Compliance with these standards is essential for maintaining product integrity.
Application and Approval Process
The process for obtaining approval for facilities and products involves detailed applications to the NRCS, including documentation and evidence of compliance. This ensures that all products meet safety and quality standards before reaching the market.
Health Guarantees for Export
Health guarantees are issued for exported products to ensure they meet the requirements of the destination country. This includes compliance with handling, processing, and safety standards.
Documentation and Compliance Verification
Documentation is crucial for verifying compliance with the Compulsory Specification, including health attestations and product traceability. This ensures that all products are safe for consumption and meet regulatory standards.
|
|
FULL TEXT |
|
DETAILS
|
|
LINK TO FULL NOTICE
National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications Act: Compulsory Specification for Dried AbaloneG 52705 RG 11835 GoN 6211 23 May 2025
|
|
ACTION
LOCAL PRODUCERS, PROCESSORS, AND FACTORIES
Actions Required:
1. Apply for NRCS approval of the facility (valid for 1 year). 2. Implement a HACCP-based food safety system. 3. Source raw materials from licensed suppliers with valid permits. 4. Maintain documentation and records to demonstrate conformity. 5. Report any changes in production processes to NRCS. 6. Notify NRCS of non-conformities or operational shutdowns. 7. Comply with SANS 2329 and update within 6 months of any revision. 8. Label products with the official NRCS facility number and required markings.
IMPORTERS
Actions Required: 1. Apply to NRCS for approval of each consignment.
2. Submit: · Health guarantee certificate from the country of origin. · Import permits and SARS documentation. · Details of the consignment (batch codes, quantity, etc.).
3. Notify NRCS at least 10 working days before inspection is needed.
4. Ensure traceability and compliance with South African standards.
EXPORTERS
Actions Required:
1. Apply to NRCS for export approval at least 10 working days in advance.
2. Submit: · Export permit from DFFE. · Product markings as per Clause 5. · Health guarantees and test results if required.
3. Ensure products: · Come from NRCS-approved facilities. · Are traceable to their origin. · Meet destination country requirements.
TRANSPORTERS AND DISTRIBUTORS
Actions Required:
1. Ensure hygienic handling and transport of dried abalone. 2. Maintain traceability of consignments. 3. Comply with temperature and packaging requirements.
TESTING LABORATORIES
Actions Required:
1. Be accredited to perform microbiological and chemical tests. 2. Use validated methods that meet or exceed reference standards. 3. Provide test results for conformity assessments.
REGULATORY AUTHORITIES (NRCS, DFFE, SARS)
Actions Required:
1. NRCS: · Approve facilities and consignments. · Conduct inspections and sampling. · Issue health guarantees and facility codes.
2. DFFE: · Issue permits for harvesting, growing, and exporting. · Administer the SAMSM&CP program.
3. SARS: Process customs documentation and release.
|
B-BBEE ARTICLES
|
|
SOUTH AFRICA |
Malatsi clarifies B-BBEE policy direction. You don’t have to sell shares, but you do have to buy in
Communications Minister Solly Malatsi has clarified the new policy direction with a new filing and full statement.
The statement reveals that it is more nuanced than Daily Maverick first reported.
On paper, it’s a “Proposed Policy Direction on Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment”. But dig a little deeper, and it’s now clear that Minister Solly Malatsi is trying to get some investment gains in exchange for ruffling some equity feathers.
This isn’t about ditching transformation. It’s about reinterpreting it, and, in the process, rewiring South Africa’s (SA’s) digital future.
Here’s what’s really going on behind the policy jargon, and why it matters whether your internet comes from a cellphone tower or a low-earth-orbit satellite:
Jumping off the edge
The “Proposed Policy Direction on Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment”, gazetted today on Friday, 23 May 2025, instructs the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) to align its licensing regulations with Equity Equivalent Investment Programmes (EEIPs).
Currently, companies seeking individual licences under the Electronic Communications Act must ensure that historically disadvantaged groups hold at least 30% equity ownership.
Think of EEIPs as the “transformation debit card” for multinationals. Instead of giving up equity, companies can invest in South African economic empowerment through skills development, digital infrastructure, local SMME funding, or rural connectivity projects.
Ministerial backflips
“These regulations do not currently allow companies (to) contribute to South Africa’s transformation goals in ways other than traditional ownership to qualify for individual licences,” Malatsi said in his official announcement accompanying the updated policy direction.
“Transformation is non-negotiable.” But, he adds, transformation doesn’t have to mean shareholding alone. “All players must contribute meaningfully to equity, skills development and economic inclusion,” he says.
In other words… If you can’t meet the 30% ownership rule, show us the money – and show us how it empowers people. The policy direction doesn’t mention Starlink by name. But it’s the not-so-invisible satellite in the room.
Earlier the regulatory debate around Icasa’s proposed satellite licensing framework saw major pushback from the likes of MTN, Telkom, Vodacom and Sentech (who still marshal the digital highways). Their main worry? That satellite-based newcomers (Vodacom is also a player, but can leverage its existing licenses) could bypass the hurdles they’ve had to jump over for years.
“Regulatory parity” was the rallying cry — if you’re providing the same service, you must follow the same rules. No free rides from orbit.
By creating a legally sound, EEIP-based path to compliance, Malatsi’s policy direction answers a key criticism: multinational satellite operators won’t be exempted but they will be included, provided they invest where it counts.
“Even if companies are not rolling out large-scale infrastructure, they will be required to make commitments that are substantive and clearly aligned with South Africa’s socio-economic development goals,” the minister clarified.
Building a bridge, not a bypass
The B-BBEE policy direction is not part of Icasa’s satellite framework inquiry, but it speaks directly to one of the most contentious issues in that space: equity ownership.
Telkom, Sentech and others previously argued that SA didn’t need a new legal framework for satellites; it just needed to use the ECA and existing rules properly. The new direction leans into this, instructing Icasa to use existing sector codes — like the B-BBEE ICT Sector Code — and recognise EEIPs as part of the licensing process.
In other words … This move is less about rewriting the rulebook and, to Malatsi’s credit, more about finally reading the whole thing.
Where to from here?
This policy direction isn’t final yet. Public comments are open for 30 working days. But once enacted, it gives Icasa the political and legal backing to update its ownership regulations and explicitly allow EEIP-based compliance.
That’s the signal global tech giants have been waiting for.
Will Starlink come knocking? That’s now less a matter of law and more a matter of willingness — and dependent on investment. The new message from the government is clear: You don’t have to sell shares, but you do have to buy in
By Lindsey Schutters Daily Maverick
Watchdog probes illegal use of Starlink service in South Africa
‘Should the investigation yield any breach with regulatory and legislative frameworks, the authority will explore the applicable enforcement actions within its disposal,’ Icasa Chairperson Mothibi Ramusi said.
A South African regulator started a probe into allegations that Elon Musk-led SpaceX’s Starlink internet-satellite service was operating in the country illegally.
The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa has formally engaged with SpaceX and is awaiting a response, it said in a statement Wednesday
“Should the investigation yield any breach with regulatory and legislative frameworks, the authority will explore the applicable enforcement actions within its disposal,” Icasa Chairperson Mothibi Ramusi said. That may include “lodging a formal complaint with the International Telecommunication Union,” he said.
Starlink — which has more than 5 million users globally — delivers broadband internet beamed down from a network of roughly 7,500 satellites that SpaceX started deploying in 2019. South Africa is among several nations on the continent that haven’t licensed the service.
Pretoria-born Musk has sought approval to operate Starlink in the country, but has objected to legislation that seeks to boost Black participation in the economy, accusing the government of having “openly racist ownership laws.”
South Africa introduced the rules after the end of apartheid, an era in which the majority of people were excluded from the formal economy by the ruling White minority.
Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi of the Democratic Alliance, the second-largest party in the nation’s governing coalition, last week proposed amending rules to allow companies like Starlink to enter South African without sharing ownership, a move that lawmakers challenged in parliament this week.
Meanwhile, South Africans have found ways around the current restrictions by registering the kit and services in other nearby nations that allow the service and then using the roaming option to access it in their home country.
Malatsi issued the directive two days after President Cyril Ramaphosa met US counterpart Donald Trump in Washington to mend strained relations. Flashpoints include Trump’s false claims that White Afrikaner farmers face a genocide in South Africa, a statement also made by Musk, who attended last week’s gathering in the White House’s Oval Office.
Starlink’s technology would be a potential game-changer for South African users who’ve historically faced expensive or unreliable internet options. Only 2.7% of rural households have access to the web, according to a 2024 survey compiled by the local statistics agency.
The regulator reiterated its “uncompromising position against any form of non-compliance within the South African regulatory environment.”
By Loni Prinsloo Bloomberg
|
FINANCE ARTICLES
|
FOODSTUFFS ARTICLES
|
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
CalRecycle Reissues Draft SB 54 Regulations Targeting California’s Plastic Packaging EPR Program
Key Takeaways
Background
Enacted in 2022, SB 54, California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, transfers the cost of collecting, processing, and recycling covered material from local governments to producers (see B&D news alert, here). The law targets single‑use packaging and plastic food service ware (covered material), with the goal by 2032 of ensuring that 100% of single-use packaging and plastic food service ware is either recyclable or eligible to be labeled as compostable.
SB 54 required CalRecycle to adopt implementing regulations by March 8, 2025, following a public consultation process. CalRecycle issued a first draft of implementing regulations in March 2024 and received extensive public comment. CalRecycle substantially revised the draft regulations twice in response to public comment.
California’s Governor Newsom sent the regulations back for revision, citing excessive costs and burdens on businesses. The regulations were expected to cost approximately $36 billion to implement, resulting in an extra $300 annually in expenses for each Californian household. CalRecycle initiated a new rulemaking process, proposing updated draft regulations on May 16, 2025.
Key Regulatory Provisions
1. Covered Materials
The proposed regulations would add a new definition of “covered material” which includes plastic single-use food service ware and single-use packaging.
Plastic Single-use Food Service Ware
“Plastic single-use food service ware” is defined as including, but not limited to, “plastic-coated paper or plastic-coated paperboard, paper or paperboard with plastic intentionally added during the manufacturing process, and multilayer flexible material.” Examples of “single-use food service ware” include trays, plates, bowls, clamshells, lids, cups, utensils, stirrers, hinged or lidded containers, straws, as well as wraps or wrappers, and bags marketed, designed, or intended for use by food service establishments. With respect to food service ware, “single-use” is “an individual item [that] is disposed of after one use if it is discarded after serving one or more of the purposes… without being subsequently washed and used again.”
Single-use Packaging
“Packaging” is defined as including “any separable and distinct material component used for the containment, protection, handling, delivery, or presentation of goods by the producer for the user or consumer”. Examples of “packaging” include sales packaging, transport packaging, and ancillary elements directly attached to or hung onto a product and that performs a packaging function. SB 54 encourages reusable and refillable packaging and provides an exemption to incentivize this use so long as the reuse or refill is associated with the original product. Reuse with a different product does not qualify for the exemption.
For detailed categorization, the regulations reference the Department’s Covered Material Category List, which is available here. The list identifies six broad material classes for packaging – (1) glass, (2) ceramic, (3) metal, (4) paper and fiber, (5) plastic, and (6) wood and other organics.
2. Who is the Producer
Like the statute, the regulations have a hierarchical definition of obligated “producers” in terms of the type of covered material and the company’s relationship to the material when sold, distributed, or otherwise used. Most notably, compared to the December 2024 draft, the proposed changes now clearly differentiate between food service ware and other covered materials with distinct identification hierarchies for each category.
Similar to enacted EPR laws in other states, the producer is primarily the California-based manufacturer that either owns the brand/trademark or has an exclusive license to manufacture under that brand in the state. If the manufacturer is not located in California, the hierarchy shifts to the California-based brand owner of the product sold in product packaging or food serviceware. If neither is present in California, the in-state licensee with exclusive rights to the brand takes responsibility. If there is no brand owner or licensee in the state, the person who first sells or distributes the goods in the state is the producer of all covered material items. If a wholesaler or retailer in the state subsequently obtains the good and uses additional items of covered material packaging, the wholesaler or retailer is considered the producer of such additional items only.
When multiple brands appear on a product, priority is given to the manufacturer’s brand or trademark, then to the “most prominently” displayed brand or trademark, with the option of allowing brand owners to “agree among themselves to designate one of the brands or trademarks” as responsible.
3. Exemptions
Producer specific –
Material specific –
4. Producer Obligations
a. Reporting
Each producer will likely be required to report the following information to the PRO: (1) the total weight of material sold, distributed, or imported in or into the state; (2) the total number of plastic components sold, distributed, or imported in or into the state; (3) the total weight of material that is recycled; and (4) the total weight of material disposed of. On January 8, 2024, CalRecycle selected the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) as the state’s inaugural, single PRO.
b. Registration
Each producer, including producers of covered material seeking an exemption, must register within 30 days of the effective date of the regulations. According to the Advisory Board’s meeting minutes, CalRecycle proposes that all producers become members of the PRO by October 1 and submit their 2023 supply‑baseline reports by November 1, 2025.
c. Labeling
A product may only be labeled “compostable” if it meets the ASTM Standard D6400 or Standard D6868 or if the product has an “OK compost HOME certification,” which is the certification of conformity with the existing TUV Austria certification. A third-party certification entity approved by CalRecycle must certify that the product meets the ASTM Standard or any other additional standard adopted by CalRecycle.
A product may only be considered “recyclable” if the covered material is of a material type that is (1) collected for recycling by recycling programs that collectively encompass at least 60% of the population of the state and (2) sorted into defined recycling streams by large volume processing facilities that collectively serve at least 60% of the state’s recycling programs. To help producers make this determination, CalRecycle will publish a Material Characterization Study that evaluates which material types are actively collected, sorted, and recorded by recycling systems across the state. CalRecycle published the Preliminary Material Characterization Report on December 28, 2023. The Final Report is still pending.
Products made solely of fiber and containing no plastics or polymers, as defined by law, may be exempt from the certification requirement if the producer or PRO maintains detailed documentation demonstrating plastic-free composition and manufacturing processes. PROs must retain this for three years after the product is sold and made available to CalRecycle upon request.
d. Producer Fees
Before approval of an initial PRO plan and for the two years following that approval, the PRO will charge all participant producers a fee based on the covered material category and quantity of covered material supplied in the state. After the two-year period (or earlier if the PRO has sufficient data), the PRO will begin implementing eco-modulated fees as described in the approved plan. The eco-modulated fees consider the type of material, the cost of managing that material at the end of its life, and any associated environmental mitigation costs. Eco-modulated fees are designed to incentivize producers to opt for materials that are easily recyclable and less harmful to the environment.
5. Enforcement
Any failure to satisfy reporting, registration, or other obligations under the law would constitute a violation each day such courses of action persist and for each product that uses non-compliant covered material, regardless of the number of units distributed or sold. The Department will issue a written Notice of Violation and determine whether to request a corrective action plan or impose immediate penalties. Under SB 54, CalRecycle may impose an administrative civil penalty of up to $50,000 per day per violation. Note that while the PRO does not have enforcement authority, it may report non-compliant producers to CalRecycle, which could trigger enforcement actions by the agency.
Opportunities To Participate
CalRecycle is hosting an informal regulatory workshop on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, from 10AM -4 PM(PDT). The purpose of this workshop is to informally consult with the public, the regulated community, and other interested parties to solicit feedback regarding the regulations. More information will be available on the SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act Permanent Regulations rulemaking webpage prior to the meeting. Interested parties can register here.
The Department is currently accepting public comments on the proposed regulations until June 3, 2025.
Allyn L. Stern, Ning Hsu and Sharon Mathew Beveridge & Diamond PC
|
LEGAL ARTICLES
|
MEDICAL ARTICLES
|
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
|
Summary of Health Care Provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”
On May 22, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), an extensive budget reconciliation package that advances President Trump’s plan to enact his economic agenda. After a series of ongoing negotiations with various factions within the Republican party, the bill passed narrowly by a 215-214-1 vote, with only Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Warren Davidson (R-OH) joining Democrats in opposition to the bill, and Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) voting present.
Included in the highly anticipated bill was the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s title containing controversial health care-related provisions. The committee held a lengthy markup session on May 13 and 14. After nearly 27 hours of debate and consideration of dozens of amendments, the committee ultimately voted 30–24 along party lines to approve the package, including the health subtitle.
Among many other provisions, the health subtitle would impose work and community engagement requirements on Medicaid expansion populations, introduce copays at $35 for certain enrollees and reduce retroactive Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage from 90 days to 30 days. The bill would also enact limits on new provider taxes and state directed payments (SDPs), as well as a ban on Medicaid funding for gender transition therapies. It also includes notable reforms for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and expands and clarifies the exclusion for orphan drugs under the drug price negotiation program.
The markup process revealed deep partisan divisions, particularly over proposed changes to Medicaid. Republicans, led by Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY), emphasized the need to rein in spending and prevent fraud by introducing work requirements, limiting retroactive coverage and restricting provider taxes. Republicans argued the reforms are necessary to protect Medicaid’s long-term viability and ensure resources reach the most vulnerable populations, pointing to protections and exceptions included in the bill’s work requirements provision. Democrats, led by Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ), denounced the legislation as a direct attack on low-income Americans. Democrats cited a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projecting that up to 13.7 million people could lose Medicaid coverage by 2034, warning of increased uncompensated care and strain on rural hospitals. Ultimately, Republicans rejected all amendments offered by Democrats.
The House Ways and Means Committee also adopted its section of the budget reconciliation bill on May 14 by a 26-19 vote. This section includes several significant health care provisions, featuring sweeping changes related to Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs), Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), Medicare and Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits. The package also introduces structural reforms to Medicare and the ACA exchange. It expands eligibility for closed rural hospitals to reopen under the Rural Emergency Hospital (REH) designation and provides $25 million for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to use artificial intelligence (AI) in identifying and recouping improper Medicare payments. Immigration-related restrictions are central to the bill’s health care provisions, eliminating Medicare and premium tax credit eligibility for undocumented immigrants and individuals with temporary immigration status. It also tightens ACA tax credit rules by requiring annual verification, eliminating special enrollment period access based on projected income, and removing caps on repayment of excess tax credits. Collectively, these provisions reflect a Republican strategy focused on limiting federal health spending, enforcing eligibility requirements and shifting coverage options toward market-based solutions.
During the markup, 38 Democratic-supported amendments were offered, but none were adopted. Notably, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV) offered an amendment to extend the enhanced Advanced Premium Tax Credits (eAPTCs) permanently, though the amendment failed. Reps. Terri Sewell (D-AL) and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) also offered amendments to preserve the eAPTCs, though they too did not get approved.
All recommendations from the relevant House committees were ultimately combined and approved by the House Budget Committee after a weekend of continued negotiations. In a late night vote on Sunday, May 18, the committee voted 17-16 to advance the package, after four Republican holdouts—Reps. Ralph Norman (R-SC), Chip Roy (R-TX), Andrew Clyde (R-GA) and Josh Brecheen (R-OK)—who tanked the first vote on Friday, ultimately voted present.
The legislation then passed out of the House Rules Committee by an 8-4 vote on May 21 after more than 24 hours of debate. Several health care-related amendments impacting the House Energy and Commerce Committee subtitle were added. Notably, the committee approved: (1) moving the implementation date for biannual redeterminations of coverage for adults covered by Medicaid; (2) limiting retroactive coverage in Medicaid; and (3) requiring states to establish Medicaid work requirements by Dec. 31, 2026. The revised bill also moved to eliminate the discretion of future administrations to waive work requirements for various populations and ensure federal Medicaid does not fund gender transition therapies or procedures for minors or adults. Furthermore, it adjusted the limits on new SDPs, providing non-Medicaid expansion states with a cap of 110% of the Medicare rate for a given health care service, grandfathering in any existing SDPs above that rate in such states. Lastly, it inserted a new section to appropriate cost-sharing reduction payments (CSRs) for low-income beneficiaries in the individual market.
The Senate has yet to announce a formal schedule but is expected to take up the House-passed version in June. Final reconciliation between the House and Senate versions is anticipated later this summer, setting the stage for high-stakes negotiations, especially over Medicaid policy and federal spending priorities.
A full breakdown of the House-passed health care provisions under the jurisdictions of the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees is linked here.
Emily Felder, Sage Schaftel, Adam Steinmetz, Deema F. Tarazi, Mae L. Babbington and Lauren Mish Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP
CMMI Unveils New Strategic Direction: Preventive Care, Patient Empowerment, and Competition
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) recently announced a new strategic direction during a public webinar and accompanying white paper, outlining its evolving priorities under the current administration. During the May 13, 2025 webinar, Abe Sutton, Director of CMMI and Deputy Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), emphasized CMMI’s continued mission to improve the U.S. health care system and to build on its 15 years of testing alternative payment models. As described in more detail below, however, CMMI’s new strategic direction reflects a shift in focus from CMMI’s approach under the Biden administration even while certain longstanding goals remain the same.
CMMI Under the Trump Administration: Prevention, Patient Empowerment, and Competition
CMMI’s new strategy emphasizes evidence-based prevention, personal agency, and market competition as central pillars to improving health outcomes and reducing costs. This three-pillar approach is structured around the following strategies:
1. Promote Evidence-Based Prevention. While CMMI has arguably been focused on preventive care for some time (e.g., the PC Flex Model, which focused on incentivizing primary care and preventive services), in his comments Sutton highlighted a renewed emphasis on prevention to avoid disease occurrence, promote early disease detection, and manage chronic diseases. Specifically, CMMI will include preventive care measures in all of its models, which may include working with community-based organisations to assist with nutrition and lifestyle counseling or offering access to evidence-based alternative medicine. Other examples offered by CMMI include (i) waivers for accountable care entities to assume global risk to provide durable medical equipment (DME) if the DME supports patients’ ability to transition or remain in their homes, (ii) reduced cost-sharing for preventive services, and (iii) payments to caregivers to support individuals with cognitive decline. 2. Empower People to Achieve Their Health Goals. Under CMMI’s new strategy, CMMI will aim to give individuals more control over their health care decisions by increasing access to usable data aimed at supporting individuals’ understanding of their health status. For example, CMMI may use models to test how mobile device applications, shared decision-making tools, and health education materials empower people to manage their chronic conditions and improve their health. CMMI may also explore opportunities to support individuals’ decision-making by publishing data about providers and services, including costs and quality performance. Lastly, CMMI indicates that it is considering waivers to support predictable cost-sharing for certain health care items, specifically prescription drugs or medical devices. 3. Drive Choice and Competition. The third strategic pillar focuses on supporting a competitive health care marketplace where providers are incentivized to deliver high-quality, cost-effective care. CMMI discusses designing models intended to incentivize participation by independent physician practices and providers that are not part of a larger health system or owned by a health plan. It is worth noting that CMMI has endeavored to incentivize these types of entities’ participation in value-based care for several years as demonstrated by its ACO REACH and PC Flex Models, both of which included incentives for smaller organisations that had not previously participated in a CMMI model. The new CMMI strategy also addresses potential changes to Medicare Advantage models, which, for example, could include requirements for site-neutral payments across care settings to incentivize the use of outpatient and community-based care.
CMMI’s white paper also states that these strategic pillars are underpinned by a foundational commitment to protecting federal taxpayer dollars. Under its new approach, CMMI states that it will focus on models that are fiscally responsible and scalable, aligning with its statutory mandate to reduce program expenditures while preserving or enhancing quality of care.
CMMI Under the Biden Administration: Emphasizing Health Equity and Aligning with Stakeholders to Achieve System Transformation
While there are similarities between CMMI’s new strategic approach and CMMI’s previous strategic approach, introduced in 2021, they differ in focus and implementation. The previous strategic approach emphasized health equity, multi-payer alignment, and person-centered care as opposed to an emphasis on market-based competition and patient choice. The prior strategic direction was around five key objectives:
1. Drive Accountable Care. CMMI aimed to expand the number of beneficiaries in care relationships accountable for quality and total cost, aiming for universal Medicare fee-for-service participation by 2030. The new strategic direction appears to reiterate that goal by stating that new model designs could require a growing proportion of beneficiaries in global downside risk arrangements. 2. Advance Health Equity. Previously, CMMI endeavored to integrate equity into every model by collecting demographic data, addressing social determinants of health, and ensuring underserved populations were represented. This objective is notably absent from the new strategic direction, which instead focuses on patient empowerment. 3. Support Care Innovations. One of CMMI’s previous objectives was to use data, technology, and payment flexibilities to enable integrated, person-centered care, including behavioral health and home-based services. While the new CMMI strategy also focuses on using data and technology to improve health care, the focus is on empowering patients with more data to help them take control of their health care. 4. Improve Access by Addressing Affordability. Under its prior strategic direction, CMMI emphasized reducing health care prices, particularly with respect to drug prices, and using models that waive cost-sharing. CMMI’s new strategic direction echoes these goals. One distinction, however, is that the prior strategy included a goal of setting targets to reduce the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries who forgo care due to cost – a goal that is not specifically mentioned in the new strategic direction. 5. Partner to Achieve System Transformation. Previously, CMMI had a goal to align priorities across CMS and engage stakeholders, including payers, purchasers, states, patient advocates, and patients, to improve quality, outcomes, and reduce costs, targeting multi-payer alignment in all new models by 2030. In contrast, the new CMMI direction calls for increasing financial risk for providers and discontinuing models that fail to meet cost-saving criteria.
Looking Ahead
These contrasting strategies illustrate the impact of administrative philosophies on health care policy and the direction of innovation within Medicare and Medicaid services. As CMMI continues to develop and then implements its updated strategy, stakeholders can expect a sustained emphasis on value-based care, with evolving priorities that reflect the current administration’s policy framework. The coming years will likely bring new models and initiatives aimed at improving outcomes, enhancing patient engagement, and ensuring fiscal responsibility in Medicare and Medicaid services.
Rachel E. Yount Mintz
|
|
PUBLIC SECTOR ARTICLES
|
|
|
SOUTH AFRICA |
RAF ‘deliberately withholding’ information from Scopa
The SIU tells us that one law firm has received an incredibly disproportionate portion of the work allocated by the RAF – Scopa chair.
The Road Accident Fund (RAF) has been accused of deliberately withholding information from Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) about the top 10 law firms to receive briefs and payments from the fund.
Scopa chair Songeza Zibi said on Wednesday he has asked for this information twice, the first time on 6 November 2024. He now believes “this information is being deliberately withheld from the committee for improper reasons”.
“In the intervening period, the SIU [Special Investigating Unit] came to brief the committee and one of the things that they told us is that one of the law firms has received an incredibly disproportionate portion of the work allocated by the RAF.
“We do not know who that law firm is but you can see why that information is pertinent.”
He said he cannot understand “why it is easy to provide the plaintiff information but it seems impossible to provide the corporate legal services information” when the committee has asked for it in writing and in the sitting.
Zibi said one of the things he is concerned about is that there are names of law firms that appear on both the lists.
What does the RAF chair say?
RAF chair Lorraine Francois apologised for the information not being provided and assured the committee it will be provided.
Zibi said his difficulty is that Francois was in the meeting and knew Scopa asked for this information, which has not been provided.
Zibi said it would not be unfair to hold Francois responsible for the failure to provide this information because the board is the accounting authority.
Francois said the RAF board secretary takes note of Scopa’s requirements but they always assume that it is the responsibility of the RAF CEO and executive to put this information together.
Controversial RAF CEO Collins Letsoalo was placed on special leave with full pay and benefits by the board on Tuesday as a precautionary measure, but it was stated that this did not constitute disciplinary action.
Francois said most of the time, the information requested gets submitted directly to Scopa.
“We are a non-executive board so we don’t review everything that comes here directly.
“That is the responsibility of the executive. Now I take full accountability and will ensure this happens. But to respect the request of this committee, I will now get to that level to make sure we will provide this information,” she said.
Scopa member Mark Burke of the DA took issue with her answer and asked her what her annual compensation is. Francois said it is about R1.2 million.
“You get paid R1.2 million, which is the equivalent of a parliamentary salary and in your mind it’s too operational for you to respond to the [request] for information,” said Burke.
“That [it] is beyond the scope of your work. Does that seem reasonable to you?”
Zibi said he would answer this question.
“You [Francois] didn’t think it was important enough because I have raised it twice and you simply didn’t bother to check.
“We are not asking you to be operational. I am asking you to ensure that the needs of the committee are met by way of information,” he said.
‘Terminate the board immediately’
Scopa member Alan Beesley of ActionSA followed up by stating that he found Francois’s response dumbfounding.
“I saw the list that [Zibi] asked for. It’s not an extensive list,” said Beesley.
He requested that Deputy Minister of Transport Mkhuleko Hlengwa write letters of termination immediately to the RAF board because it is acting with immunity at the moment and treating parliament with disrespect, which is totally unacceptable.
Acting RAF CEO Phathutshedzo Lukhwareni said a panel of 43 law firms was appointed by the RAF in December 2023, but only 19 were briefed and paid during the 2023 and 2024 financial years “at the time of preparing the report”.
Lukhwareni said a total R6 million was paid to these law firms in 2023, and around R104 million in 2024.
He said it is a panel (of law firms) and obviously the selection takes place depending on the complexity of the matter.
No state security clearance
Scopa was also told that not a single member of the RAF’s board or senior executive has a security clearance from the State Security Agency (SSA).
Lukhwareni said all the forms have been submitted to the SSA for the vetting process and interviews have been held with some of the executives but “from here on it’s beyond our control from a RAF perspective and SSA is responsible”.
Zibi said something does not match because on 16 October 2024 he had an exchange with Francois about the vetting of officials and one official, Letsoalo, was said to be vetted.
Zibi pointed out that Letsoalo said in March 2025 that he had been vetted – and the difference between what he said then and the state of affairs now “means for the second time he lied to the committee”.
“I asked him about the treasurer at the RAF and he [also] lied about that.”
Scopa member Patrick Atkinson of the DA said Letsoalo – who was initially acting CEO of the RAF and has now been CEO for five years – has been without a security clearance for seven years.
Atkinson said the problem with that is that (without clearance) Letsoalo has not been legally appointed to that position and the question then is how would he have the authority to take the legal action he has against the Auditor-General (AG).
The RAF unsuccessfully applied to review and set aside the AG’s disclaimer of the fund’s 2020/2021 annual financial results and to declare the disclaimer invalid and unlawful.
The AG issued the disclaimer because the RAF used an accounting standard it was not permitted to use.
“I understand the court might give him six months to get his security clearance but not seven years,” Atkinson said.
“If he has been operating for seven years without a security clearance, it raises a massive legal issue about a whole variety [of issues] about the accounting principles, not paying out medical aids and foreigners and a whole variety of board minutes which are illegal.”
Zibi said he would have to take legal advice on that and would not hold the Department of Transport or RAF responsible for the tardiness of the SSA.
He said Scopa will take that up with the responsible minister, but the committee needs to work out if Scopa was misled when the CEO told the committee that he had been vetted.
By Roy Cokayne Moneyweb
Gauteng High Court rules against controversial CaseLines tender
The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, has overturned the tender awarded by the Office of the Chief Justice regarding the procurement of the online CaseLines project, following the subcontract which was earlier awarded to three senior OCJ officials who had, meanwhile, resigned.
The matter involved the award of a departmental tender to a company, Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Ltd (TR), which had subcontracted to a local company whose shareholders were the three senior OCJ officials.
The OCJ lodged the self-review application after it emerged that some OCJ officials who were involved in various stages of the procurement process that led to the appointment of TR as the preferred supplier of CaseLines, stood to benefit from the contract as subcontractors to TR.
Meanwhile, the court this week declared the tender to be inconsistent with the Constitution, unlawful, and invalid.
The interim contract between the OCJ and TR, made by an order of court in August 2023, remains effective, pending the conclusion and coming into effect of a new contract for the provision of CaseLines between OCJ and TR.
The OCJ’s procurement of the CaseLines software, licences, resources, support, and maintenance from TR for the implementation of the Court Online solution was, meanwhile, declared to be a sole-source service provision.
In a statement issued by the OCJ, it welcomed the ruling and said the order vindicated the justice office’s longstanding opposition to the impugned contract and reaffirmed the organisation’s zero tolerance of fraud and corruption.
“The department looks forward to putting in place a lawful and valid contract for CaseLines in fulfilment of its mandate to provide support to the judicial system by rendering effective and efficient court administration services,” the OCJ said
The court online system, where all matters before the court are filed electronically, is currently in use in Gauteng, and it is due to be rolled out to other provinces.
A procurement process was initiated in 2021 for the evidence management part of the court online system. Following a sole-source procurement process, the OCJ awarded a contract to Thomson Reuters to provide software, licences, resources, support, and maintenance for 60 months, commencing in April 2022.
The OCJ later noted that the three directors involved in the tender were its employees. By then, the three directors had already submitted their resignation letters to the OCJ and were serving their notice period.
Their subcontract between their company, ZA Square Consulting, and TR has, meanwhile, been cancelled. The three former employees are Nicolaas Coetzer, Nkosikhona Mncube, and Yvonne van Niekerk.
Zelda Venter IOL
|
- END