ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula’s recent candid admission to the party’s deliberate deception of Parliament regarding the controversial “fire pool” at former President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla homestead underscores a blatant abuse of power and casts a dark shadow over the principles of accountability and transparency enshrined in South Africa’s Constitution.
The recent decision by the Legal Practice Council (“LPC”) to conduct all exams for candidate attorneys and pupil advocates exclusively in English has sparked significant controversy and discontent among various stakeholders.
The Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill (BELA Bill) was passed by Parliament’s first house, the National Assembly on 26 October 2023. It is now before the second house, the National Council of Provinces and is currently open for written submissions. The FW de Klerk Foundation expresses its concerns about the BELA Bill.
The rule of law is one of the Constitution’s founding values. It is accordingly most disturbing to learn that one-third of magistrates were threatened or harmed in 2021/2022.
While South Africa is meant to be a participatory democracy, recent events have highlighted concerns about Parliament listening to the people.
During 2023, Parliament considered a mix of positive legislation and legislation that falls seriously short of constitutional standards.
The SOE Bill proposes a significant structural change to address challenges in South Africa’s strategic State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). While aiming to provide a unified oversight structure, concerns linger about its effectiveness.
Introduced on May 22, 2023, the Public Procurement Bill (B 18-2023) seeks to streamline South Africa’s public procurement framework. Concerns persist about its ability to ensure transparency and fairness. Urgent revisions are crucial to align the Bill with constitutional principles, upholding democratic values.
The statement highlights the revisions to the bill, specifically the removal of a contentious vetting clause for NGOs and religious bodies. Despite this positive change, the statement emphasizes persisting flaws, including vague definitions, threats to constitutional rights, and the absence of oversight mechanisms, indicating that GILAB continues to pose risks.
