Archive | earlier editorials

Battle of the Bulge

…….editorial …..August 2020…….

What size the SA public service?

It is plain to see that the country’s major liability in terms of over-expenditure is the massive public sector wage bill which, by any standard, is totally out of proportion to that spent by other countries, let alone in the developing world.     However, when any suggestion is made of trimming this down, or even cutting down on the regular cycle of pay increases, such proposals are immediately met with a threat of a government shutdown by the union front.

Both sides in this constant and wearisome idealogical battle on the subject of who actually runs government service, goes right back to the outcomes thrashed out during the 1991 peace negotiations at Kempton Park, the chief negotiators at the time being Cyril Ramaphosa and Roelf Meyer.

Paying the piper

Over subsequent years since the CODESA multi-party talks took place, the peace formula has produced a kind of “don’t you dare touch this” mantra with the trade union movement.  Clearly, ownership of the public sector was seen as the tool that the new governing party would need to change the country.

As time has passed, this thinking has become embedded in the politics of the country.  It has nothing to do with the country’s Constitution, its legislation or its government structures.   Legislative authority is held by the Parliament of South Africa.    Executive authority is vested in the President of South Africa who is head of state and head of government, and his Cabinet.   Nevertheless, there is always a doubt who is at the controls when it comes to the pay-packet.

Hitting the rocks

The subject of control of the public sector has now become very real as a result of the coffers running dry. At the last Budget in March there was an indication that it was about to happen and the need for a Supplementary Budget in July indicated that it had.    At that point, Minister Tito Mboweni shot off to Washington and convinced the IMF, in a letter signed by himself, that a loan, small by international terms, was necessary to see South Africa through the COVID 19 backlash.  It seemed at the time he had Cabinet backing, of a sort.

This application for an international loan was with total disregard of the ANC Alliance’s known dislike of the IMF and the World Bank, mainly as a result of the tight “rules” or encumbrances that come with such loans.   Ebrahim Patel, for example, has clearly shown his dislike for the World Bank in parliamentary meetings two years ago when involved with International Relations at meetings at Union Buildings.

The feud with the ANC goes back to the dawn of democracy with the loans surrounding the GEAR initiative. Many, like Minister Patel, on the Left seem to think that strict terms imposed by World Bank or IMF bankers “undermine South Africa’s sovereignty” and many have said so recently.

Beggars can’t be choosers

In fact, the “ANC Alliance Secretariat” issued a statement, upon learning of the Minister of Finance’s departure which confusingly read, ”The ANC Alliance affirms the need to safeguard South Africa’s democratic national sovereignty, the fundamental right to self-determination, our independence, all of which are non-negotiable, even in the midst of a crisis.”

Two things were noticeable.  The ANC rarely uses the term “Alliance” in its releases and also immediately upon Minister Mboweni’s return, the minister was at pains to explain to Parliament during Supplementary Budget questioning that very little in the terms of “usual rules“ that applied to this particular  IMF loan, which he had successfully obtained.

He told MPs that the loan itself was small and the IMF “was not the devil in town” that it was supposed to be.     A loan payable over a period of five years at an interest rate of 1.1% can hardly be called punitive, he said.

Small print

But if one reads the letter to the IMF that Minister Mboweni wrote (which accompanied the Minister’s parliamentary presentation) the words of South Africa’s Finance Minister are carefully put.   It is quite evident that the subject of SA’s bulging and expensive public service is one of the items which have now to be debated.

Minister Mboweni said he will “take any necessary measures to maintain debt sustainability” which, whilst open-ended, puts this matter on the ANC agenda whatever COSATU might like to think.

For the moment, however, and perhaps timeously in favour of the ‘radical’ faction in the ANC, Parliament has now been made aware of the report of the Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) which shows that after 20 years, whites still dominate top management positions in the private sector, which card was played by the Minister of Labour on introducing the Employment Equity Bill.

Downhill

Cabinet has a dismal record of listening to common-sense on financial issues   Straightforward economic thinking is often referred to as “neo-liberalism” or “colonialist thinking” and instead of listening to sensible people like Cas Coovadia and Iraj Abedian, business and industry gets exposed to such useless Cabinet expressions such as “deepening economic reform” and “the need for strategic alliances”.

Reuben Maleka, of the Public Servants Association (PSA) made another pretty pointless comment by saying a few days ago before the arbitration on the government pay increase started.    He said, “If 1.2 million public sector workers don’t have money to spend then the retail environment will die. And when there is no demand from consumers, who are also public sector workers, then you are destroying a pillar of the economy.”

The cold fact is that  National Treasury, as Minister Mboweni has told MPs,  has “no intention of allowing South Africa to spend its way out of debt. It must control the expenses.”    As Clair Bisseker noted in Business Day last week, the fact that has emerged is that the SA government will be spending almost 60% of tax revenue in 2020 on just 1.3 million public servants – a mere 2.2% of the population.  Worse probably is the other fact that for every R1 the SA government spends, it only generates 27c in economic growth.

Fronting

Perhaps it was a good idea for the IMF request letter to be signed by Minister Tito Mboweni rather approaching the IMF with the endorsement of the country’s President, since the letter seems to only commit National Treasury and the Finance Minister to an austerity drive, letting President Ramaphosa off the hook in terms of a face-down with unions.   Whatever the case, South Africa still seems to have no agreed common financial approach to its debt problems.

In the meanwhile, the public service wage bill is running rampant, Bisseker notes.  Pay increases are equivalent to 40% in real terms in the last 12 years and have tripled the wage bill to R629bn, but Mboweni’s letter to the IMF clearly states the South Africa will ““take any necessary measures to maintain debt sustainability”.

Aside from cutting down on staff there is also the question of pay increases, previously mentioned, amounting cumulatively to 7% year on year, the unions stating that this “was won after a long, hard fight” therefore at the same time giving an indication that the battle starts on this subject first.

For starters

This first IMF loan is not the one that South Africa is going to need eventually from the IMF and to be approved by Parliament and, as all bankers do, they will be no doubt watching carefully from Washington what steps are taken with this initial loan with soft terms and masked as a COVID 19 matter.

Bloated

It is plain to see that the country’s major liability in terms of over-expenditure is the massive public sector wage bill which, by any standard, is totally out of proportion to that spent by other countries, let alone in the developing world.     However, when any suggestion is made of trimming this down, or even cutting down on the regular cycle of pay increases, such proposals are immediately met with a threat of a government shutdown by the union front.

Both sides in this constant and wearisome idealogical battle on the subject of who actually runs government service, goes right back to the outcomes thrashed out during the 1991 peace negotiations at Kempton Park, the chief negotiators at the time being Cyril Ramaphosa and Roelf Meyer.

Paying the piper

Over subsequent years since the CODESA multi-party talks took place, the peace formula has produced a kind of “don’t you dare touch this” mantra with the trade union movement.  Clearly, ownership of the public sector was seen as the tool that the new governing party would need to change the country.

As time has passed, this thinking has become embedded in the politics of the country.  It has nothing to do with the country’s Constitution, its legislation or its government structures.   Legislative authority is held by the Parliament of South Africa.    Executive authority is vested in the President of South Africa who is head of state and head of government, and his Cabinet.   Nevertheless, there is always a doubt who is at the controls when it comes to the pay-packet.

Hitting the rocks

The subject of control of the public sector has now become very real as a result of the coffers running dry. At the last Budget in March there was an indication that it was about to happen and the need for a Supplementary Budget in July indicated that it had.    At that point, Minister Tito Mboweni shot off to Washington and convinced the IMF, in a letter signed by himself, that a loan, small by international terms, was necessary to see South Africa through the COVID 19 backlash.  It seemed at the time he had Cabinet backing, of a sort.

This application for an international loan was with total disregard of the ANC Alliance’s known dislike of the IMF and the World Bank, mainly as a result of the tight “rules” or encumbrances that come with such loans.   Ebrahim Patel, for example, has clearly shown his dislike for the World Bank in parliamentary meetings two years ago when involved with International Relations at meetings at Union Buildings.

The feud with the ANC goes back to the dawn of democracy with the loans surrounding the GEAR initiative. Many, like Minister Patel, on the Left seem to think that strict terms imposed by World Bank or IMF bankers “undermine South Africa’s sovereignty” and many have said so recently.

Beggars can’t be choosers

In fact, the “ANC Alliance Secretariat” issued a statement, upon learning of the Minister of Finance’s departure which confusingly read, ”The ANC Alliance affirms the need to safeguard South Africa’s democratic national sovereignty, the fundamental right to self-determination, our independence, all of which are non-negotiable, even in the midst of a crisis.”

Two things were noticeable.  The ANC rarely uses the term “Alliance” in its releases and also immediately upon Minister Mboweni’s return, the minister was at pains to explain to Parliament during Supplementary Budget questioning that very little in the terms of “usual rules“ that applied to this particular  IMF loan, which he had successfully obtained.

He told MPs that the loan itself was small and the IMF “was not the devil in town” that it was supposed to be.     A loan payable over a period of five years at an interest rate of 1.1% can hardly be called punitive, he said.

Small print

But if one reads the letter to the IMF that Minister Mboweni wrote (which accompanied the Minister’s parliamentary presentation) the words of South Africa’s Finance Minister are carefully put.   It is quite evident that the subject of SA’s bulging and expensive public service is one of the items which have now to be debated.

Minister Mboweni said he will “take any necessary measures to maintain debt sustainability” which, whilst open-ended, puts this matter on the ANC agenda whatever COSATU might like to think.

For the moment, however, and perhaps timeously in favour of the ‘radical’ faction in the ANC, Parliament has now been made aware of the report of the Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) which shows that after 20 years, whites still dominate top management positions in the private sector, which card was played by the Minister of Labour on introducing the Employment Equity Bill.

Downhill

Cabinet has a dismal record of listening to common-sense on financial issues   Straightforward economic thinking is often referred to as “neo-liberalism” or “colonialist thinking” and instead of listening to sensible people like Cas Coovadia and Iraj Abedian, business and industry gets exposed to such useless Cabinet expressions such as “deepening economic reform” and “the need for strategic alliances”.

Reuben Maleka, of the Public Servants Association (PSA) made another pretty pointless comment by saying a few days ago before the arbitration on the government pay increase started.    He said, “If 1.2 million public sector workers don’t have money to spend then the retail environment will die. And when there is no demand from consumers, who are also public sector workers, then you are destroying a pillar of the economy.”

The cold fact is that  National Treasury, as Minister Mboweni has told MPs,  has “no intention of allowing South Africa to spend its way out of debt. It must control the expenses.”    As Clair Bisseker noted in Business Day last week, the fact that has emerged is that the SA government will be spending almost 60% of tax revenue in 2020 on just 13 million public servants – a mere 2.2% of the population.  Worse probably is the other fact that for every R1 the SA government spends, it only generates 27cents in economic growth.

Fronting

Perhaps it was a good idea for the IMF request letter to be signed by Minister Tito Mboweni rather approaching the IMF with the endorsement of the country’s President, since the letter seems to only commit National Treasury and the Finance Minister to an austerity drive, letting President Ramaphosa off the hook in terms of a face-down with unions.   Whatever the case, South Africa still seems to have no agreed common financial approach to its debt problems.

In the meanwhile, the public service wage bill is running rampant, Bisseker notes.  Pay increases are equivalent to 40% in real terms in the last 12 years and have tripled the wage bill to R629bn, but Mboweni’s letter to the IMF clearly states the South Africa will ““take any necessary measures to maintain debt sustainability”.

Aside from cutting down on staff there is also the question of pay increases, previously mentioned, amounting cumulatively to 7% year on year, the unions stating that this “was won after a long, hard fight” therefore at the same time giving an indication that the battle starts on this subject first.

For starters

This first IMF loan is not the one that South Africa is going to need eventually from the IMF and to be approved by Parliament and, as all bankers do, they will be no doubt watching carefully from Washington what steps are taken with this initial loan with soft terms and masked as a COVID 19 matter.

This battle for ownership of the  must play out soon or be held over officially by agreement bearing the half term October mid-year budget. No budget speech is going to work with this issue hanging like a black cloud.

Posted in Cabinet,Presidential, earlier editorials, Finance, economic, Labour, Public utilities0 Comments

Face out in Parliament 

editorial….July 13 2020…             

High Noon…

Parliament recently saw a drama being played out that was reminiscent of the old and famous movie where, after a long number of small confrontations, the two parties shoot it out in Main Street.  With the critical matter of the approval of South Africa’s economic direction at stake, shooting straight was not really the issue but who pulled the trigger the fastest.

The movie set for the shootout occurred before the Finance Standing Committee under chair Yunus Carrim on 7 July.  The stage was the public sector hearings debate on Minister Tito Mboweni’s Supplementary Budget, and this was before the house for adoption in conjunction with consideration of the report from the Financial and Fiscal Commission (FFC), the independent entity that represents government opinion.

Amongst the twelve or so public submissions, including those from South African Institute of Chartered Accountants; Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA); COSATU; and the C19 People’s Coalition; was a new group, the Economists Initiative (EI), who had been on e-NCA the night before with spokesperson Neil Coleman of the Institute for Economic Justice and COSATU fame speaking on their behalf.

Neil Coleman claimed his group represented 122 economists and policy experts.   How fast this grouping had been cobbled together, we do not know. Coleman (brother of well-known Colin Coleman, businessman and also COSATU veteran) said in his interview at the time his group were going to reject the Budget in its entirety and ask Parliament to do the same.   Should Parliament fail to do this, he said, an approach to the Constitutional Court would be considered.   Most pricked up their ears at this and plugged in to the virtual debate following.

Broken promises

The shootout between EI and Treasury did eventually take place and most dramatically at that, the chosen venue being a Finance Standing Committee meeting on 7 July.    EI’s primary complaint was a repeat of what had been said before, in that in their view the Tito Mboweni austerity Budget had “completely betrayed the President’s R500bn Covid 19 rescue package”.  They told MPs that they strenuously opposed the extensive austerity package to be introduced over the next two to three years since it involved cuts of more than R400bn.

Joined by the Budget Justice Coalition (BJC – a coalition of civil society formations), both were the primary critics of the Budget and most vociferous on the subject, EI maintaining that National Treasury were “misleading the country by suggesting that the only route government had in financing the expenditure and the shortfalls arising from the economic crisis, was to borrow on international markets or from financial institutions internationally.”  This was totally untrue, they maintained.

BJC suggested that the Budget was “so regressive that it was probably unconstitutional”, EI stating that the Budget was “tantamount to committing economic suicide”.  As intimated on TV, they took the extraordinary step of calling for Parliament to reject the Budget and send it back for revision based on fresh ideas.

Re-action

National Treasury’s response to the attacks was overwhelming in its anger, particularly towards the EI. Treasury DG, Dondo Mogajane, begged MPs not to be “deceived and misled” by such submissions, or for Parliament to be used as a “platform for false, misleading statements”.   Importantly, DG Mogajane attacked the BJC and Economists Initiative inputs as being “politically motivated”.

There it was, a clear statement by Treasury that political interference was at the heart of the EI submission.

In the open

Immediately the chair of the Committee, Yunus Carrim, intervened and reprimanded DG Mogajane severely for first dictating to his committee what they should or should not believe;  secondly, for insulting members of a public sector submission invited to Parliament;  then for advising Parliament how it should respond to a submission, and in particular, for calling EI’s input “false, alarmist and misleading”.   Yunus Carrim as chair said this was all outrageous and insulting.

Carrim noted, “The DG is normally a mild-mannered man” and said that he could not understand the DG’s “change of character”. Carrim then insinuated quite clearly that perhaps Minister Mboweni had put the DG up to this. This was a most unpleasant exchange. The Treasury team denied strenuously that they had been told to say anything.

Carrim must have been perfectly aware of what was really going on and that MPs were being asked to go above the Finance Committee by EI and appeal to President Ramaphosa, but he still chose to lambaste Treasury representatives.

So, let’s look at the reason why our respected, experienced and usually quiet DG Mogajane uncharacteristically exploded.

Long war

The gun battle between National Treasury and the extreme left-aligned followers in the governing party alliance, such as COSATU, SACP and a number of ANC followers, has been going on for almost a year.  Maybe it was started some time ago with comments from Ace Magashule on nationalising the Reserve Bank, then followed by the quantified easing or QE issue and the possibility of using PIC benefit funds. Perhaps even the issue spoken of in hushed tones, the printing of money.

To this grouping of opinion, strict debt control and Budget cutting on social projects hurts the “poorest of the poor” in a disproportionate manner as compared to the wealthy and middle-class sector, not necessarily where the power base of the governing party lies.  This theme of thinking has been expressed many times by a multitude of observers.

No, no issues

On the other hand, Minister Mboweni and National Treasury, hating debt in any form especially crippling long-term debt, intend to curtail any proposal to accumulate vast quantities of debt.  This might be an over-simplification of policy calls but the suggestion in Parliament clearly came from the EI, as was forewarned, that the Budget should be re-written, or at least “revised”, representing a call to battle between the two ideologies.

For National Treasury it was the final insult and boiled down to a suggestion that Treasury should be constitutionally arraigned.  Another low level had been reached in the intercine war being conducted between the two schools of thought within the governing party. President Ramaphosa as always and characteristically said nothing.

After this altercation, EI then laid out before parliamentarians how the Budget had departed from the R500bn package promised.  The most important commitment to COSATU, EI said, was the implementation of the R100bn job creation promise but now, they said, just a mere 6% of this allocation was left.

Furthermore, Treasury in their view had gone back on the President’s promises had made cuts of more than R400bn, most of them they said affecting social delivery.

Arrived in Parliament

This rift in the governing party at the expense of national objectives is becoming more evident daily. For one party to the argument, the problem appears to be that the economy, spiraling downwards, is seen as becoming debt endemic which could well result in bankruptcy, no possibility of growth and therefore coupled into a scenario of endless poverty.

For the other party, the problem appears to be the view that the poor will not only continue to be poor, but that poverty will worsen unless further debt is risked by spending more into growth and spending to get out of debt.

Cul de sac

The legislation for the Supplementary Budget, the subject of the confrontation contains two Bills as with any budget, both of which are section 77 Money Bills in terms of the Money Bills Act.  This means that Parliament is allowed to comment upon the Bill in terms of the Constitution but not alter it in way, using a majority vote or not, unless so agreed by National Treasury.

The Constitution insists on this, in order to protect its people from interference in any Budget by any political party on an ideological basis or with motives not based on fiscal reasoning.

Particularly sensitive would therefore be any changes made subversively to the Division of Revenue Bill, the mechanism which breaks up the Budget and specifically passes the sums of money to the appropriate National Departments and to local government via the nine provinces. The reference to “political interference” is therefore the cause of the National Treasury’s discomfort  and what altered the mindset of the mild-mannered DG Mogajane.

 In conclusion

The person paid to make the final decision between the two choices is Minister of Finance Mboweni, and when he tabled the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill No 9 and the Adjustments Appropriation Bill No 10 said clearly in his speech on 24 June to Parliament that debt must be controlled. To change that, EI must go to the courts. So far nothing has happened.

Minister Mboweni summarised the details of his approach to the problem in his speech by stating that the “herculean task” for Treasury was to put measures in place to grow the economy but at the same time close the “hippopotamus mouth of burdening interest and loans”, i.e. the enormous sums required to repay debt in the future “in order to avoid a sovereign debt crisis”.

One man standing

Such a spectre could haunt any incumbent Minister of Finance, that of being considered as a bankrupt nation and a financial pariah, as was Greece, and dealt accordingly by creditor nations and international lenders.

Always we shall be distracted by the latest in Covid 19 regulations and the frightful pandemic engulfing our country but, in the background, this gun battle will continue within the governing party and, unfortunately, will play out in Parliament further.

 

Posted in cabinet, earlier editorials0 Comments

By-passing Parliament at one’s peril

….editorial,  30 May 2020

Regulations mania hits South Africa …..

Winston Churchill, perhaps the greatest political and parliamentary figure of the last century, said that if you make 10,000 regulations you destroy all respect for the law.  Take a look at South Africa where far too many conflicting and nonsensical regulations are espoused on a weekly basis, some of them with only a loose and highly doubtful connection to the law, the Disaster Management Act, under which they are gazetted.

What started with good intent in the rush to halt the spread of Covid 19, ‘flatten the curve’ and buy time to build medical supply lines and PPE reserves, has turned into a regularised pattern of government by dictate.  We are in danger of getting used to the idea of government finding a way around the people’s Parliament just because 400 people can’t gather together in the light of social distancing, in itself another regulation.

This shortcut to governance has to be stopped before it becomes regularised in any way.  In the process of searching for a way to speed up what at times can be a cumbersome system of democratic checks and balances, the country has invented an immensely powerful and what could well be an illegal intervention named, by somebody unknown, as the National Coronavirus Command Council.

Rules in bulk

After only a month of the president’s announcement of the declaration of the national state of disaster, more than 50 sets of Covid-19 related regulations, directives, notices and directions have been published nationwide in its name.    Lawyers and business chambers are struggling to keep up with it all.

The problem now being faced is two-fold.  Firstly, the high-sounding and most unfortunately militarised name of “Command Council” represents an entity not recognised in the Constitution, or anywhere in the statute book.   It is purely an invention of a clique within the governing party as an instrument to administer a law cobbled together in a few months called the Disaster Management Act.

Somehow, without the knowledge of Parliament, a handpicked number cabinet ministers, chosen one has to assume by persons residing at Luthuli House, has granted executive functions and powers to a pick of between 8 and 19 cabinet ministers (the number varies) who meet at undisclosed places and take national decisions.

The same unknown group has ignored some thirty to forty other cabinet ministers for reasons unstated to form this command unit and there we have it, a new grouping administering a whole country by regulation.  It is so important that we do not get used to this alien concept as a substitute for ordinary democracy, whether or not it has a body a scientific expertise advising it or not.

Power point

On the subject of powers, the Constitution is quite clear – all cabinet ministers are accountable “collectively and individually to Parliament”.   But to repeat, this caveat is made nonsense of when a cabinet cabal, including the Deputy President, start making government policy affecting citizens’ rights without even a parliamentary nod.

Granted, that originally there was a need for speed and given the fact that Covid 19 is a disaster of global proportions, it was understandable that hastily convened and rushed virtual parliamentary portfolio committee meetings tried vainly to “debate” the issues that might arise as a result of implementing the Disaster Management Bill.    In fact, they did remarkably well in the circumstances and South Africa became the first country to try and handle parliamentary debate electronically in the light of lockdown.

Law by laptop

Virtual meetings make any meaningful debate nearly impossible at the best of times. They are designed more for briefings than for discussion.  In the understandable rush, the buttons pressing the “ayes” became the norm in the short time allowed. The Disaster Management Act (DMA) is the result and is now history.

Now, the buttons are being pressed by Dr Nkosazana-Zuma, the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), the department which the DMA empowered, most assuming that COGTA would be more of a spokesperson for the system to be adopted.

Governance by regs

However, “risk-adjusted strategy regulations” were published in a flash by COGTA in the light of the disaster (not emergency) powers with a statement that read, “The Cabinet minister responsible for cooperative governance and traditional affairs upon the recommendation of the cabinet member responsible for health and in consultation with cabinet, declare which of the following alert levels apply, and the extent to which they apply at a national, provincial, metropolitan or district level.” It all sounded like we had things in hand.

In the UK or Commonwealth countries, this process would have amounted to making Dr Nkosazana-Zuma prime minister and Dr Zweli Mkhize her deputy prime minister.  Nevertheless, Parliament in SA  soon fell outside of the inner circle when it came to oversight. Parliament deals with legislation not regulation.

What sticks to the wall

After a week or so,  it became more than noticeable that many of the regulations just did not link up and appeared randomly unconnected. The cooked chicken problem, no flip flops and absurd choices on who could and could not work.   Looking at it from a parliamentary aspect, to create temporary hospitals and to ban liquor and cigarette sales, and then cancel one factor but not the other, seemed not only a stretch under the same law but also a legal anachronism.

Worse, just the act of banning liquor sales and thus damaging the tourism and hospitality industry possibly forever is unlikely to pass any “justification analysis” constitutionally.    Most of the public comments called for in the form of  business submissions are now accumulating in government offices or parliamentary boxes and certainly unlikely ever be seen by Dr Nkosazana Zuma.   She is known for having no appetite for this sort of thing, as was discovered by the African Union.

LIFO

Now many of the regulations are causing serious “unintended consequences” in application, such as schooling, resulting in a law gone rogue.  A further well publicised example has been where regulations allow religious gatherings whereas most major religions did not call for them, nor will exercise them. Gatherings include funerals for the dead but not a healthy game of bowls for the elderly. Most have no idea of who consulted who on outcomes, representing more muddled thinking by a body which records no minutes and meets in secret.

South Africa has invented a most dangerous mechanism where everybody just relies on the Presidency to eventually “put things right” when the panic is over.  To do this, President Ramaphosa, in the light of a forthcoming ANC conference, will have to dissolve this mechanism somehow and terminate its powers. This politically powerful entity is led by a person who contested with him the position of president and who split the governing party in half doing this.

Its going to be a bumpy ride.

Posted in cabinet, Cabinet,Presidential, earlier editorials, Finance, economic, Fuel,oil,renewables, Justice, constitutional, Security,police,defence, Special Recent Posts, Trade & Industry0 Comments


This website is Archival

If you want your publications as they come from Parliament please contact ParlyReportSA directly. All information on this site is posted two weeks after client alert reports sent out.

Upcoming Articles

  1. Committee hears about Transnet transformation
  2. Post Office needs R2.1bn to cover losses
  3. Twin Peaks Bill awaits final public comment
  4. Communal land is ‘no-mans-land’ Parliament told
  5. New Audit Profession Bill tightens oversight
  6. Fight over Reserve Bank Bill shareholding

Earlier Editorials

Earlier Stories