Search Results

Staff Writer | 23 March 2026 The Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed attempts to put a stay on South Africa’s new Employment Equity targets imposed on businesses in the country. The Employment Equity Amendment Act and its accompanying two sets of Employment Equity Regulations, including the 5-year sector numerical EE targets for the eighteen economic sectors, came into effect on 1 January 2025 and 15 April 2025, respectively. Under the laws, designated employers in South Africa—businesses employing over 50 people—are required to draw up plans to ensure their workforces reflect the country’s demographics at all levels. To this end, the government is now empowered to set numerical demographic targets for businesses across 18 sectors, pushing for black, Indian/Asian, coloured as well as female and disabled representation. On top of the targets, designated employers are also now saddled with increased admin and burdensome compliance costs—while facing steep fines and penalties for falling foul of the laws. After the commencement of the Act and the regulations, a number of legal challenges were instituted against the Minister of Employment and Labour, the Director-General of the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL), and the Commission for Employment Equity (CEE). These cases primarily challenged the constitutional validity, lawfulness, consultation process, and the implementation of the amended EE legislative framework and the 5-year sectoral numerical EE targets. Two key litigants, the National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and business lobby Sakeliga, filed an urgent application with the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, challenging the laws. The case was heard on 15 August 2025. In the legal challenges, the groups sought interim relief to interdict or suspend the implementation of the 5-year sectoral numerical EE targets, as well as certain provisions of the EE General Administrative Regulations—Part A of the challenge. In Part B of their case, they sought substantive relief to declare section 15A of the EE Amendment Act, 2022, and related provisions unconstitutional, including the review and setting aside of the 5-year sectoral numerical EE targets and the EE Regulations. On 28 August 2025, the High Court dismissed Part A of the application. According to the DEL, the court accepted the urgency of the case, but held that an interdict was not appropriate where the Minister had already exercised statutory powers. “The High Court declined to suspend what it regarded as a lawful exercise of statutory authority, emphasising the separation of powers,” it said. “The court further held that the consultation process preceding the publication of the sectoral numerical EE targets was lawful.” However, Part B—the constitutional validity challenge—remains pending, which played a key role in the latest dismissal. Appeals process falls flat NEASA and Sakeliga sought leave to appeal the dismissal of Part A of their application. The matter was heard on 16 October 2025. However, the Court found that there were no compelling reasons why another court would reach a different conclusion. It further held that it would be premature to grant leave to appeal before Part B is finalised. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, with no order as to costs. The applicants then approached the Supreme Court of Appeal. On 13 March 2026, the Supreme Court of Appeal ordered that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs on the grounds that there is no reasonable prospect of success in an appeal and there is no other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard. According to the DEL, this Supreme Court of Appeal Order is a big win for the department. “It vindicates our position that there is nothing sinister about the EE amendments and the 5-year sector numerical EE targets,” it said. The department said that, in the absence of any court interdict on the implementation of the EE Regulations and the 5-year sector numerical EE targets, all the designated employers are legally obligated to fully comply with the EE amendments. Designated employers must align their annual EE targets in the EE Plans with the 5-year sector numerical EE targets. The department noted that employers retain the flexibility to justify deviations from or non-compliance with the laws. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/854634/major-blow-to-businesses-employing-more-than-50-people-in-south-africa/

Siyabonga Goni | 19 March 2026 NSFAS’s controversial outsourcing practices have cost South African taxpayers up to R1bn, exposing failures in managing student accommodation and verifying service provider integrity. The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) is facing fresh scrutiny following a two-year investigation by the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) that exposed a “funding pipeline” riddled with systemic weaknesses, stemming from the introduction of a student-centred accommodation model overseen by former CEO Andile Nongogo and ex-chairperson Ernest Khosa. Nongogo was axed on 23 October 2023 after an Outa investigation found that he improperly appoi nted service providers to distribute allowances for food, hygiene products and transport to funded students. Khosa resigned in April 2024 after he was allegedly linked to irregular tenders that NSFAS issued to four service providers to manage payments to NSFAS beneficiaries. Multimillion-rand contracts In 2023, NSFAS entered into a five-year agreement with four online portal providers following a competitive bidding process. The winners, Xiquel Group, New Dawn Technologies, Training Young Minds, and Profecia IT, were tasked with managing the accommodation platform. Outa’s investigation raised red flags regarding the procurement process. The organisation revealed that Training Young Minds had been disqualified during the initial evaluation, only to be reinstated and awarded a contract. Furthermore, by January 2023, NSFAS had already outsourced work to 39 additional service providers responsible for property inspection and accreditation. Breakdown of finances Outa estimated that over the course of these contracts, between R600-million and R1-billion was diverted to the four private entities, a financial burden that taxpayers must bear for services that Outa contends should be managed internally by NSFAS. The scheme operated on a “system licence fee” model, whereby NSFAS automatically deducted 5% from payments to accommodation providers. This revenue was split 80/20 between NSFAS and the service providers, with the lion’s share going to the service providers. In just eight months in 2025, approximately R230-million was withheld from landlords to cover these fees. Rudie Heyneke, Outa’s senior project manager, said the R230-million represented only the 2025 data, and the long-term projections were staggering. “If you say that R180-million (80%) goes to the service providers, it means R45-million (20%) comes back to NSFAS. I’m sure that you can make a case that for one year, the solution partners will get in the region of R200-million. If you look at the five years, we are looking at R1-billion,” said Heyneke. The fee deduction process was criticised by members of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education. NSFAS CEO Waseem Carrim said the scheme had a professional working relationship with Outa and supplied much of the information for the report through submissions. Regarding Nongogo and Khosa’s student accommodation model, Carrim said: “The student accommodation project was implemented in 2023. We have acknowledged the challenges associated with student accommodation projects and set to work on addressing these challenges. “NSFAS has offered its full cooperation and support to the Special Investigating Unit in this investigative process and in terms of its proclamation, and we will allow the law to take its course.” Paying for accreditation The accreditation process also proved lucrative for agents and detrimental to the system. Under the service level agreement, landlords pay a registration fee for every bed that is accredited. This fee is split between the accreditation agent (80%), NSFAS (15%), and the portal providers (5%). The prices varied. For one to 20 beds, a fee of R200 was charged per bed; for 21 to 50 beds, R150 per bed; for 51 to 100 beds, R125 per bed; and for more than 100 beds, R100 per bed. “Our investigation found that accommodation providers paid approximately R33-million to register their beds on the student accommodation portal,” said Heyneke. However, for some landlords, the system has been a “disaster”. An accommodation provider for Majuba TVET College, who requested to remain anonymous but runs an accommodation called Amigos, claims she is still owed significant sums. “Xiquel was the worst disaster because of their system; they don’t have a backup for their system. There were students who were staying in my property who registered, and I signed with them. But then they later revoked their application after staying on my property for two months. A lady was working there and just told me straight that I’m insane. I’m not going to get my money because they do not have the records of what I’m saying,” said the accommodation provider. She also highlighted discrepancies in the payments she did receive, noting she was paid as little as R1,175 per student instead of the agreed R3,339.45. When questioned about claims, Carrim responded: “We have searched in our records and cannot find any record of this landlord.” Failure to inspect accommodation Another discovery involves the failure of the 39 accreditation agents to verify the properties they were paid to inspect. Outa found that many agents certified inflated bed numbers, allowing landlords to claim for “ghost students”. “If agents are certifying properties without proper inspections or approving bed numbers that clearly do not reflect reality, then the reliability of the entire accommodation system must be questioned,” said Heyneke. Of the 250,000 beds in the system, Outa has flagged 10,000 as “suspicious”. Heyneke cited the example of a property in Arboretum, Richards Bay, which was certified as a Grade A facility with 200 beds by the agent, Elandivect, with Xiquel as the solution partner managing the listing. However, satellite imagery revealed the property was a standard three-to-four-bedroom house with minimal outbuildings – clearly insufficient space for 200 residents. Following NSFAS’ decision to ditch the four solution partners after a legal review, Carrim said there were no “irregularities in the way the accreditation agents were appointed”. NSFAS has welcomed Outa’s investigation, and plans to review the report and consider its findings and recommendations in line with its ongoing initiatives to improve the management of student accommodation. Outa has demanded an independent probe into the entire student accommodation infrastructure. The organisation is also pushing for criminal complaints and investigations against NSFAS officials, service providers and landlords found guilty of misconduct and corruption. Daily Maverick asked Nongogo and Khosa for comment on Outa’s report. Nongogo did not respond. Khosa said: “NSFAS has a new leadership. They know better what is happening in the organisation. I don’t want to be drawn into what’s happening at NSFAS. Your persistence is very suspicious.” DM Update: The name of the service provider of accommodation at Majuba TVET College has been removed after raising concerns about her ongoing dealings with the online portal providers following the publication of the article. The removal has no bearing on the facts contained in the article. (Updated: 20 March 2025) ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-03-19-a-billion-rand-blunder-inside-nsfass-suspicious-student-housing-outsourcing-saga/?dm_source=blocks-list-item&dm_medium=card-link&dm_campaign=inform&utm_campaign=Post-1384&utm_medium=email&utm_source=first-thing

At the time of a B-BBEE Verification, many organisations fail to produce updated B-BBEE Statuses  from their suppliers especially those who are EMEs and QSEs with Enhanced Recognition. During a B-BBEE Verification, a B-BBEE Rating Agency will generally consider:   Any B-BBEE status that is valid within the Measurement Period or thereafter; Most recent valid B-BBEE Status; and A B-BBEE status that is valid for at least one day in the Measurement Period due to differing Financial Year Ends as well a customer and supplier not being measured at the same time.   B-BBEE Statuses that have expired before the start of an organisation’s Financial Year End will not be accepted.   Certificate Collection Services  are available to clarify the validity of any B-BBEE Status.

A B-BBEE Verification  is based on a sampling of evidence and an element of risk. In other words, the process of analysing less than 100% of the evidence supplied. The procedure provides a Verification Analyst with a reasonable basis on which to conclude that all evidence provided is true and accurate.   However, posing a challenge is a Learnership   claim where the Learner is no longer employed. If that particular Learner is chosen as part of the sample, the B-BBEE Rating Agency will need to interview them for an organisation to claim its points.   As per Clause 18.3.1.3 (e), the SANAS R47-03 document states the following:   " (e) As part of the Verification process, the Verification personnel shall interview a sufficient number of black persons at all levels of the Measured Entity to provide assurance that the information gathered is sound. For the avoidance of doubt, interviews shall be conducted for the Skills Development element. This does not exclude the sampling of white persons or others who do not meet the definition of 'Black'."   Therefore, an organisation must ensure that it has up-to-date contact details of Learners no longer employed or other pieces of corroborating evidence.   B-BBEE Verification Support Services  are available to assist Members to prepare for B-BBEE a Verification.

NRF | 9 March 2026 The National Research Foundation (NRF) is delighted to announce that it has maintained a Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) Level 1 rating. This achievement symbolises the NRF’s commitment to the transformation of the equity profiles of the South African research workforce; the knowledge enterprise; and the relationship between science and society while building a diverse and fully inclusive learning organisation. This achievement also highlights our commitment to the acceleration of transformation through preferential procurement and skills development. “Through its procurement and supplier development initiatives, the NRF has created meaningful opportunities for designated groups to participate in the organisation’s supply chain, including opportunities to do business with our National Facilities,” says Chief Financial Officer, Mr Bishen Singh. “The NRF remains committed to supporting Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) through targeted preferential procurement, enterprise development support, and collaborative partnerships. These interventions provide critical guidance, opportunities, and support to help emerging enterprises overcome barriers to entry and grow sustainably.” The NRF has continued to provide work opportunities for unemployed youth through the Youth Empowerment Services (YES) programme. This year, the NRF is hosting its fourth (4 th ) cohort through the programme, and over one-hundred and twenty (120) youths have received work exposure opportunities since inception. Key directed interventions in achieving this outcome include: Collaboration with Disability South Africa; Contributing to the YES programme; Collaborations with public and private sector (SMME funders); Enterprise and supplier development awareness;  Targeted preferential procurement expenditure towards SMMEs; SCM Transformation awareness session with SMMEs; Recruitment of designated groups (more importantly, female employees) in Junior to Senior Management positions in line with the Employment Equity Act; and Participation of designated groups in learnerships, apprenticeships and internships in line with the Skills Development Act. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://www.nrf.ac.za/nrf-maintains-b-bbee-level-1-status/

William Gumede | 13 March 2026 South Africa’s current model of BEE will compound the looming economic crisis. Foreign investors, particularly those establishing new industrial sectors not present in South Africa, but critical to the domestic and global economy, must be exempted from black economic empowerment, and given options to provide alternatives to BEE, whether providing jobs for the youth, supporting manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises or developing mass science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and technical skills. South Africa is facing its biggest economic crisis since the end of apartheid, and perhaps bigger than the Covid-induced economic crisis the country experienced, despite glowing reports of economic green sooths, by government and some business leaders. South Africa, battling US tariffs, the impact of US and industrial country reduction of development aid, the flooding of state-subsidised Chinese manufacturing to our domestic market, on top of a long period of low growth, de-industrialisation, state and infrastructure collapse, fuelled by outdated ideological policies, runaway corruption, ANC cadre-deployment state incompetence and the capture of state BEE procurement. South Africa’s current model of BEE will compound the economic crisis, rather than alleviating it. The current BEE policy largely involves giving shareholding of existing white-owned companies to black political capitalists do not expand the economy, create new industries nor new markets. It reinforces concentration of economy. It has decimated the productive capacity of the economy as many mainstream businesses, a good example, the mining industry and foreign investors do not want to make new greenfield investment and repatriate capital abroad. This has contributed to the continuing de-industrialisation of the economy.   The ANC and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa have doubled down on BEE, it instead of seeking alternatives. The current model of BEE will be fiercely resisted by those oppose to it, meaning there is absolutely no realistic chance that BEE in its current will ever be successfully implemented. The strong opposition against the policy means it cannot be implemented as it stands. It is a wrongly argued by those, opposing the current BEE model, but with good intentions, that the BEE policy is correct, and that it is only wrongly implemented. BEE is now being opposed by significant majorities among both white and previously disadvantaged communities. It is also being opposed, not only by the US President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, but also by foreign investors, whether from Western countries to China.   The opportunity costs, the massive development benefits lost if more broad-based alternative empower strategies, were used to the ANC’s model of black economic empowerment (BEE), which has made a few political connected black individuals, deal-maker law and financial firms and middle-men and women, who connect white firms with connected individuals, super-rich, is simply too high, given high unemployment, poverty and inequalities.    Opportunity cost is the value of alternatives policies to the ones pursued. There are many alternatives that could generate higher returns, bigger development impact, more jobs, and less societal, political and investor opposition. The current model of BEE is a perfect example of the misallocation of capital – whether shares for ordinary black public, or for ANC connected BEE oligarchs, that could have generated bigger societal development impact, by investing it in public infrastructure, world-class education, technology, SMEs or assets, such as homes for the poor. The misallocation of capital in African and developing countries occurs when resources are not directed to their most productive uses, either through outdated ideological, populists and captured policies, leading to lower overall productivity and economic growth. It prevents capital from flowing to development projects, firms that could generate higher returns, bigger development impact, and more jobs. Successful east Asian tiger economics managed to allocate scarce capital better to generate higher development impact, greater industrialisation, growth-generating infrastructure and more employment.   Creating new industries that a country did not have before providing catalytic growth which in turn spurs more broad-based development, more inclusive growth, more sustainable transformation, redress, and new opportunities for historical disadvantage communities, while at the same time making the economy larger, quicker. The current BEE model is based on the African empowerment programs, which is based on creating political capitalists, turning liberation movement politicians into ‘capitalists’ by giving them shares in mainstream businesses or farms. These African-style empowerment programs collapse the economies of these countries, leading to failed states, such as Zimbabwe. The failure of African-like empowerment programs is handing over shares of working companies to politicians who have never run a business or even a spaza shop lives, or have been catapulted into the state, or with only political party experience. A better solution would have been to give scarce resources to entrepreneurs already with proven business experience – backing already proven winners, which reduce risks of wastage of precious resources. In other African liberation movement run countries, as is in SA, these liberation movement ideologies see the state as the sole provider of development, see a private sector independent from the liberation movement as a challenge to the liberation movements power, and want to capture the private sector, by deploying their political leaders to become political capitalists. South Africa must reset BEE programs, by cancelling the current version of BEE, which has only enriched a handful of people politically-connected to the ANC, the so-called ‘political capitalists’, often politicians who never started a genuine business or managed one, who often set up ‘companies’ just to secure a state contract or resource licence and secure BEE shareholding in the private sector. BEE should be cancelled in state departments, state-owned and infrastructure state institutions key to public service delivery, economic growth and infrastructure development. It should be cancelled in catalytic economic growth industries in the private sector also. Another solution is for companies to instead of BEE, contribute to a development or wealth fund, which should be run by the private sector, and not the government. If a fund is run by the current government it will fail as all the other state-owned entities (SOEs), development finance institutions (DFIs) and other development funds. Such a fund would then invest in merit-based, non-party political and non-ideology-based, growth, industrialisation and infrastructure programs. Local and foreign companies should be asked as an alternative to BEE, to provide investments in targeted catalytic economic sectors: technology, science, mathematics education; low-income housing; critical public infrastructure; manufacturing small and medium-size enterprises (SMMEs); sport, cultural and music development, and so on. Creating employment for youth, economy-relevant technical skills and supporting industrially-competitive start-ups and SMEs, should be seen as alternative BEE. South Africa’s 60% youth unemployment is one of the biggest risks to the country’s economic, political and social stability. Strengthening non-public democratic institutions, democracy capacity building initiatives including supporting civil society, anti-corruption activities and independent media should be an integral of a new BEE. Currently, very few companies in their BEE deals involve democratic civil society organisations, unless it is civil society trust linked to the ANC. The South African government must also shelf its BEE policy of focusing on creating ‘big’ black industrialists. ‘Big’ black industrialists should be treated as ‘white’ and should pursue funding like any mainstream company. There has to be a culture change away from seeing political capitalists, deal facilitators, go-betweens and tenderpreneurs as are genuine ‘entrepreneurs’. It must also be compulsory for already empowered BEE companies to also have BEE requirements. After one BEE transaction, BEE individuals and companies should not be allowed to participate in another BEE deal – they should be treated as fully empowered. It must be compulsory for BEE companies to have BEE tenders, contracts, support skills development and contract SMEs like mainstream companies. BEE companies should provide employees with shares, housing and education. BEE companies must focus on supporting small and medium-sized black business and social enterprises, employ young people, build infrastructure, support new technology. BEE companies should also operate as good corporate citizens – look after the environment, threat their contractors, employees and stakeholders ethically. BEE companies should also be compelled to support and strengthen non-public democratic institutions, democracy capacity building initiatives including supporting civil society, anti-corruption activities and independent media. White companies, particularly legacy companies, who operated during the colonial and apartheid-era, should provide current and past previously disadvantaged employees and their families’ shares in companies. Former employees who lost out on benefits during the apartheid-era should be given priority in getting shareholding as BEE beneficiaries. Legacy resource companies, for example, should give local communities neighbouring mines shares in these companies. Surrounding communities could form social enterprises, cooperatives – in similar ways Afrikaner communities in the early 1900s, where each community member has a shareholding. Such community social and cooperative enterprises will then become the BEE shareholders in these white-owned companies. Companies must provide industrially relevant vocational and technical training to both current and former employees and their families. Companies must provide housing, funding for education and health insurance to their employees. Companies must bring genuine black small and medium-sized businesses into their supply chains, to provide goods and services, but also support manufacturing SMEs. Legacy companies must compensate former employees or their surviving families’ outstanding employee contributions, not given during apartheid. Many black employees died or suffered disability from illnesses such as tuberculosis, asbestosis and work accidents, but they or their family never got compensated. Companies still affected must compensate their former black employees who were affected by these. Professor William Gumede is Associate Professor, School of Governance, University of the Witwatersrand and author of South Africa in BRICS (Tafelberg). This is an extract of his recent address on “Remodeling Black Economic Empowerment” to the Black Management Forum. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/opinion/2026/2026-03/ideologically-bankrupt-anc-persists-with-bee.html

Mat Cuthbert MP – DA Head of Policy Yesterday, the DA’s Economic Inclusion for All Bill was officially introduced in Parliament. We will now request a first reading debate on this seminal new legislation in the National Assembly. This marks the next step in our fight to replace the ANC’s failed black economic empowerment (BEE) policy, which targets poverty, unlocks opportunity, and attracts investment. The failure of BEE is evident, as 44 million South Africans are trapped in poverty, and 12 million remain stranded in unemployment queues. However, the country’s R1.2 trillion public procurement continues to serve as a feeding trough for cadres, while infrastructure decays, services go undelivered, and economic growth stalls. In contrast, the DA aims to reform empowerment policy by simplifying the preference points system based on companies’ measurable contributions towards investment in communities. Our empowerment alternative concentrates on three critical components: (1) Value for Money, (2) Economic Inclusion, and (3) Disqualification Criteria. Genuine empowerment begins with value for money. The state must purchase goods and services from companies that are cost-effective, technically competent, reliable, and fully compliant with the law. For years, BEE has driven up prices, reduced competition, and rewarded political loyalty rather than capability. Value for money must be complemented by economic inclusion. This can be achieved by awarding companies that do business with the state preferential points if they reinvest in our country’s many impoverished communities through job creation, skills development, infrastructure investment, and integrating small businesses into their value chain. Most importantly, we need to exclude cadres who are guilty of corruption, fraud, and misrepresentation. The DA remains committed to an empowerment policy that eliminates exclusion, boosts economic growth, and creates jobs. The Economic Inclusion for All Bill is an important first step towards achieving these goals. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://www.da.org.za/2026/03/da-requests-debate-on-economic-inclusion-for-all-bill

Babalo Ndenze | 12 March 2026 DIRCO Minister Ronald Lamola defended the ANC’s flagship policy after Bozell this week criticised the legislation and demanded that South Africa scrap the equity law. Minister of International Relations Ronald Lamola said Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is not “reverse racism” as insinuated by United States (US) ambassador Brent Bozell. Lamola defended the African National Congress (ANC)’s flagship policy after Bozell criticised the legislation and demanded that South Africa scrap the equity law. He was addressing a media briefing on Wednesday on geopolitical developments like the war in Iran and the country’s relations with the US. Lamola on Wednesday responded to Bozell’s demands to the South African government, which included the scrapping of BEE. Bozell also does not want South Africa to implement its expropriation of land legislation. But Lamola said there’s nothing wrong with BEE, one of the country’s redress policies, and it won't be done away with. “We reiterate that BEE is not reverse racism as regrettably insinuated by the ambassador. It is a fundamental instrument designed to address the structural imbalances of South Africa’s unique history.” ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://www.ewn.co.za/2026/03/12/lamola-denounces-bozell-s-insinuation-that-bee-is-reverse-racism

The most critical element of an Enterprise Development Loan is that it is a loan and not a grant disguised as one. An organisation must record a loan in their Financial Statements to confirm its origin. The following is a non-exhaustive list of evidence necessary for a B-BBEE Rating Agency at the time of a B-BBEE Verification: Signed Loan Agreement including the type of loan and the terms of repayment; Proof of the valid B-BBEE status of the Beneficiary; Evidence that an organisation paid the loan in full as per the agreement; Presentation of the loan account, ledger or a journal that determines the outstanding amount; Acknowledgement from the Beneficiary that the loan was received as per the agreement; and Needs Analysis as per the Draft Amendments. As the necessary evidence slightly differs between B-BBEE Rating Agencies, an organisation should confirm before their B-BBEE Verification what their evidence requirements are. Enterprise & Supplier Development Services are available to assist Members with the creation & implementation of Enterprise & Supplier Development initiatives.

Staff Writer | 10 March 2026 United States Ambassador to South Africa, Leo Brent Bozell III, says Washington is running out of patience with Pretoria’s lack of action on what he called a ‘list of five asks’ delivered to Pretoria a year ago. These ‘asks’ were first reported in June 2025 , based on feedback from a delegation of Afrikaner leaders who met with senior White House officials at the time. While the South African government acknowledged “political” and “ideological” differences that had emerged in official trade negotiations with the United States, it never acknowledged a list of ‘asks’. However, Bozell has now confirmed that these were official requests given to Pretoria, with little done since to meet them. Speaking at the Biznews Conference in Hermanus, Bozell said that he has been in the country in his official capacity for three-and-a-half weeks and has already learned of the complexity of “the situation” here. However, he said he has also learned that the South African government is not internally aligned on how it wants to deal with international partners and support businesses. “You learn that there are those in the government who want to see the business community succeed,” he said. “There are also those in the government who, frankly, don’t want to see it succeed.” Bozell said the United States’ position has been very firm, and that he wasn’t going to tiptoe around issues the US views as critical to continued relations with South Africa. “We put together five asks. We put them forward to the South African government. We’ve been waiting for almost a year for a response, and as I’ve made clear in meetings that I’ve had, we’re running out of patience,” he said. “We believe that it becomes a statement by the South African government when it doesn’t want to respond to simple questions that we have.” The five “asks” reflect the same demands put forward last year, with the added demand for critical minerals cooperation: Protecting rural communities from violence, referring to the globally publicised farm attacks. In 2025, the US wanted this to become a priority crime focus. Condemning rhetoric that incites hatred and glorifies violence, referring to the infamous “kill the boer” chant. The US wants the government to publicly condemn this. Ensuring appropriation policies include fair and clear compensation standards, referring to the government’s move to normalise “nil” compensation in new expropriation laws. Ending mandatory surrender of ownership or control of corporate decision-making as a cost of one’s own business, referring to South Africa’s strict BEE policies . Expanding digital and critical minerals cooperation, referring to bettering trade relations. “These are achievable, practical and beneficial to both Americans and South Africans,” Bozell said. Not backing down Bozell said that the “kill the boer” chant is a “war chant”, and regardless of what South Africa’s courts say, he considers it hate speech. Regarding BEE, he said that broad-based black economic empowerment is designed to expand opportunity and correct historic injustice, which are important goals. “But when those policies are structured in ways that introduce challenges to ownership or create complex compliance requirements or are clouded in charges of corruption, investors begin to reassess risk,” he said. The ambassador said the five “asks” generally address the business environment in South Africa and issues of safety and social cohesion. Politically, however, he said that the United States also wants South Africa to become non-aligned, with concerns around the country’s “growing engagement with some of America’s greatest adversaries”. He also singled out the African National Congress (ANC), flagging a “growing antagonism” between the once-majority party and Washington. “These issues shape investor confidence. They shape strategic trust, and they shape the trajectory of our bilateral relationship,” he said. “When businesses believe their property rights may be uncertain, when policy frameworks create unpredictability instead of clarity, and when strategic alignments appear to drift towards regimes that do not share our democratic values, common ground becomes harder to sustain.” “Honest partners must be able to say this out loud,” he said. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/853477/united-states-reveals-five-demands-for-south-africa-about-bee-expropriation-and-kill-the-boer/

At the time of B-BBEE Verification , a Measured Entity needs to produce all relevant evidence or documentation to substantiate their B-BBEE claims. From a Measured Entity perspective, it is often misunderstood that confidential documentation cannot form a part of the B-BBEE Verification whereas a B-BBEE Rating Agency would require this based on the procedures that they need to follow. Reference is made to clause 2.6 under Statement 000 of the Amended General B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice  which states:   2.6 Any representation made by an Entity about its B-BBEE compliance must be supported by suitable evidence or documentation. A Measured Entity that does not provide evidence or documentation supporting any initiative must not receive any recognition for that initiative.   B-BBEE Verification Services   are available to assist Members with their B-BBEE Verification Requirements.

Shaun Jacobs | 10 March 2026 Efficient Group chief economist Dawie Roodt believes that the creation of the Transformation Fund will be the end of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) as it is currently devised in South Africa.  BEE will not disappear entirely, but the way in which companies comply with the regulatory framework will fundamentally change.  Companies, through the Transformation Fund, will be able to effectively “buy” their BEE compliance rather than have to go through the current process of identifying their own enterprise and supplier development beneficiaries.  This has the potential to make BEE compliance far more efficient and less burdensome, making investing in South Africa more attractive and making companies more productive.  “I think this is the end of BEE in South Africa. You know what is going to result in the end of BEE? The creation of the Transformation Fund,” Roodt told State of the Nation. “In future, companies are going to ‘buy’ their BEE by giving money to this fund and this is going to become the alternative to current processes.”  Roodt explained that the logical conclusion of this process is the end of BEE as a policy framework, with it being replaced by the far simpler alternative of giving money to the government to redistribute.  “The Transformation Fund is a far more attractive alternative. It is simply another tax. So, you can forget about BEE and filling in forms, you are just going to pay money to the fund and forget about it,” Roodt explained.  “That is going to lead to the official BEE coming to an end with its elaborate processes, compliance, and forms.”  Under draft changes to South Africa’s BEE codes, proposed by Minister of Trade, Parks Tau, businesses will be able to score more BEE points by contributing to the fund than by making individual contributions to black-controlled companies.  The proposal is to increase the total points businesses can score in the Enterprise and Supplier Development element from 46 to 53, including bonus points, if they contribute to the fund. ANC open to changing BEE Roodt has also pointed to statements from members of the government, including the President, as evidence that BEE is changing in front of everyone’s eyes.  The ANC has historically not been open to even debating the merits of BEE, with changes to the policy framework almost being unimaginable.  However, in recent years, the party’s transformation agenda has come under increasing scrutiny, with it being increasingly associated with cronyism and corruption.  Criticism has ranged from political parties, such as the DA, to business leaders, such as Investec CEO Fani Titi.  US President Donald Trump and his administration have also weighed in, allegedly making the scrapping of BEE a requirement for a trade deal to be signed between South Africa and the United States.  A study from the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation found that more than half of South Africans want BEE phased out.  Despite this criticism, the ANC has said it remains committed to its transformation policies, with it saying that it will double down on BEE in South Africa.  The policy framework, however, has been called into question by its own members, who occupy high-ranking positions within the party and the government.  During his State of the Nation Address, President Ramaphosa said the government is undertaking a review to refine, realign, and strengthen its BEE framework.  This is ostensibly to ensure that the framework supports greater transformation and inclusive growth, but it is also an admission that it has not achieved its aims.  Tau has explained how the review of BEE will be conducted and outlined some of the changes that could be made as a result of it.  “The review will be implemented in two phases. The first phase will be a short-term review focusing on refinement and an analysis of subordinate legislation, which should be completed by the end of this financial year,” Tau told Parliament.  “Parallel to that, we have been in the process of consultation to finalise the Transformation Fund, and the implementation of the fund is part of the review process.” “The second phase is a long-term review which involves an analysis of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) Act for substantive amendments.” Perhaps the most revealing admission from a high-ranking ANC member came from Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana, who said the policy should be open for honest debate.  “We must have an honest debate about BEE. But, first and foremost, it is a constitutional imperative. You cannot dismiss BEE as it is required by the Constitution,” Godongwana said.  “What we need to ask is whether there are any unintended consequences. You can’t say ‘Do away with BEE.’ Are there any unintended consequences?”  Godongwana said the debate around BEE must focus on the policy’s efficacy and whether it is actually driving the empowerment of black individuals in South Africa.  “If the debate starts there, it can start from an objective basis of analysing some of the unintended consequences, and then we can have a constructive discussion,” he said.  “The discussion at the moment is an ideological attack more than an objective analysis of its efficacy. Let’s move away from the ideological attacks on BEE.”  “Let’s go into the practicalities of analysing what some of the effects are which were not intended by the framework.” ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://dailyinvestor.com/south-africa/123110/goodbye-bee/