The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The DA-led City of Cape Town and Western Cape Provincial Government are challenging the validity of the Public Procurement Act in the Constitutional Court today.

Last week, Afrikaner trade union Solidariteit lodged a formal complaint against the South African Government with the International Labour Organisation of the UN in Switzerland, in what its leader, Dirk Hermann, termed part of a broader campaign to free South Africa from racial legislation.

These developments cannot be seen in isolation. They are part of the same anti-diversity, equity and inclusivity orchestra conducted by US President Donald Trump.

While the City and Province have mounted their challenge to the Procurement Act on procedural grounds, citing alleged flaws in the public consultation process, the grounds are widely perceived as a Trojan Horse for their opposition to the preferential procurement provisions in the 2024 legislation.   

Last month, the Province and Board of Healthcare Funders were at the Constitutional Court challenging the public participation process that preceded the adoption by Parliament of the National Health Insurance Bill.

South Africa is a Constitutional Democracy led by a Government of National Unity, in which the ANC and DA are “partners”, overseen by a vibrant parliamentary system for which taxpayers will pay just short of R6 Billion this financial year.   

In addition to the R6 Billion, when the partners can’t agree on policies and plans, taxpayers fork out Millions of Rands extra to fund what effectively amounts to litigation by one partner against the other.

Democracy is premised on open contestation of ideas and the acceptance of majority opinion. The fact that parliament is unable to pass laws without the State having to spend a fortune defending them in court is reassuring, in the sense that Constitutional rights are un-dilutable – but also deeply worrying. 

Regardless of whether South Africans support either of the old parties or not, the country does not need to re-litigate the impacts of apartheid on its citizens or whether addressing the impacts is necessary. Those were conversations held 30 years ago, prior to the adoption of the Constitution.  

In rushing to court to oppose legislation aimed at redress – at taxpayers’ expense, nogal – the DA is very deliberately acting in solidarity with Solidariteit, Afriforum under the baton of Donald Trump’s White House. They are acting against the interests of the majority of South Africans.

These are institutions opposed to the concepts of diversity, equity and inclusion… opposed to the notions of social, economic, spatial and environmental justice in post-apartheid South Africa.  

If this Government fails in its overall mission to improve the conditions in which poorer people live, and their prospects, it raises serious questions about its sustainability – besides, what type of government will replace it?

Issued by GOOD Secretary-General Brett Herron