You've got to love this statement
the dti is the only empowered and competent authority to pronounce on the application of Sector Codes, the Codes of Good Practice and any other relevant matter with regards to B-BBEE
We can now officially blame the DTI for all the little spelling mistakes, Dilly, more spelling mistakes, long bouts of silence when clarity is required, more spelling mistakes, backwards and twisted logic and more spelling mistakes – oh yes and Dilly. This is almost the same as the ANC describing themselves as "selfless". Be that as it may – the DTI is............. competent.
To find out what this is all about read the attachment – it's actually well written (id est the sentences flow, the spelling mistakes are not apparent etc) and it does actually explain when a charter is to be used and not the DTI's codes. Still defies business sense though - but that really isn't the DTI's mandate, well at least not in this country.
Oh yes - it also makes legislation retrospective. And this is unconstitutional - I'll let Andrea Minnaar, senior associate at ENS explain it
The habit of bringing legislation into effect retrospectively or retroactively conflicts with two key South African constitutional principles, being the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers.
The rule of law is entrenched in section 1 of the Constitution of South Africa (“the Constitution”) which states that:
“The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on the following values:
(a) Human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms.
(b) Non-racialism and non-sexism;
(c) Supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law.
(d) Universal adult suffrage, a national common voters roll, regular elections and a multi-party system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.”One of the applications of the rule of law is that a person should be able to know the law in order to be able to arrange his actions accordingly. In this regard Mokgoro J, in her concurring judgment in the case of President of the Republic of South Africa v Hugo 1997 (4)(SA 1 (CC), held that:
“The need for accessibility, precision and general application flow from the concept of the rule of law. A person should be able to know of the law, and be able to conform his or her conduct to the law.”
Comments