The Citizens Economic Empowerment Commission is inviting applications from Zambian citizens wishing to undertake investment projects under Economic Empowerment Fund.
All applicants MUST be through the Application Form provided by the Commission. Submissions that will not be through the Application Form will not be considered. Selected applications will progress to business plan development and financing.
They are looking to invest in a variety of industries in the various districts. But they do say that they will invest in ICT and Energy in all the areas.
You can download the application form here or you download it directly from Typepad here.
Perhaps it is because it is an election year that I choose to reflect on the last 7 and a half years of my blog and why I started doing it in the first place. The simple reason why I started was because I needed a web presence. I had no web design skills and I wasn't too familiar with Facebook at that time. I have been an avid follower of Fred Wilson for years and used the same platform he used at the time. Fred is an internet pioneer and has left me behind a long time ago but I still avidly read his various postings on a daily basis, he is that prolific. My first post was in July 2006. It's quite interesting reading through some of those posts, I certainly wasn't as opinionated as I am now. I started talking about BEE related stuff and interpreted what was going on around me. As I started to gain confidence I became more and more outspoken on certain issues and even started dabbling in the occasional political swipe as I went along.
My intention was that the blog would become my internet presence. I did set up a Caird website that carries a blog feed on it but I haven't looked at that website in years. In essence the blog has become my internet home. I did rather hope that the masses would come swarming to me for assistance at exorbitant rates because they happened upon my blog. I don't think that's happened much. I have certainly gained a fair amount of notoriety because of it and have found my blog being quoted in the press and in boardrooms – Microsoft cited me as an expert when they launched their equity equivalent programme (but they've never used my services). Once I consulted to Wells Fargo in Boston and I think this is purely because of the blog. A more relevant question is whether I have lost business as a result of the blog. I think this is quite likely, my views are forthright and often very blunt and I think this could and does put a lot of people off using me. I got fired by one client because of my blog and the anti-ANC sentiment that permeates through it, but they asked me to come back a month later.
Perhaps the greatest success of this blog is that I have never pushed content onto people. This post will be my 866th and over the years 120-odd subscribers (including my mother) have volunteered to receive each post via Feedblitz. I am now gaining more subscribers than losing them. I believe that it was making this content freely available without pushing content that has allowed to make contact with and become friends with the best brains in the business. I am in regular contact with people like Chris van Wyk, Obed de Swardt, Ebrahiem Mohammed, Brigitte Brun, Louise Paulsen, Thinus Kruger and Gerhardus Burger. Hell even Kevin Lester sends me the occasional email (Lester still dips his paw in every now and then). Similarly I have rallied against the worst practitioners in the industry (Keith Levenstein) and the myopic platitudes of Ajay Lalu and Thami Mazwai. I have also made it an ambition to educate my reading public that institutionally protected racists like Jimmy Manyi are nothing more than vile racists. On occasion I've received emails from a right winger but I tend to ignore those.
How then does a BEE blog become so political? I certainly had no intention of having a go at the ANC when I started. And I behaved rather well until Jacob Zuma became the biggest embarrassment this country has ever seen. It is now very obvious that you cannot divorce black economic empowerment from politics. It would seem that the politicians like to use transformation as a weapon against those people/companies who are actually implementing the government's programme that the government itself has no idea how to implement it. I've been in this industry since 1994 and have only come across one example of fronting and that was Levenstein's rather feeble attempt at portraying his company as 25% black-owned. What I have seen from a citrus farm in Hazyview, through to a diesel distributor in Jankemp Dorp to a holiday resort in the Western Cape are a bunch of people who have in fact made a major difference to a number of peoples' lives, most of this is as a result of BEE-type policies. Every year I head off to Gerrie Lemmer at the ATKV asking for proof that they spent 1% on SED, I get handed figures that are a multiple of that target. And they do it because they believe they are making a difference to the lives of black people. And this is not the exception. And still the government reminds us that in fact we are racists and are making no contribution to nation-building. And to drive this message home they create programmes (that are fundamentally illegal) through their municipalities and parastatals that are designed to promote cronyism and punish legitimate white and foreign-owned businesses. Just ask my friend Selwyn who is an employer in Newcastle what his interaction with Eskom has been like over the last 10 years. After witnessing all this it became impossible for the blog not to take on a political hue. And because the blog is mine and is a reflection of my specific views I have adopted the mantle of shooting my mouth off. And I will continue doing so because I am allowed to do it in terms of our constitution (something that the NAT government would have most certainly locked me up for) and I feel that I provide some sort of service to those who would like to say what I do but can't or won't. Alas – lucrative government contracts or partnering with the Guptas shall never come my way.
And so we now enter a disastrous phase in the life of BEE where the clueless are once again taking those who make an effort to task. They claim that a level 6 is the average that this is just not good enough. Not that they understand what it takes to get to a level six. They have now sowed so much doubt in the industry with their latest codes that I'm not sure whether it'll fully recover. There is no reason to tolerate this anymore – why do we have to field this abuse when it is now so apparent that the people who are levelling it are doing so to disguise the fact that they are failing in their duty as government or they are spoiling to get hold of an even bigger slice of that lucrative government pie called entitlement. Not only are we taking all this abuse but it is our tax revenue that finances the lavish lifestyles of the abusers. I won't take it anymore. And for that reason I will continue on my bloggy path of self-destruction (and litigation where necessary).
Dramatis Personae
Over the last 7 years I have made reference to a number of people on this blog. Here are some of them
Kevin – sometimes, but not always, Kevin Lester.
jungle jim (always lowercase) – Jimmy Mwanele Manyi. I see he is returning to his African roots, I wonder where it will stop. Xhosa or Zulu X perhaps
The Ralph Lauren person – not too cryptic. The reason why polo shirts are so expensive is because the rider is wearing a Lacoste shirt. I have it on very good authority that the Lauren is the same pronunciation as Lauren Bacall.
Levenstain – Levenstein
Zoomer, Zumachinegun, moron, idiot (usually preceded by the word fucking) – Jacob Zuma
Rob and derivatives – Rob (another word for steal) Davies
Udge – Mr Lalu. The man with the best bristles in the business
Racist – see jungle jim
Mal Ossie – Malusi Gigaba. I think I'll call him Maddox from now on
Incompetent – normally refers to Rob but doesn't ever exclude Zoomer
The first change is that exempt micro enterprises will no longer have to obtain certificates from verification agencies and will be able to use an affidavit testifying to their turnover as proof of their BEE status. The same will be the case for black-owned enterprises whose turnover is less than R50m.
If 100% black-owned, the enterprise will automatically receive level 1 status. If majority black-owned, it will get level 2. No verification exercise will be necessary and companies need only provide an affidavit as proof of their ownership status. The motivation for this from the department was to save medium-sized black companies the expense of verification.
But verification agencies, which stand to lose a lot of business from the new system, have a valid argument that the result will be even more cheating by medium and big companies. At present, clients and suppliers can check a partner’s credentials with a verification agency but there will be no way of checking the veracity of an affidavit.
"Since the new codes are also so much more onerous … the incentive to cheat — by falsifying turnover to remain below the R10m threshold — is going to grow," says Mr Oberholzer.
The Oberholzer here is Deon Oberholzer of Veri-Com whose getting a lot of Business Day press. The intention of Rob's Folly is to ease the burden and cost of verification for black companies. But he and his drafters have fucked this up completely because a black-owned QSE still needs to prove they are an "empowering supplier". 51% black-owned QSEs have it even worse because they have to prove ownership in terms of the ownership scorecard and then prove they are empowering suppliers. It boggles the mind that you could make such a half-hearted attempt at something and think that we are such idiots that we would believe you.
Mal Ossie Gigaba has graced the hypertexted (and password protected) BDLive again. This time he was addressing the BMF.
Mr Gigaba briefed the forum about business opportunities arising from the development of the Durban-Free State-Gauteng logistics and industrial corridor, which is the second strategic integrated project (SIP) of the national infrastructure plan. It is the most important economic corridor in the country. He said changes to legislation, including a review of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, were vital to hastening the expansion of a black industrial class in South Africa.
The act has drawn sharp criticism from black business groups and even state agencies which believe the government's overwhelming bias towards price in evaluating tenders restricts the potential to develop new industries and supply chains. Programmes of sufficient scale, they said, were worth paying a premium for, because of the benefits they could bring to long-term economic development.
"We are persisting in our effort, working with other government departments, to seek a review of the act in order to be able to achieve the goal of faster and more radical empowerment," Mr Gigaba said.
His comments were welcomed by the Black Business Council (BBC), which has said it is impossible for black-owned companies to compete with large firms when it comes to doing business with the state.
Funding was a key concern, BBC CEO Xolani Qubeka said. The act in its current form was "antitransformation". His criticism is based primarily on the 90:10 (price to socioeconomic ratio) gauge used for the adjudication of tenders.
Mr Qubeka believes the act should be replaced by "set-asides" of 40% of the work for black firms. A normal tender process would determine a winner, and would ensure that high standards are adhered to.
And the keywords are shot around the room. Radical empowerment, antitransformation and set-asides. Radical Empowerment and set-asides are unfortunately blocked by the PPPFA. Hence it's a useless act (according to the VERY EXCLUSIVE Black Business Cabal). Strangely though there is some merit to what he says, I think the idea of the state paying a premium to create sustainable black businesses that pay taxes and employ people is a good idea. It's a pity that it's limited to only black business but that's an argument for the next millennium. But even the least jaded person knows that these best intentions will amount to nothing. The very connected (many of whom are prominent members of the BBC) are just going to get even richer through entitlement and the poor will, well remain just that. .
I need to understand this whole process. It is an election year, one that hopefully results in the ANC taking a complete pounding at the polls. Rhetoric like this is aimed at those disgruntled African people who can see the ANC for what it is and have drifted away from its rudderless boat. It's a nice promise – we'll change the law to make sure that you as a black (read African) person will win many state tenders and become rich. You won't even have to compete on price or capability, it will just land in your lap. In the case of set asides, it'll only be black people bidding on these which will limit the competition even more. Money for jam, hey Sandile.
BUT – the PPPFA just keeps getting in the way. Not only the PPPFA, it's also the PPPFA's gatekeeper Treasury that keeps on preventing these poor and disgruntled Zungs from walking in and grabbing their entitlement, which is state business. The PPPFA has to go. The BEE codes have already promoted black businesses to a level that no other company will ever be able to compete with. Why can't the PPPFA do the same. As an aside you'll see that all of this activity is directed at state procurement and not private. I am almost sure that the private sector has little regard for the BBC because they add little value to anything. Wealth for the Zungs can only be created on the coattails of the state – and with those relationships in place the Zungs can then become the middle agent for the private sector. Everybody wins. But the PPPFA won't allow this!. You see if you outsource more than 25% of the contract to another party they have to have a better or equal BEE score than yours. Let's say you are a 100% black owned company turning over R49,999,999.99 you are automatically a level one contributor. Where on earth are you going to find a white-owned company that can vaguely compete with that? The answer is nowhere. The new codes have made it impossible to get to a level 7 let alone anything else. No – that PPPFA has to go!!!!
And the other BUT – in order to get rid of the PPPFA you need to change section 217 of the Constitution (howmany times have I written about this). You could do what Rob did with the new BEE codes, just gazette them even though they do not talk the BEE Act, the BEE strategy and by association, the Constitution. But there's a problem here – those irritating white businesses will notice what you're trying to do and go to the Constitutional Court and get your amended PPPFA thrown out (as I hope to do with the new BEE codes). So what we need to do is get to the source of the problem and remove it – the Constitution (which includes section 217). Perhaps we should start with section 217. Yes, but to get rid of or amend section 217 you must have a 2/3rds vote.
Everyone knows that the ANC does not enjoy that kind of majority. Even if they did get a 66% majority the party is so factional that they'd never get the support they need. Now you understand why Zuma is asking for a 90% majority. It's simple it allows for a 23% fallout on the vote and the ANC can still push it through. And they'll do this in the name of service delivery. Although I think that a lot of service delivery issues arose as a result of dodgy tenders anyway. But you must remember that the ANC owned the Independent news group (via OddBall Survey – more on this to come), the New Agenda (which is just useless), ANN7 (which is no longer as entertaining as it used to be) and the SABC. The latter is the most dangerous, like the Nats the ANC will only broadcast pro-ANC news. Pro-ANC news is a refutation of all anti-ANC allegations.
And this is what scares me. Are we aware of what is going on in parliament? Zuma has five years left – which means that the Zungs really need to up the ante when it comes to milking the state. And they will do just that . They'll either push it through like they did the Secrecy Bill or they'll do what Rob the Red did with the BEE codes. There is stuff going on around us and we need to keep a watchful eye out. If we don't they will bleed this country dry.
It all starts with a populist remark made at a BMF meeting.
It's not possible to think about the economically active population (EAP) without considering the ANC's institutional racist. I was not aware of the EAP until I caught jungle mouthing off about the oversupply of coloureds a few years ago. This EAP now allows the government to institutionalise the concept of degrees of blackness. It's not supported by the Constitution but has found favour within the Employment Equity Act. And for those who don't know – it's found its way into Rob's Folly (aka the new BEE codes).
The question is "can the BEE codes of good practice include EAP targets?". Rob the Horrid Red would say most certainly, Lionel October would tell us that the codes are very clear, concise and written in uncontradictory English (because he's read them). I would argue not. Take a look at this logic.
This is the General Notice on page 3 of the codes.
NOTICE 1019 OF 2013
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
I, Dr Rob Davies, Minister of Trade and Industry, hereby:
Issue the following Code of Good Practice (the codes) under section 9 (1) of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, 2003 (Act No 53 of 2003)
I've underlined the relevant Act because the new BEE Bill is still a Bill. This means that the 2003 Act is relevant. In this Act, the term black is defined as "a generic term which means Africans, Coloureds and Indians". Each "race group" that may be regarded as black is equally black. It doesn't say "a generic term in line with the EAP statistics". The Act does allow a code of good practice to differentiate between people. Section 9 (4) says
(4) In order to promote the achievement of equality of women, as provided for in section 9(2) of the Constitution, a code of good practice issued in terms of subsection (1) and any targets specified in a code of good practice in terms of subsection (3), may distinguish between black men and black women.
Where then does the BEE Act itself allow for the EAP? It doesn't. The BEE Bill makes no reference to EAP either, all it does is repeat the definition of black that we find in 29617. I know that Lionel will refer us to section 9 (2) of the Constitution as a justification for this. Section 9(2) cannot be read in isolation and must be seen within the context of section 9
Equality
(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
(2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.
(3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
(4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.
(5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.
What Lionel now needs to do is demonstrate that the inclusion of EAP targets is fair within the context of BEE. We know from a variety of court cases that Solidarity has brought before the courts that there are serious problems with the implementation of EAP targets in organs of state. If we allow the EAP targets to permeate a BEE implementation we will find grounds for constitutional unfairness. Think in terms of the, as Lionel would say brilliantly written and ultra-clear skills development code. About 90% of all skills development spend needs to be directed towards Africans. From a points' perspective that 90% will get you about 7.2 points out of 8 – there is no incentive to spend any money on coloureds and Indians to make up the remaining .8 points. Then you've got an issue with the training of white people – this spend is over and above the 6% of payroll spent on training black people. And because this 6% is way over most corporates' training budget it will discriminate against anyone who isn't black.
I would argue that the EAP targets are not fair, as per section 9(5) and on top of this they are not supported by the very act that creates the BEE Codes – namely the BEE Act.
'Dealing with race classifications, as is necessary under the EEA, feels almost like a throw-back to the grand apartheid design. If we are to achieve success as a nation, each of us has to bear in mind that wherever we are located, particularly those of us who have crossed over from the previous oppressive era into our present democratic order, it will take a continuous and earnest commitment to forging a future that is colour blind....For now, ironically, in order to redress past imbalances with affirmative action measures, race has to be taken into account. We should do so fairly and without losing focus and reminding ourselves that the ultimate objective is to ensure a fully inclusive society - one compliant with all facets of our constitutional project.'
Forcing the EAP targets on the private sector as an absolute requirement cannot be regarded as fair.
Happy new year. I'm going to stave off the natural cynic in me and wish everyone the best. Now that that's done, let me continue with this post.
There is growing discontent with the current government, booing at funerals, Nkandla justifications that would not convince a toddler, Lionel October thinking I'm an idiot, eTolls, new BMWs etc. I don't know if this year will be any different to previous ones when it comes to litigating against this incompetent government, but I going to be involved so I'll pay more attention.
I read with much hilarity the comments made by people for EY and KPMG. Obviously they are trying to attract more business and curry favour with the gummint. But this is delusional talk. Take a look at Sugan's words
Black economic empowerment specialist at EY Sugan Palanee says given the criticism of the empowerment policy over the last few years, the Department of Trade and Industry needed to re-orientate the legislative framework and reposition broad-based empowerment as a catalyst for economic growth.
I've met Sugan and I respect him, but where in the new codes do you actually see anything that will stimulate economic growth. At best it will stifle growth under a mountain of redtape, at worst they will negate any growth the BEE might have stimulated up until now.
THE amended broad-based black economic empowerment codes of good practice can still result in potential competitive advantages for businesses if approached with a proper long-term strategy, says KPMG CEO Moses Kgosana.
What competitive advantages are you referring to? The only competitive advantage offered is instant promotion into the BEE stratosphere if you are a largish black owned business. The balance of companies are now going to have spend ridiculous amounts of money (well beyond the call of duty to compete with those newly promoted companies). And even then with negative marking you'll never compete.
And why does Lionel October think I'm an idiot? He responded to my PAJA application with pathetic rubbish that he proposes as answers. But the best is the last question that really shows him up
Question: And finally would the Minister please explain to me in writing as to how he could have published a document that lacks the clarity that is needed to implement such dramatic changes in the empowerment arena?
Response:
Although your question is very broad and you do not indicate how the document lack (sic) clarity, I would like to assure you that the dti has invested greatly in the process of publishing the revised Codes, including a consultative process which ensured to clarify all stakeholders about a need to amend the Codes
For goodness sake Lionel. Did you not read the fucking document? For your sake I'm hoping you didn't because it does pose many questions about you if you did. But if it's clarity you want then perhaps you'd like to look here for starters.