Repellent behaviour

Things were settling down. Zuma is being roasted by the opposition, the ANC is not too forthcoming in defending him and Rob is justifying why Ithuba is better than Gidani. But once again they caught us by surprise. Two new documents have been released, one for comment and the other just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons. It is the latter that I am most interested in. 

Broad-Based Black Economic Empowement (sic) Act (53/2003): Notice to repeal sector codes and repeal sector codes that are not aligned to the B-BBEE codes – number 39703 (17 Feb 2016)

A typo on the second page and that one almost passed me by. This is what our deluded Bolshevik signed (I have my doubts whether he wrote or read it).

I, Dr Rob Davies, hereby

1.1 Give notice to repeal the following sector codes that were not submitted for approval and which are not aligned to the Amended codes:

1.1.1 Construction Sector Code

1.1.2 Chartered Accountancy

In one paragraph he repeals two codes. Net sommer, just like that. He then offers those who are subject to these two codes some handy advice

1.2 Confirm from the date of this publication that all B-BBEE Verifications in respect of measured entities operating in the sectors mentioned (above) can be conducted using the Amended B-BBEE Codes

His letter also informs us that a number of other codes are still valid – them's ok. Things like the FSC, ICT, Property and others (you can download the document to check to see if you are OK or not).

It is my strong belief that this is another one of those documents that is going to cause our little Leon (who also had a beard you know) more embarrassment. And here is why

1. It seems common cause and I have run this past Chris van Wyk, that repealing a code is in effect an amendment. It must be an amendment because you are changing the nature of a certain piece of legislation or derivative thereof. And being the recently discovered (like in the last two weeks) constitutional democracy that we are, the public has a right to approve or disapprove of what you are doing. This is from section 9(5) of the BEE Act (as amended)

   The minister MUST, before issuing, replacing or amending a code of good practice issued in terms of subsection (1) –

   1. Publish the draft code… or amendment in the Gazette for public comment
   2. Grant interested persons …. at least 60 days to comment on the draft or amendment

   All that Rob did was tell us that if they weren't making progress by October last year then they would be repealed. We got no express intention from him that he planned to repeal these two codes. And he hasn't asked me (as the public) for my opinion as to whether I agree. Simply this note is unprocedural and as a result null and void.

2. Why did Rob say those companies CAN use his new codes. Why not MUST? My friend who I consult often under these circumstances suggests to me that this a e-toll-type move. He's trying to get more people to get behind his codes (thus far it's only Tsebo who have been verified under these codes and they've come up as a level one………..hmmm, and they couldn't do better than a level 2 under the old codes? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm)

   Another thing that's missing is Rob telling us what financial period must be used before you have to shoot the lights out with his new codes. There's not a great deal of commitment here

3. The date that Rob signed this (it was published three months later) is December 8 2015. That is one day before Zoomer gave the whole of South Africa a reason to hate him. Rumours had been circulating at that point that Rob was going to get a janitor's job at Brics Bank. Zoomer was still flying high and was the man and Africa is so big that that the world can fit into it and Des was going to manage our money. This note could have been Rob's farewell, his dear John. My friend William Wallis told me that the emerging contractors had placed an undue amount of pressure on Bolshie Bob to repeal the construction code. It makes sense – they would all be level one and their competitors would not even get a look in.  Loane Sharp said as much last year. I think that that lobby group has lots a fair amount of their clout because everyone is now answerable to Pravin.

Now how to conclude? This note is not binding nor is it legal. It is up to us to lobby our MPs, speak to our friends and get that useless department back into line.

Related articles

May the 1st approaches and Rob's not ready