A persistent question arises from the chamber’s affidavit: why did it not at the time contest the second iteration of the charter implemented in 2010 when it contends so strongly in the affidavit how unhappy it was with some of the clauses? It does make the point that it did not sign the 2010 charter.
Peter Leon, a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills, says the chamber should have acted more decisively on the 2010 charter. "They should have attacked it then and there without leaving it for so long. My sense is that the chamber at that time did not want to rock the boat and disturb its then modus vivendi with the department, which was [in] a rather different era."
Via Business Live
Peter Leon is correct in this analysis. Seven years ago zuma was in the ascendancy. We knew he was a crook and a liar and thief and an extraordinary manager of his member, but we hoped that he would be reasonable and put South Africa first. It wasn't only zuma that we thought would be reasonable, it was also the anc. We thought there was hope, we'd all play along. Both zuma and the anc proved to be the contrary, it's difficult now to figure out which of the two has been the most deceitful. We didn't litigate back then. We now have no choice. They don't care so we have to.
Back to zwane
"It is helpful, but not a legal imperative that stakeholders are in agreement with the principles" which the minister determines in developing the charters, he said. The department will present similar arguments in its defence of the third charter, with (z)wane arguing he consulted more than 60 stakeholders and could not just respond solely to a single stakeholder, the chamber.
We saw this with the revised BEE codes and the charters that have been gazetted subsequently. bolshie bob did consult with stakeholders (as zwane did) but not the stakeholders that actually have to implement the codes. It's not news that I wanted to go to court to get these codes blocked on the grounds of their reasonableness and constitutionality but I was too early. That was four years ago, companies weren't willing to take on the government. That's changing now. I know a court case is likely; it might not be led by me but it's coming.
There's a strange psychology that this government uses when it comes to compliance and "transformation" they would rather kill an industry than have it transform. This is exactly what zwane's latest petulant fit is about. If you won't do what I want I'll destroy the industry, I'll do this in the name of transformation (think dud miyeni-millions to steal). Now zwane doesn't know to care about investor confidence because the guptas haven't told him to consider this. bolshie bob is no different - I am increasingly coming across companies who aren't going to get on the scorecard with the best intentions and they couldn't be bothered now. This is what bolshie wants - he'd rather have companies not comply at all than make an effort to comply and be rewarded with a BEE score.
Is our fate Sealed? Not if we are a little crazy (litigious)
Comments