MAIN IMAGE: Jan le Roux – CE of Rebosa, Thato Ramaili – PPRA CEO, Piet le Roux – Sakeliga CEO (no relation)
Editor
In June 2024, we published an announcement that Sakeliga was preparing a court case to stop the PPRA from implementing what it deemed ‘harmful and unlawful’ B-BBEE requirements.
The non-profit recently shared an update, namely that the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition has now officially withdrawn his opposition to our court case. The Minister of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation also indicated that she does not intend to oppose the application and will abide by the decision of the court, leaving the PPRA as the active opponent.
While it definitely won’t halt the case as the PPRA is still defending it, it does beg the question ‘why the ministers have removed their opposition?’ – is this a case of cost savings, or possibly indicative of a lack of support?
When asked to comment, PPRA CEO, Thato Ramaili, replied that the PPRA cannot speculate as to the reasons behind the decision, and has no authority to speak on behalf of the Ministers.
We did reach out to the Department of Human Settlements, but had received no reply by the time of publication.
In the meantime, agents carry on
Rebosa continues to monitor the situation; it remains positive that its advocacy, through negotiation and the provision of legal opinions, which convinced the PPRA to cease its insistence on compliant B-BBEE certificates, was the right decision. “This court case is taking time, as such things do, and had the status quo remained since March 2024, agents would not have been getting their certificates as the majority would only have been able to obtain valid, not compliant certificates, and would thus not be able to operate in the interim (while the case is ongoing)”, says Jan le Roux, CE of Rebosa.
Why is Sakeliga challenging the Property Practitioners Act?
According to its statement, Sakeliga seeks to have the B-BBEE certificate requirement in the Property Practitioners Act declared unconstitutional. Its case focuses on two pertinent issues:
- The Act requires all property practitioners (not only estate agents) to have FFCs. Sakeliga believes that “This improperly expands the reach of the PPRA over thousands of businesses and trillions of rand of turnover” and should be reversed.
- The Act still stipulates that FFCs may only be issued to applicants with a valid B-BBEE certificate. “This demand is an unjustified, costly, and harmful infringement on the freedom to do business and serve society. The certificate requirement serves no legitimate government purpose, since there is no relationship between fulfilling the inherent requirements for a Fidelity Fund Certificate and having a B-BBEE certificate, and the requirement itself should be scrapped”.
“The whole idea of Government’s B-BBEE legislation is to enforce transformation, so it remains curious to me that in this case, where the constitutionality of the practice is being challenged, which, should the PPRA lose, would of course affect B-BBEE requirements across all sectors, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, as well as The Minister of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation have chosen not to oppose Sakeliga’s application. Is it purely a legality or does it imply something?,” asks le Roux.
He notes that Rebosa remains committed to transformation across the real estate industry and will continue to monitor the case.
What next?
The PPRA has delivered an answering affidavit to Sakeliga’s founding affidavit. The non-profit is now in the process of finalising its replying affidavit to the court.
At present, a date for the hearing has not been set.
