Ramaphosa Must Withdraw New Racial Laws or Face Court, States Solidarity

Trade union Solidarity has announced plans to seek judicial recourse in South Africa’s courts, potentially holding President Cyril Ramaphosa in contempt, unless he withdraws the newly published Employment Equity laws and sectoral targets.

This follows the South African government’s enactment of regulations under the Employment Equity Act, 1998, establishing sectoral numerical targets to promote workplace diversity, as outlined in Government Gazette No. 52514.

Announced by Minister of Employment and Labour Nomakhosazana Meth, these measures are claimed to address historical inequities by ensuring representation of designated groups—Black Africans, Coloureds, Indians, women, and people with disabilities—across 18 economic sectors.

What Are the New Regulations?

Published on 15 April 2025, the gazette details the government’s initiative to transform South Africa’s workforce under Section 15A of the Employment Equity Act. Developed through consultations with industry stakeholders and informed by the Commission for Employment Equity, the regulations identify economic sectors and set five-year numerical targets to guide employers in implementing affirmative action. Effective upon publication, these targets seek to align workplace demographics with the nation’s population profile.

The 12-page gazette serves as a formal directive with implications for employers and employees.

Key Provisions of the Gazette

The regulations address two core areas: identifying economic sectors and establishing numerical targets for representation.

• Identification of Economic Sectors: The gazette lists 18 national economic sectors, based on the Standard Industrial Classification of Economic Activities by Statistics South Africa, to which the targets apply:
  • Accommodation and Food Service Activities
  • Administrative and Support Activities
  • Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing
  • Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
  • Construction
  • Education
  • Electricity, Gas, Steam and Air Conditioning Supply
  • Financial and Insurance Activities
  • Human Health and Social Work Activities
  • Information and Communication
  • Manufacturing
  • Mining and Quarrying
  • Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities
  • Public Administration and Defence; Compulsory Social Security
  • Real Estate Activities
  • Transportation and Storage
  • Water Supply, Sewerage, Waste Management and Remediation Activities
  • Wholesale and Retail Trade; Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles
• Sectoral Numerical Targets: The regulations establish five-year targets to ensure representation of designated groups across occupational levels, though the specific numerical table is absent from the provided document.

Key points include:

• Targets exclude white males without disabilities and foreign nationals, meaning they do not sum to 100%.
• Employers must comply with the Act, General Administrative Employment Equity Regulations, and Codes of Good Practice to implement affirmative action.
• No penalties apply if employers demonstrate “reasonable grounds” for non-compliance, such as skill shortages or sector-specific constraints.

Implementation and Flexibility:

The gazette specifies that employers, particularly those with 50 or more employees or meeting turnover thresholds, must adjust recruitment, promotion, and retention practices to meet these targets. The “reasonable grounds” provision allows flexibility, acknowledging constraints such as limited qualified candidates in sectors like mining or professional services. However, compliance requires regular reporting, further increasing administrative demands on businesses.

Broader Implications:

The regulations have wide-ranging consequences:

• For Employers: Businesses face higher compliance costs and must balance diversity targets with operational needs, which is extremely challenging. Flexibility for non-compliance may ease some pressures, but reporting requirements remain rigorous.
• For Employees: Designated groups may gain better access to jobs and promotions, but concerns persist about potential job losses for white employees, particularly males, as companies adjust to quotas. This, ironically, leads to white males being disadvantaged, who are generally providers for their families.
• For Society: The measures claim to redress apartheid’s legacy but will more than likely heighten racial tensions due to a minority being marginalised even further. International scrutiny, including from the United States, could impact South Africa’s global reputation and investment climate even more as numerous countries disagree with racial policies.

Looking at the above, Solidarity said, “Three decades after South Africa became a non-racial democracy, white people in organisations are being forced to calmly and routinely discuss how to dismiss hundreds of people—this time because they are white. Flip Buys (a central figure in Solidariteit, serving as its executive head and a vocal commentator on South Africa’s racial and labour policies) calls this the normalisation of abnormality. By this, he means that the government’s absurd ideas are becoming the prevailing ideas for society. The world is taking notice of this abnormality. The United States has referenced South Africa’s racial laws, yet the state continues to forge ahead,” stated the trade union.

With new racial laws on the horizon, Solidarity asserted that the legislation, which compels companies to comply anew with stringent racial quotas, will have profound consequences for employers and employees, as race has become the sole criterion.

Reflecting on this, the entity explained that on 28 June 2023, Solidarity and the South African government reached an agreement regarding racial laws in the workplace. “According to a court order, this agreement was to be incorporated into the regulations. However, the government breached the agreement, deliberately omitting certain points from the regulations. These include that racial laws were supposed to be temporary and that individuals could not be dismissed on the basis of their race,” said Solidarity.

Moreover, the trade union highlighted that the agreement stipulated that employers must consider the inherent requirements of a position and the available pool of skills when making appointments. “The government is also pressing ahead with the establishment of a R100 billion racial fund, to be financed through a form of racial tax imposed on the private sector to support enterprises owned by black individuals. Now, Solidarity must fight back again—this time decisively,” said the trade union.

How many racial laws does South Africa have?

As highlighted by Solidarity, since 1994, approximately 116 racial laws have been passed by parliament, the highest number globally. “The state’s argument hinges on the principle that everything in society must reflect South Africa’s racial demographics. But we say no. The goal is not to finish equally at the finish line but rather to start equally at the starting line. This means that education is the answer, not a finish line that discriminates,” elaborated the trade union.

Taking the above into consideration, Solidarity declared it will challenge the regulations and the racial fund in court and will pursue a contempt application against the President of South Africa for breaching the agreement with Solidarity, which constitutes a court order. “ The legal process has been initiated, international pressure will be intensified again, and Solidarity will also approach the United Nations. The government cannot be trusted, and racial legislation must be eradicated once and for all,” stated Solidarity.

In conclusion, Solidarity’s decision to pursue legal action against South Africa’s new Employment Equity regulations and sectoral targets underscores deep tensions surrounding the government’s approach to workplace diversity. By challenging the regulations, which aim to rectify historical inequities through affirmative action, and alleging a breach of a prior court-ordered agreement, Solidarity highlights concerns about racial quotas, potential job losses, and the normalisation of racially driven policies.

With plans to escalate the matter to South Africa’s courts, intensify international pressure, and engage the United Nations, Solidarity’s actions signal a broader fight against what it perceives as discriminatory racial legislation, raising critical questions about balancing historical redress with equitable opportunities in a democratic society.

Nevertheless, what are your thoughts on the above? Share your views in the comment section below.