The case, which was heard in May this year, deals with the Public Procurement Act, the process of putting the Act in place and the racial requirements imposed on applicants who want to do business with the state. These requirements are not only stricter than in the past, but can also, according to the rejected Act, lead to immediate exclusion from tender processes.
Solidarity’s position throughout has been that the Act was improperly put in place, that the state’s purchases may not be conducted according to racial requirements and that the Act should therefore be scrapped.
According to Anton van der Bijl, deputy managing director of Solidarity, these procurement rules can be seen as the state’s own internal racial rules.
These internal rules prescribe how state institutions should use race when they decide who to spend taxpayers’ money on.
“The government has over decades ensured that race is inscribed ever deeper into virtually every corner of the economy. Today, yet another important card in that house of cards has fallen.
“This judgment on public procurement is a victory for Solidarity, but it benefits every South African.
“When the state, for example, has a road built, purchases computers or appoints a service provider, the first question should be who can do the work the best and at the best value, and not what race the provider belongs to,” says Van der Bijl.
Solidarity strongly believes that these funds should be used to ensure that the taxpayer gets a good dividend on his hard-earned money, and not to enforce the government’s racial policies.
According to Theuns du Buisson, economic researcher at the Solidarity Research Institute (SNI), the significance of the judgment extends far beyond state procurement. He also believes the judgment does not stand in isolation and feels it is clear that the pace at which the government’s racial apportionment is coming under pressure both locally and internationally is now increasing.
The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has just announced a new visa restriction policy that, among other things, targets persons who, according to the US government, are responsible for or complicit in the establishment or application of race-based discriminatory legislation or policy in South Africa.
“Within the space of a few days, we are thus seeing both locally and internationally how the temperature around South Africa’s racial policies is rising. The race law house of cards is starting to wobble, and we will increase the pressure to ensure that it falls,” says du Buisson.
Solidarity has today struck another major blow after the Constitutional Court ruled in its favour with the judgment that the Public Procurement Act was improperly put in place, and as a result, racial requirements may not lead to immediate exclusion in tender processes.
The case, which was heard in May this year, deals with the Public Procurement Act, the process of putting the Act in place and the racial requirements imposed on applicants who want to do business with the state. These requirements are not only stricter than in the past, but can also, according to the rejected Act, lead to immediate exclusion from tender processes.
Solidarity’s position throughout has been that the Act was improperly put in place, that the state’s purchases may not be conducted according to racial requirements and that the Act should therefore be scrapped.
According to Anton van der Bijl, deputy managing director of Solidarity, these procurement rules can be seen as the state’s own internal racial rules.
These internal rules prescribe how state institutions should use race when they decide who to spend taxpayers’ money on.
“The government has over decades ensured that race is inscribed ever deeper into virtually every corner of the economy. Today, yet another important card in that house of cards has fallen.
“This judgment on public procurement is a victory for Solidarity, but it benefits every South African.
“When the state, for example, has a road built, purchases computers or appoints a service provider, the first question should be who can do the work the best and at the best value, and not what race the provider belongs to,” says Van der Bijl.
Solidarity strongly believes that these funds should be used to ensure that the taxpayer gets a good dividend on his hard-earned money, and not to enforce the government’s racial policies.
According to Theuns du Buisson, economic researcher at the Solidarity Research Institute (SNI), the significance of the judgment extends far beyond state procurement. He also believes the judgment does not stand in isolation and feels it is clear that the pace at which the government’s racial apportionment is coming under pressure both locally and internationally is now increasing.
The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has just announced a new visa restriction policy that, among other things, targets persons who, according to the US government, are responsible for or complicit in the establishment or application of race-based discriminatory legislation or policy in South Africa.
“Within the space of a few days, we are thus seeing both locally and internationally how the temperature around South Africa’s racial policies is rising. The race law house of cards is starting to wobble, and we will increase the pressure to ensure that it falls,” says du Buisson.
