ONE YEAR ON and the GNU hobbles along

SOUTH AFRICA's GNU ONE YEAR ON

Nearly twelve months since South Africa's Government of National Unity (GNU) was birthed, at a policy-making level Parliament and national government continue to move at a snail's pace. Which is why this is our first post since March 2025, when we published several rather unflattering images of what has become, for some of us, an increasingly worrying state of affairs. They followed four months' inactivity, beginning with the long festive season break.

So, what have we to say about recent developments? Very little, in fact. Because, apart from the parliamentary and National Treasury value added tax rate increase reversal debacle (including the 2025/26 Budget postponement and imminent re-tabling), nothing much has happened.

Typically, however – despite being part of a moribund GNU, with several Cabinet members to boot – the Democratic Alliance (DA) has continued to hog the media limelight (albeit for reasons probably deemed all the wrong ones by detractors and supporters alike). Most recently, they've come to our attention by:

• taking Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana to the Western Cape High Court for increasing the VAT rate (and winning)

• tabling a Performing Animals Protection Amendment Bill in Parliament, and

• taking Employment & Labour Minister Nomakhosazana Meth to the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) for imposing sector-specific targets under the Employment Equity Act.

The outcome of a joint DA-EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters) intervention on the VAT rate increase is history. Although an official DA position on the revised 2025/26 Budget will doubtless be announced once the documents themselves have been tabled on 21 May 2025. Or perhaps pre-emptively, the party's spin office being renowned for its tactical prowess.

Which brings us to the Performing Animals Protection Amendment Bill.

Its proposer, DA MP Wendy Alexander, issued a media statement announcing the move on International Guide Dog Day – among other things noting that, 'in large part it will protect the access of assistance animals accompanying vision-impaired persons to private and public spaces' and transport. All well and good. Except that:

• this being a developing African country, most people with impaired vision are more than likely to be relatively poor and therefore unable to afford a guide dog, and

• the Bill's procedurally required pre-tabling explanatory summary was gazetted almost two years earlier in June 2023, with a call for public comments.

Alexander's statement makes no mention of the cost of acquiring and appropriately caring for an assistance dog, even if one is donated to the visually impaired person concerned. Begging myriad questions, including:

• 'How many guide dogs placed at no cost in the homes of visually impaired people who might otherwise not be able to afford their invaluable services remain with their new owners?'

• 'How many visually impaired people are there in South Africa?', and

• 'How many have assistance dogs?'

We could go on. But let's turn instead to the somewhat vexed issue (for us and probably also for those who can afford guide dogs or hope to have one donated) of allowing almost two years to lapse between calling for public comments on the fledgling draft Bill and its formal introduction to Parliament. During which, as far as we can tell, not a peep was uttered on its fate – despite expectations having been raised of better things to come, at least for those barred from entering public buildings with their assistance dogs.

Because the Bill's development appears to have been sparked by a 2019 Equality Court judgment on an incident in which a disabled person and her assistance animal were denied entry to a government building. This unfortunate incident is documented on the SA Guide Dogs Association for the Blind website. We leave any readers to reach their own conclusions.

And now for those contentious Employment Equity Act regulations and their accompanying targets.

In anticipation of lodging its application to the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) today (6 May 2025), the DA issued a statement that includes links to the founding affidavit and heads of argument. These three documents speak for themselves, and we'd prefer not to venture into the pros or cons of employment equity quotas anyway. Suffice to say that a Department of Employment & Labour press release on the move describes it as 'a clear attempt to reverse the progress made since 1994 and maintain the unfair status quo'. And in explaining why, this statement, too, speaks for itself.

What concerns us are ongoing tensions between the DA and the ANC. Before the GNU, these were most visible in Parliament itself, where the atmosphere could have been cut with a knife during committee meetings on controversial Bills. We had hoped the DA might have adopted a less confrontational approach in its role as one member of a multi-party national coalition government. Alas, the tone of these media statements alone tends to suggest otherwise.