LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Any sanctions threat against SA judges is stuck on Capitol Hill

Jun Kajee’s article, “Will Washington come for SA’s judges?” (August 24), refers.

The measures Kajee invokes (HR 2633, S 2752, and HR 4051) are bills introduced by Republican members on Capitol Hill; they remain under discussion and amendment and have passed neither chamber.

A bill in committee is not an operating instrument of policy. The executive branch does hold standing authority to sanction foreign individuals under existing law, yet it has not used that power to sanction any South African official.

Its one concrete step against Pretoria — the February 2025 executive order — imposed no sanctions. Even an administration openly hostile to South Africa has so far stopped well short of sanctions, and these three bills would add a separate statutory sanctions track that does not yet exist.

Constructing that statutory architecture requires Congress to pass the bills and the president to sign them; until then, it is a proposal by the legislative branch that has not made an agenda item for the executive branch.

Republicans hold only a narrow majority in both chambers. Democrats need a net gain of four Senate seats in the November midterm elections to secure an outright majority of 51; in the House, a comparable handful of net gains would flip control.

But control of the floor is different from the power to pass a contentious bill: most legislation needs 60 votes to clear a Senate filibuster, and with 53 seats the Republican majority cannot force a standalone South Africa measure past sustained Democratic opposition. On the bills cited, the current arithmetic already works against passage even before the midterms enter the picture.

The November 3 midterm elections are likely to reconfigure Congress, with all 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats up for grabs. Expected Republican losses could dilute focus on South Africa-related issues, since US-Africa policy rarely ranks as a voter priority.

The current congressional term runs only until January 3 next year; any bills not enacted by then expire and must be reintroduced. With only a handful of legislative days left for the Senate and House before the midterms, time is already constrained.

The lame-duck period between election day and the seating of the new Congress is, in principle, where contentious measures can still be forced through. However, that takes floor time, leadership priority and, in the Senate, the same 60 votes, none of which a standalone South Africa bill commands.

These institutional realities make significant federal legislative activity for the remainder of 2026 unlikely. South Africa’s exposure to any expanded extraterritorial reach, therefore, remains contingent on electoral outcomes weeks away, not on an already-constructed policy of the current administration.

Ofentse Donald Davhie

Centre for Risk Analysis

PIC’s history of malpractice underscores calls for accountability and reform

There are voices suggesting that the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) could continue as an investment agent for the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) if certain negotiated conditions are met swiftly. Among these proposals is the appointment of an independent chairperson, ostensibly to remove politics from the PIC.

But how realistic is this? Can a state-owned corporation, by definition tied to politicians, ever truly become apolitical? Expecting politicians to relinquish control of what they see as a piggybank is naïve. As economist Dawie Roodt has rightly observed, everyone knows what happens when vast sums of money fall into the hands of politicians.

The truth is stark: you cannot restore a rotten pumpkin. The PIC is inherently rotten. Its long history of malpractice and the damage inflicted on pensioners is so notorious that recounting it yet again risks boring readers.

The deeper problem is the absence of accountability. Lies told to parliament have carried no consequences. The Mpati commission recommended that certain cases be referred to the prosecuting authority, yet what has come of that? How much of the pension fund’s money has been recovered? Billions have been lost, and still the guilty walk free. Pensioners are the ones who pay the price.

Recently it was reported that the GEPF’s banking affairs were shifted from one bank to another, involving transactions worth billions. This was apparently done through a tender process. That raises the question: should the management of the GEPF itself not also be subjected to a tender process? Naturally, politicians will resist — politicians who should have no say over money that does not belong to them.

If the PIC cannot be dismantled through a tender process, only one solution remains: the courts must interdict the board of trustees from granting the PIC any investment mandate. The reality is that pensioners can no longer afford the PIC.

Adamus P Stemmet

Ridgeworth

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.

Business Day