Govt bullish over NEEEF
Sentiments that the proposed New Equitable Economic Empowerment Framework (NEEEF) Bill might not be the right instrument to address the inequities resulting from past discriminatory laws and practices, will not be entertained.
This law is coming whether it is “incompatible” with the Namibian Constitution or not. There is also a push to table the Bill in parliament as early as September, following the last series of public consultative meetings to be held in August.
This was the unambiguous message from the Office of the Prime Minister and the Law Reform Development Commission (LRDC) during a public discussion session that started in Windhoek yesterday.
“We can no longer postpone an empowerment law 26 years after independence,” commented the Permanent Secretary from Office of the Prime Minister, Andrew Ndishishi, adding that “all businesses will have to comply whether you do business with government or not”.
He was supported by the chairperson of the LRDC, Yvonne Dausab, who stated that the law will be passed.
“We do take comments from the public seriously, but it does not mean that every comment will be considered. The proposed law is not to prejudice anyone, but to take everything forward in the spirit of the Harambee Prosperity Plan,” said Dausab.
The private sector, however, feels that this new law will not have the intended effect of creating a just society where income earned by all Namibians are more equal, but might in particular, push the white-owned private sector companies to their limits.
The PDPs
The Bill in its current form proposes a mandatory minimum requirement that white-owned private companies sell “at least” 25%, or a percentage determined by a minister, to previously disadvantaged persons (PDPs).
Another mandatory requirement is that that 50% of such companies’ management must consist of PDPs and that the equivalent of 0.5% of a company’s gross wages must be spent on training employees.
Optional requirements are that businesses introduce entrepreneurship development and marketing, comply with corporate social responsibility requirements and add value through technology and innovation. Of the 120 written submissions made to government, most were related to questions on the constitutionality of the Bill.
Though Article 23(2) “allows for legislation to be passed, rectifying wrongs of the past”, it was put forward that articles 16 and 21 amongst others, guarantee the right to property ownership and the right to association.
Dausab said there is “no intention” to be in conflict with the Namibian Constitution, but added that the LRDC will seek a legal opinion from the Office of the Attorney-General on whether the Bill can be passed “as a justifiable contravention” to the country’s Constitution.
“It does not mean that that the Bill is unconstitutional if it is in conflict with the Constitution,” Dausab said, arguing that rights in the Constitution “can be limited”.
Eben de Klerk of ISG Risk Services CC, however, argues that government has a duty to see to it that no law is in conflict with the Namibian Constitution. Michael Chivala of Zimolimwe Investments suggests that the Bill will be in line with the Constitution if the ownership requirement is not mandatory, but optional. The Bill defines PDPs as people who are “racially disadvantaged” and “women and persons with disabilities”.
A member of the audience, however, wanted to know if those born after independence can technically be defined as a PDPs or racially disadvantaged persons, since the Constitution guarantees equality before the law. Another wanted to know if the Chinese can also be considered as PDPs. The Bill furthermore makes provision for the establishment of an economic empowerment commission that will “promote adherence” to the legislation.
This commission is to define a scorecard, which Dausab proposed should give “greater weight to people who are more disadvantaged” than others. The executive director of Women Action for Development (WAD), Salatiel Shinedima, suggested that PDPs should not be limited to individuals, but that it should include disadvantaged communities.
Shinedima added that a PDP should not be viewed as someone disadvantaged during colonialism, but rather those currently disadvantaged, saying that the country’s resources are only “circulating around certain individuals” and not trickling down to the communities.
Another member of the audience commented that the proposed legislation should not create “new PDPs”, arguing that in years to come, no white business owner would have the same rights as blacks. “This might create a new generation of disadvantaged people,” the person suggested.
Tim Parkhouse of the Namibia Employment Federation (NEF) said the council should also set rules on bribery and corruption.
He also expressed concern that the council will be subject to a confidentiality clause, which effectively means that the public will not be privy to certain information.
It was furthermore argued from the floor that more weight should be given to skills development and training of disadvantaged communities, instead of concentrating on mandatory requirements of ownership and management.
Other issues of concern raised are what effect this Bill will have on one-man businesses and private property rights. Concerns were also raised that empowerment policies such as this Bill may not bring about poverty eradication at all, but rather lead to the failure of the country’s economy.
CATHERINE SASMAN
This law is coming whether it is “incompatible” with the Namibian Constitution or not. There is also a push to table the Bill in parliament as early as September, following the last series of public consultative meetings to be held in August.
This was the unambiguous message from the Office of the Prime Minister and the Law Reform Development Commission (LRDC) during a public discussion session that started in Windhoek yesterday.
“We can no longer postpone an empowerment law 26 years after independence,” commented the Permanent Secretary from Office of the Prime Minister, Andrew Ndishishi, adding that “all businesses will have to comply whether you do business with government or not”.
He was supported by the chairperson of the LRDC, Yvonne Dausab, who stated that the law will be passed.
“We do take comments from the public seriously, but it does not mean that every comment will be considered. The proposed law is not to prejudice anyone, but to take everything forward in the spirit of the Harambee Prosperity Plan,” said Dausab.
The private sector, however, feels that this new law will not have the intended effect of creating a just society where income earned by all Namibians are more equal, but might in particular, push the white-owned private sector companies to their limits.
The PDPs
The Bill in its current form proposes a mandatory minimum requirement that white-owned private companies sell “at least” 25%, or a percentage determined by a minister, to previously disadvantaged persons (PDPs).
Another mandatory requirement is that that 50% of such companies’ management must consist of PDPs and that the equivalent of 0.5% of a company’s gross wages must be spent on training employees.
Optional requirements are that businesses introduce entrepreneurship development and marketing, comply with corporate social responsibility requirements and add value through technology and innovation. Of the 120 written submissions made to government, most were related to questions on the constitutionality of the Bill.
Though Article 23(2) “allows for legislation to be passed, rectifying wrongs of the past”, it was put forward that articles 16 and 21 amongst others, guarantee the right to property ownership and the right to association.
Dausab said there is “no intention” to be in conflict with the Namibian Constitution, but added that the LRDC will seek a legal opinion from the Office of the Attorney-General on whether the Bill can be passed “as a justifiable contravention” to the country’s Constitution.
“It does not mean that that the Bill is unconstitutional if it is in conflict with the Constitution,” Dausab said, arguing that rights in the Constitution “can be limited”.
Eben de Klerk of ISG Risk Services CC, however, argues that government has a duty to see to it that no law is in conflict with the Namibian Constitution. Michael Chivala of Zimolimwe Investments suggests that the Bill will be in line with the Constitution if the ownership requirement is not mandatory, but optional. The Bill defines PDPs as people who are “racially disadvantaged” and “women and persons with disabilities”.
A member of the audience, however, wanted to know if those born after independence can technically be defined as a PDPs or racially disadvantaged persons, since the Constitution guarantees equality before the law. Another wanted to know if the Chinese can also be considered as PDPs. The Bill furthermore makes provision for the establishment of an economic empowerment commission that will “promote adherence” to the legislation.
This commission is to define a scorecard, which Dausab proposed should give “greater weight to people who are more disadvantaged” than others. The executive director of Women Action for Development (WAD), Salatiel Shinedima, suggested that PDPs should not be limited to individuals, but that it should include disadvantaged communities.
Shinedima added that a PDP should not be viewed as someone disadvantaged during colonialism, but rather those currently disadvantaged, saying that the country’s resources are only “circulating around certain individuals” and not trickling down to the communities.
Another member of the audience commented that the proposed legislation should not create “new PDPs”, arguing that in years to come, no white business owner would have the same rights as blacks. “This might create a new generation of disadvantaged people,” the person suggested.
Tim Parkhouse of the Namibia Employment Federation (NEF) said the council should also set rules on bribery and corruption.
He also expressed concern that the council will be subject to a confidentiality clause, which effectively means that the public will not be privy to certain information.
It was furthermore argued from the floor that more weight should be given to skills development and training of disadvantaged communities, instead of concentrating on mandatory requirements of ownership and management.
Other issues of concern raised are what effect this Bill will have on one-man businesses and private property rights. Concerns were also raised that empowerment policies such as this Bill may not bring about poverty eradication at all, but rather lead to the failure of the country’s economy.
CATHERINE SASMAN
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article