The term HDI or Historically Disadvantaged Individuals hasn’t been used for years. It was around in the late 1990s and was hastily discarded in the mid 2000s. The reason behind this is that the definition was roughly – all those people who did not have the vote under the constitution that predates our current constitution that came into effect in 1994.
The definition included all women and disabled people. This contradicted with the definition of black which is om en by Indian, Coloured or African born in SA. The HDI definition would then exclude all those who born after 1994 irrespective of race.
But it seems that a tender (which I haven’t seen and can’t seem to find) issued by National Treasury, the justice department and Solicitor-General for the provision of government legal services for the next three years awards points for HDIs. And so a few organizations are going to court.
The General Council of the Bar (GCB) and Advocates for Transformation (AFT) are suing the ministers of finance and justice, as well as the Solicitor-General over the use of a tender process to constitute a "panel of referral advocates" who would then be briefed on all state litigation for the next three years. In other words, black lawyers who are 30 or younger would not receive the points allocated to HDIs. "This definition, with respect, does not pass muster," ……He added the HDI definition in the tender was unlawful and clashed with the Constitution, Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and Broad-Based Black Empowerment Act.
How on earth did this happen? It’s from Treasury who are trying to push the procurement bill through to get away from the PPPFA.
They are firmly aware of the definition of black. Old Dali must be dancing in the aisles because his lose at all costs policy is still available to continue assist the state in losing cases. After-all he is willing to work for peanuts for the awful busi.