SERR Synergy posted this on LinkedIn but I've taken it from their blog. For those with short memories might not recall how codes were introduced and then immediately applicable. If I remember correctly the dti said you should have known that the draft was going to be similar to the final. That's a whole can of worms there – the final was inevitably a carbon copy of the draft. Don't forget the anc arrogance that we have had to live with in the last 20 odd years. Clueless lawmakers deeming themselves too important to listen to the people.
But things have changed. A legal challenge to the legal charter from the big five law firms. Everything is different now. My friend tells me that the dtic were very worried that they would lose the urgent application and didn't want to lose two cases in a row, contrary to what I speculated in my last post. Here the Legal Practice Council, who is the second respondent in the legal challenge, decided to have a workshop and discussion with the "industry stakeholders", which seems to have excluded at least one of the big five law firms (typical behaviour). I'll let SERR takeover.
One of the primary concerns was the absence of key institutional structures necessary for compliance. For instance, the Legal Charter Council had not yet been formed, and the Legal Sector Transformation Fund where legal entities were required to make specific donations, had also not been established. These uncertainties left many legal firms in a difficult position, unsure about how to meet the new requirements.
Legal Sector Steering Committee engagement
Recognising these challenges, the Legal Sector Steering Committee held an engagement session with industry stakeholders on 4 February 2025 to clarify the implementation of the Legal Sector Code.
During this session, it was confirmed that any Legal Sector Measured Entity (LSME) whose financial year had already commenced before the publication date of the Codes, being 20 September 2024, still had to be measured under the Revised Codes of Good Practice (the so-called General B-BBEE Codes).
This means that entities with financial years ending between September 2024 to August 2025 will be allowed to be measured under the Revised Codes of Good Practice once more.
For example, measured entities with a February 2025 financial year-end, will be measured under the Revised Codes of Good Practice.
This is serious backtracking and a very poor attempt at conciliation. Again the arrogance is alarming. We'll give you about nothing and in exchange you'll do what we tell you to do even though the structures that are vital to comply aren't in place. And then probably saying you'll get used to it and like it and implement it.
Things are not going well with this type of legislating. The South African and the Orange Moron are decrying our redress policies. It seems that the catalyst was Cyril gazetting (again extreme anc arrogance) the Expropriation Act. This wasn't agreed to with other GNU partners and he went ahead because he is too weak and arrogant to figure out he's answerable to a country and his GNU partners. Now South Africa is gaining unnecessary attention. We can do what we want as as a sovereign country. But the attention we are getting is not good for us. It is getting so bad that Cyril ends up calling Mush to explain the expropriation act.
It would be one thing if these so-called empowerment policies had actually benefited the economy and the people. Cyril could easily defend it under those circumstances. But it has denuded the country, stripped us of resources and impoverished every one, except a very small number of people.
And this is why the legal challenge is so important. It's a barometer with the business sector saying we have had enough.
Takes balls to listen Cyril. I don't know where you left yours.