By Thebe Mabanga
The EFF has rejected the fuel levy increase proposed by Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana, set to take effect on June 4th, arguing that it violates both the Constitution, the Money Bills Act, and parliamentary procedure.
While tabling the third iteration of the budget on May 21, Godongwana proposed a general fuel levy increase of 16 cents per litre for petrol and 15 cents per litre for diesel, set to take effect in early June.
This marks the first fuel levy increase in three years and was introduced as an alternative to the proposed VAT hike, which was blocked by the Western Cape High Court following a legal challenge by the EFF and the DA.
However, the minister announced the increase in levy through a regulatory notice published in the Government Gazette, rather than introducing it as a money bill – thereby bypassing the legal scrutiny, public consultation, and parliamentary approval typically required.
The EFF contends that this approach violates both the Constitution and the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act of 2009.
In formal correspondence to Parliamentary Speaker Thoko Didiza and Godongwana, the EFF has rejected the proposed increase and called for its immediate withdrawal.
In its letter to the speaker, the party states: “We are alarmed that despite the unambiguous political and legal rejection of the VAT increase earlier this year—including a successful court challenge which resulted in its suspension—the Minister has now opted to impose an equally regressive tax measure through a government notice, rather than through a money bill in accordance with section 77 of the Constitution.”
Section 77 of the constitution states that: “A Money Bill is a Bill that—(b) imposes national taxes, levies, duties or surcharges”.
Moreover, the constitution recognises national tax as one that applies nationally and to the whole population, as is the case with the fuel levy.
The EFF then told Godongwana that: “It is deeply concerning that despite the unambiguous political and legal rejection of the VAT increase—first introduced as a 2 percentage point increase (from 15% to 17%) in the February 2025 Budget and subsequently revised to 0.5 percentage points (from 15% to 15.5%) in the March 2025 Budget—your Ministry continues to pursue regressive taxation measures with similarly devastating effects on the working class and the poor.”
The EFF then formally requests that Parliament, through Didiza’s office, write to the Minister of Finance to warn against proceeding with the fuel levy increase in the absence of a money bill.
The freeze in the fuel levy was introduced three years ago as consumers, still reeling from the pandemic, were hit with a cost-of-living crisis that was sparked by a sharp increase in oil and grain prices due to the onset of the Russia Ukraine conflict.
“That freeze served as a critical relief measure for low-income households and transport reliant workers, offering partial protection from inflationary pressures and fuel price volatility,” the EFF said in its letter to the minister.
The fighters see the move as “a calculated attempt to bypass parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation.”
It is a regressive move that replicates the impact of VAT increases under a different label, targeting the same vulnerable segments of society under the false pretext of administrative authority.
“We therefore reject, with contempt it deserves, the proposed increase in the fuel levy,” the EFF said.
The fourth largest party in Parliament argues that “unlike income taxes, the fuel levy is a consumption-based tax.
It is not linked to income or wealth, and therefore applies uniformly across all income groups, regardless of ability to pay.
The party goes on to note that the Competition Commission’s own Essential Food Pricing Monitoring reports have warned that input cost shocks such as fuel increases lead to “non-transparent, inelastic pricing” that disproportionately harms consumers.
“Every litre of petrol and diesel carries a built-in cost burden, and that burden is now being deliberately increased, without any protection for the most vulnerable,” the EFF says and notes that the increase undermines the Minster’s own economic growth assumptions of 1,4%, down from 1,8%.
The fuel levy increase is expected to raise R1,5 billion in the current financial year and the EFF notes: “While the amount may appear negligible in macroeconomic terms, the danger lies in the precedent it sets.”
The red berets proceed to point out that the political and procedural implications are equally severe.
“By introducing a new tax instrument through administrative means—after the public rejection and legal defeat of the VAT proposal—you have placed the entire 2025 budget process in jeopardy once again.”
The party adds: “In a multi-party Parliament operating under the shadow of an unstable Government of National Unity (GNU), your decision to bypass legislative consensus on taxation could fatally undermine the delicate balance of political cooperation required to pass a national budget.”
The EFF demands formal withdrawal of the proposed increase and then sneaks its own demands to for Godongwana to “submit revised revenue proposals that rely on either progressive taxation measures—such as wealth, land, or estate taxes”.
These actions must be undertaken before the Standing Committee finalises its report on the 2025 Fiscal Framework and Revenue Proposals.
The committee must adopt its report within 16 days of tabling the budget, or Friday June 6, two days after the proposed increase.
“The constitutional deadlines for passing the 2025 Budget are fast approaching. The country cannot afford another fiscal deadlock, nor can it afford the deepening of inequality and economic suffering through unmandated taxation.”
National Treasury has been given 48 hours to respond, and the Office of the speaker has not responded.
INSIDE POLITICS
