By Thebe Mabanga
Parliament has objected to the need for a court order to set aside the Fiscal Framework and Revenue Proposals it adopted at the beginning of April, pointing out that they are not the basis for the announcement of a 0.5 % value added tax (VAT) increase and are thus not required for its proposed reversal.
The National Assembly also argues that it is preparing to adopt a new or amended framework, which will render the version adopted on 2 April irrelevant.
These arguments are contained in the answering affidavit in response to the supplementary affidavit filed by the Democratic Alliance (DA) over the weekend.
The EFF also filed a supplementary affidavit, expressing support for the DA’s submission, while also seeking relief of its own.
The Speaker’s Office had not responded to the EFF by Sunday afternoon at the time of going to press.
In is affidavit, the DA wants the use the courts to stop the proposed VAT hike from being implemented on May 1 by setting aside the Fiscal Framework and Revenue Proposals the also issuing a specific order to stop the VAT hike.
The DA suggests that the measures taken thus far to reverse the VAT hike, including the tabling of Money Bill that explicitly leaves VAT unchanged may not be enough.
The DA cited correspondence between South African Reverse Service (SARS) and vendors as proof that the hike may go ahead.
In its affidavit, filed by Chief legal adviser Zuraya Adhikarie on behalf of the Speaker Thoko Didiza, National Council of Provinces (NCOP) chair Refilwe Mtshweni-Tsipane as well the Standing and Select Committees of finance, parliament voices its disagreement with the DA’s request.
Parliament argues: “The adoption of the report on Fiscal Framework by the Standing Committee and Select Commitee on Finance is neither a prerequisite for nor a part of the Minister’s announcement of the increase in VAT rate.”
Parliament also argues that the minister derived this power from section 7 (4) of the VAT Act of 1991.
In its initial challenge, the DA sought to challenge the constitutionality of this section.
Parliament further states that the fiscal framework that was adopted at the beginning of April “no longer stands in the form in which it was adopted” and “the circumstances in which it was adopted no longer prevail” that a new or amended framework would to be tabled.
It basically argues that the adopted framework has since been overtaken by events.
Parliament then states that should the court order it to set the framework aside it will comply with the court order.
In its affidavit, filed by Rorisang Moloi, the EFF is more concerned about rules, procedure, and constitutionality of the process.
“This intervention is grounded in the EFF’s firm commitment to uphold constitutional principles, protect Parliament from unlawful political manipulation that threatens to compromise its legislated mandate, and to protect South Africans from unjust taxation through an ill-conceived VAT increase,” the EFF said in a statement.
The EFF further reiterated its stance that the withdrawal of the Appropriations Bill and Division of Revenue Bill effectively collapses the budget process, which necessitates a reset.
The EFF also noted that “in the spirit of inter-party cooperation and given the exceptional constitutional moment,” the Speaker should convene a meeting of party leaders to resolve the impasse.
Additionally, it reiterated its call for parliamentary committees to conduct a workshop outlining the tools available to them and their appropriate application timelines.
The party mentions that the Speaker has committed to respond “in due course,” without specifying a timeframe.
INSIDE POLITICS
