From redress to reassessment: The evolution of BEE and the legal, political reckoning

Key topics:Sakeliga challenges race-based procurement laws in court.Treasury draft reforms signal shift in BEE enforcement.Debate grows over BEE's impact on real empowerment..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.The auditorium doors will open for BNIC#2 on 10 September 2025 in Hermanus. For more information and tickets, click here..By Kerry Lanaghan.Listen to this story instead:.Black economic empowerment (BEE), once hailed as a cornerstone of South Africa’s post-apartheid economic transformation, is undergoing intensified political and legal scrutiny. Introduced to redress the historical injustices of apartheid by promoting black ownership, management, and participation in the economy, BEE has evolved from early affirmative action principles into a complex framework with far-reaching economic and legal consequences.Initially formalised through the 2003 Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, BEE was designed to spur inclusive growth by correcting racial imbalances in ownership and corporate leadership. Over the past two decades, this policy has expanded into sector charters, procurement regulations, and employment equity targets. However, critics have long argued that BEE has become more about box-ticking compliance than sustainable empowerment, often benefiting politically connected elites rather than broad-based black communities.This criticism has grown louder, particularly from business advocacy organisations like Sakeliga, which argues that BEE in its current form undermines economic performance and legal certainty. Through a string of court actions, Sakeliga is now leading a strategic legal push to challenge the state’s use of BEE criteria in public procurement and regulation, arguing that race-based quotas are unconstitutional and economically damaging.A pivotal moment came with Sakeliga’s 2022 litigation against the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC), challenging regulations under the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (PPPFA). The group successfully contested the legality of requiring pre-determined BEE scoring in tenders. This led to a Constitutional Court judgment that struck down key regulatory provisions and forced government departments to revise procurement rules.Sakeliga’s legal offensive didn’t stop there. The organisation has filed multiple court cases arguing that BEE obligations imposed on professional regulators and licensing bodies, such as those in construction, engineering, and finance, constitute administrative overreach. These cases, many still pending, contend that BEE compliance requirements go beyond the powers granted by enabling legislation and violate Section 217 of the Constitution, which demands fairness, equity, and cost-effectiveness in state procurement.Supporters of BEE argue that such legal efforts risk rolling back hard-won gains in economic inclusion. But Sakeliga maintains that transformation should not come at the expense of constitutional principles or financial freedom. “We do not object to empowerment,” Sakeliga states. “We object to coercive, race-based policies that distort markets and harm service delivery.”Meanwhile, the policy landscape remains unsettled. In late 2022, National Treasury released draft amendments to procurement regulations that effectively downplay BEE criteria - prompting a backlash from ANC-aligned groups and trade unions. The balancing act between redress and efficiency now lies at the heart of government reform efforts.Economists and policy analysts also point to BEE’s mixed economic outcomes. While some sectors have seen improved diversity in ownership and management, others, such as small and medium enterprises, have struggled with the administrative burden of BEE compliance. Studies by the Treasury and academic institutions suggest that BEE’s economic impact has been uneven, with limited evidence that it has meaningfully improved employment or productivity at a national scale.With 2024's general election further shifting the political winds, there is a growing appetite for BEE reform across the political spectrum. The Democratic Alliance has proposed replacing BEE with "Economic Justice" policies that target poverty and inequality directly, regardless of race. The Economic Freedom Fighters, meanwhile, want even more aggressive state intervention to restructure the economy along racial lines.Amid these ideological clashes, organisations like Sakeliga have found a receptive audience in the courts, positioning the judiciary as an increasingly important arbiter of South Africa’s economic transformation trajectory.As the July 2025 deadline for revising procurement legislation approaches, the future of BEE hangs in the balance. Will South Africa double down on race-based redress, or shift toward race-neutral approaches that aim to empower all disadvantaged groups? For now, the legal challenges and political debates sparked by Sakeliga suggest that BEE, far from being a settled policy, is entering a new era of reassessment and recalibration.