MAIN IMAGE: Jan le Roux – CE of Rebosa, Thato Ramaili – PPRA CEO, Piet le Roux – CEO of Sakeliga
Senior writer
Rebosa and Sakeliga hosted webinars last week to discuss approaching the ongoing crisis around the compliant BEE certificate requirement for the issuing FFCs. While both organisations are clear about the need for the PPRA to revise its stance, they differ in their approach. For those who weren’t able to attend the webinars, we are providing a quick summary:
Rebosa calls for meaningful dialogue
Rebosa’s stance is to continue a dialogue with the PPRA, with the option to pursue legal action if negotiations fail to resolve the issue. “As Rebosa, we have always maintained that one can achieve more with open communication around a table than immediately resorting to costly and time-consuming legal action. Our approach has been successful in many instances of negotiating with the then EAAB and now the PPRA. Just last week, the PPRA has decided to scrap historical penalties, a move it acknowledges comes off the back of consultation with Rebosa. This clearly indicates that positive outcomes can be achieved through dialogue and negotiation”, shares Jan le Roux, CE of Rebosa.
The ask: Rebosa wants the PPRA to revert to its original position, which is that a valid but not necessarily compliant BEE certificate is sufficient.
Next steps: Rebosa says it will continue to engage with the PPRA but will launch a donation page on its website for agencies to contribute to funding legal proceedings, should these become necessary.
Sakeliga is going to court
Sakeliga CEO Piet le Roux (no relation to Jan le Roux) indicated that it had contacted the PPRA, but it has not received a response. As such, Sakeliga is now preparing papers to submit to court.
Piet le Roux believes the Government’s outlook is increasingly one of “If you want to do business at all, you’re now going to have to apply our political preferences to your business transactions. And if you don’t, you’re either going to be penalised or prohibited from doing any business at all…The modus operandi is to not only start requiring BEE but also redefine industries and make the scope and reach of government stronger.”
In this sense, the issue with BEE certificates for property practitioners forms the first of what Sakeliga believes could be several court cases across multiple sectors.
It also takes issue with the new definition of ‘property practitioner’ in the Property Practitioner Act, which, in addition to estate agents, now includes an additional 12 categories (such as bond originators and HOAs who perform property practitioner activities, etc.). All of whom are impacted by now needing compliant BEE certificates to obtain their FFCs.
The ask: Sakeliga thinks that requiring property practitioners to have compliant, not merely valid, BEE certificates is regulatory overreach (and outside of the Act) and intends to challenge this legally. They also believe that no BEE certificate should be required in the first place (as it is ‘irrelevant to being a good property practitioner’) and that the definition of property practitioner needs to be redefined.
Next steps: Sakeliga has launched an information page with a donation facility.
