Three laws President Cyril Ramaphosa signed which caused havoc in South Africa

President Cyril Ramaphosa signed several laws in 2024 and the first few months of 2025, but three stand out due to the havoc they caused in South Africa.

These three are the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act, the Expropriation Act, and the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act.

Amid the turbulence surrounding these laws, other key legislative changes have been made with less opposition.

For instance, the Electricity Regulation Amendment Act marks a major shift in the energy sector, paving the way for increased competition and private participation.

Similarly, the recent signing of the National Nuclear Regulator Amendment Bill strengthens nuclear safety measures, ensuring alignment with global standards.

The South African Post Office Amendment Bill has also been enacted, addressing critical challenges in the postal service sector.

Despite these developments, numerous bills remain pending and await Ramaphosa’s approval. According to the Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 16 bills are currently in limbo.

Nine of these are finance-related, directly linked to measures introduced in the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement.

These include the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill, Adjustments Appropriation Bill, and several taxation and revenue laws.

Beyond financial legislation, other critical bills still require the president’s signature before they become law in South Africa.

These include the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill, Marine Pollution (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill, Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land Bill, and Housing Consumer Protection Bill.

However, the BELA, Expropriation, and NHI Acts have sparked the most heated debates. Critics argue these laws could threaten education, economic stability, and property rights.

Concerns over feasibility, potential trade sanctions, and risks to key industries continue to fuel opposition, highlighting the deep divisions surrounding South Africa’s legislative direction.

These three bills and why they are cause for concern are outlined below.

BELA Act

On 13 September 2024, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill into law at the Union Buildings in Pretoria.

BELA amends sections of the South African Schools Act of 1996 and the Employment of Educators Act of 1998.

At the signing, Deputy Basic Education Minister Dr Reginah Mhaule said this is to “respond to administrative challenges facing our schools.

“It will continue with the transformation agenda of the education system” to reflect the “changing demographics of communities,” he added.

However, Political scientist Dr Frans Cronje raised significant concerns about the BELA Act in South Africa.

He argued that its primary issue concerns language policy and a fundamental shift in educational governance.

According to Cronje, the Act represents a major reversal of the gains made in post-1994 education policy, particularly those introduced through the South African Schools Act of 1996.

One of the key strengths of the 1996 Schools Act, as Cronje highlights, was its empowerment of parents in determining the education of their children.

By granting school governing bodies substantial authority, the Act ensured that decision-making remained closely aligned with the interests of students and their families.

However, Cronje points out that the BELA legislation seeks to reverse this decentralisation by returning many of these powers to the state.

He argues that this is problematic because research consistently demonstrates that parental involvement in schools leads to better educational outcomes.

This is simply because parents have a deeper, more personal investment in their children’s education than government bureaucrats.

Cronje warns that BELA will severely limit the ability of parents and communities to take corrective action in schools suffering from serious issues—such as teachers who are absent, intoxicated, or engaged in misconduct.

He describes the entire approach to the legislation as deeply misguided, emphasising that the real problem is the erosion of parental authority in education.

While language policy remains an important concern, especially for Afrikaans-speaking communities, Cronje stresses that it is a secondary issue compared to the fundamental shift in control over school governance.

Expropriation Act

President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the contentious Expropriation Bill into law last month, outlining how the government can seize land and other property in the public interest.

The government argues that the law aligns with the Constitution and ensures a clear legal framework for expropriation. However, concerns are mounting over its broader economic and political consequences.

Cronje argues that the main threat is the Act allows the state to take fixed or movable property for less than its market value, significantly weakening property rights.

Under the previous legislation, compensation was determined based on market value and financial loss, ensuring owners were fairly reimbursed.

In contrast, the new law introduces subjective factors, such as “national interest,” making compensation unpredictable.

Critics argue that this uncertainty will deter foreign and domestic investment, which is crucial for economic growth.

To foster sustainable development, South Africa’s fixed investment to GDP ratio should be between 25% and 30%, but it currently stands at just 15%.

Without strong property rights, raising this figure becomes unlikely. Cronje warns that the Act is more than just a land reform measure—it fundamentally alters the investment climate.

He points out that the focus on land expropriation without compensation overshadows the broader impact on economic stability.

Investors need clear, objective guidelines for property rights, and removing market value as a key factor in compensation creates instability.

Compounding the issue, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policies add another barrier to foreign investment.

Cronje describes BEE as an “upfront tax on capital,” discouraging new investors from entering the South African market.

With economic growth currently between 1% and 2%, policies that further weaken investor confidence make it unlikely that the country will reach the 4% to 5% growth needed for substantial progress.

Beyond its economic ramifications, the bill is also straining diplomatic relations, particularly with the United States.

Washington has expressed concerns about South Africa’s commitment to protecting property rights, raising the possibility of the country losing its membership in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).

AGOA provides crucial trade benefits, supporting thousands of jobs and boosting exports. Losing access to this agreement would further damage South Africa’s struggling economy.

National Healthcare Insurance Act

Ramaphosa signed the NHI bill into law in May 2024 to provide universal quality healthcare for all South Africans, as mandated by the Constitution.

This will be achieved by consolidating healthcare funding into a single pool, combining private and public resources.

However, the Act has been met with widespread uncertainty, particularly regarding its funding and feasibility.

Despite being signed into law, the government has not provided clear details on how the NHI will be financed.

Concerns have also arisen over reports that the draft medium-term development plan omits the requirement for all medical schemes to be merged into a single fund.

Healthcare governance expert Alex van den Heever supports universal healthcare but stresses that it will never be “free.”

Someone—whether taxpayers or individual contributors—will always bear the cost. The key issue, he argues, is ensuring that payment does not become a barrier to access.

Van den Heever asserts that there is no viable alternative model for South Africa, but the government’s current NHI plan is unworkable.

He warns that persisting with an unimplementable plan detracts from addressing the healthcare system’s real challenges.

Promoting NHI as a solution, he argues, creates a false impression of reform while failing to address the underlying issues.

“A major concern is that NHI is an excuse for the status quo – it keeps all the players that are currently milking the system in play,” he said.

He calls for meaningful reforms that tackle systemic inefficiencies rather than serve as distractions.

Looking ahead, Van den Heever predicts heated debates within the Government of National Unity and across the healthcare sector.

“The concern is that the government is chasing a policy it can’t realistically implement while trying to scare the industry and health system with massive changes they can’t cope with,” he said.

Economist Dawie Roodt has echoed these concerns, arguing that South Africa lacks the financial resources to fund NHI.

He warns that any attempt to extract more money from an already strained tax base could drive major contributors out of the country, further weakening the economy.