A top South African ruling party official said plans to nationalise the central bank will be shelved as the government wrestles with getting the coronavirus-stricken economy back on track.<\/p>\n
The country doesn\u2019t have the \u201cmassive resources\u201d that may be needed to buy out the bank\u2019s private shareholders and spending the money would be unjustified in the current economic climate, said Paul Mashatile, the treasurer-general of the African National Congress.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe would not want to rush to go in that direction because there are other implications,\u201d he said in an interview. \u201cOur view is that we want these resources to be channeled rather to infrastructure projects.\u201d<\/p>\n
The ANC decided at a conference in 2017 that the state should take ownership of the South African Reserve Bank, one of a handful of central banks owned by private investors, because the prevailing ownership structure infringed on the nation\u2019s sovereignty.<\/p>\n
The shareholders have no say over monetary-policy decisions and the bank\u2019s mandate – to ensure price stability – is set out in the constitution.<\/p>\n
The opposition Economic Freedom Fighters, which advocates the state seizure of banks, mines and land, has been pressuring the ruling party to follow through on its resolution that the state assume sole ownership of the bank and has tabled a draft law that would trigger the process.<\/p>\n
Parliament\u2019s legal adviser has warned the bill may be unconstitutional, because it would enable the shares to be expropriated without compensation, and ANC lawmakers have indicated they will reject it.<\/p>\n
The central bank\u2019s shareholders may seek a payout based on its total assets, including the $56 billion of gold and foreign reserves it holds on the country\u2019s behalf, Mashatile said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat can be a problem, it will make the bank very expensive,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Mashatile also rebuffed suggestions that the government change rules for pension funds to force them to invest in state infrastructure projects that are a central tenet of an economic recovery plan being drafted by the government in consultation with business and labor groups.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is not viable,\u201d he said. \u201cI think it just creates challenges between government and the investors because when you do prescribe assets you are basically saying to fund managers: \u2018You shall invest in this project.\u2019 You need to give them flexibility to choose. I think it is better not to prescribe, but to create an environment for the pension fund to invest.\u201d<\/p>\n
Other interview highlights:<\/p>\n