BEE makes South Africans poorer

Sakeliga CEO Piet le Roux believes that South Africa’s pursuit of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) regulations has made the average South African poorer.

He stated this during a recent interview with Newsday on 23 September 2026, in which he discussed how detrimental state policies have damaged the South African economy.

Le Roux has been an open critic of BEE in the past, with his business advocacy organisation, Sakeliga, promoting free-market principles and challenging state overreach.

He described these policies as a form of domestic sanctions, wherein a specific subsection of the country’s population is disfavoured from participating in the economy.

Le Roux also said BEE worked to displace certain groups of people by forcing both racial and gender-based quotas on businesses, requiring them to match national demographics.

“That’s not how the world works,” le Roux said. “The world works with freedom of association, family relations, community relations, language relations, and trust networks.”

“We will not accept that the government tries to make everybody a Lego block that they can plug and play anywhere in the economy. A free economy doesn’t work that way.”

South Africa’s race-based regulations have come under criticism in recent months from the United States government, under the presidency of Donald Trump.

Last month, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa restrictions for South Africans complicit in race-based legislation, such as BEE or land expropriation.

In response, International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola defended these laws as addressing South Africa’s past injustices to build a more equal and inclusive society.

Le Roux welcomed the heightened tensions between the two countries as a means through which South Africa can begin to confront head on the true impact of BEE on the economy.

“The pretense that the government has tried to uphold for the last decade or two is that what they’re doing is beneficial and leading to the flourishing of black communities, which it isn’t,” Le Roux said.

“This country hasn’t seen economic growth for 15 years. A few people have gotten pretty rich in South Africa, but in general, everybody is poorer for it, and the country is less stable and less harmonious.”

Court victory for Sakeliga

Le Roux’s organisation Sakeliga has frequently used the South African court system to challenge BEE regulations which they view as harmful to the economy.

Last month, the Pretoria High Court ruled in Sakeliga’s favour in a dispute with the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority (PPRA) over stringent BEE licensing requirements.

“The government is increasingly rolling out a policy of making BEE participation a precondition for having a licence to participate in the economy,” le Roux said.

“The frontrunner in that is the PPRA, which is a statutory body under the government. A few years ago, the law started changing and they started implementing the new law.”

Under Section 50(a)(x) of the Property Practitioners Act (PPA), practitioners who wish to receive a Fidelity Fund Certificate (FFC) must first obtain a BEE certificate.

Operating as a property practitioner in South Africa without an FFC is a criminal offence, making the acquisition of a BEE certificate essential for prospective practitioners.

The requirement for a BEE certificate had been part of the PPA since it was enacted in 2022, with this requirement remaining in effect until April 2024.

This was when the PPRA imposed a new policy which required practitioners to meet an accepted BEE compliance level of 40 points or more, which it said was non-negotiable.

Sakeliga challenged this, arguing that the law only required a valid BEE certificate and not a minimum level of compliance, and said the two could not be misconstrued.

When the PPRA backpedalled on the compliance requirement, Sakeliga continued to challenge Section 50(a)(x) of the PPA, saying it should be struck down entirely.

The organisation said the restriction had created unnecessary uncertainty by relying on an overly broad definition of what a property practitioner could be.

On 8 September, the High Court declared the BEE requirements of the PPA as unconstitutional and invalid, and set them aside.

Later that month, the PPRA confirmed that it would no longer require BEE certificates in order to issue FFCs to property practitioners.

Le Roux said Sakeliga would continue to legally challenge the rollout of BEE by demonstrating to the courts the harm these laws can have on the public.

“Judges do care about whether people have water in their taps, functioning roads, electricity, and safe and secure neighbourhoods,” le Roux said. “BEE harms all of that.”

“I think the courts actually care about whether there is a tax base or not. BEE harms that. We’re trying to explain how harmful the next or most recent extension of BEE is.”