The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), a prominent South African opposition party, have initiated legal action against the South African Parliament concerning the national budget. The dispute centers on the parliamentary process leading up to the budget vote, with the EFF alleging procedural irregularities and constitutional violations.
In early April 2025, the EFF filed an urgent application seeking an interim interdict to prevent the National Assembly from proceeding with the budget vote. The party contended that the Standing Committee on Finance’s endorsement of the fiscal framework was flawed due to the committee’s lack of quorum during deliberations, rendering its decisions legally invalid. They further argued that the adoption of the budget, which included a proposed increase in the Value Added Tax (VAT) from 15% to 17%, was rushed and lacked proper scrutiny. The EFF viewed this VAT hike as detrimental to the economically disadvantaged, exacerbating existing inequalities.
The proposed VAT increase was a significant point of contention within the coalition government. The African National Congress (ANC), despite internal disagreements, managed to pass the budget with support from smaller parties like ActionSA. This move led to a public fallout with the Democratic Alliance (DA), the ANC’s largest coalition partner, which opposed the VAT hike on the grounds that it would adversely affect the poor. The DA’s dissent highlighted deepening ideological divides within the coalition, raising questions about its stability.
Legal precedents underscore the judiciary’s role in overseeing parliamentary procedures. In the 2017 case of Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another, the Constitutional Court ruled that the National Assembly had failed to establish proper rules for the impeachment of the President, emphasizing the necessity for clear parliamentary procedures. Similarly, in 2024, the High Court upheld Parliament’s decision to suspend six EFF members for contempt, reinforcing the legislature’s authority to maintain order and discipline.
The EFF’s legal challenge to the budget process reflects broader concerns about fiscal policies and governance in South Africa. The party advocates for expansive fiscal measures that prioritize infrastructure development, job creation, and social services, viewing these as essential to addressing systemic economic challenges. They oppose austerity measures and regressive taxation, arguing that such policies disproportionately burden the working class and the poor. The EFF’s stance calls for a reevaluation of fiscal strategies to promote inclusive growth and social equity.
As the legal proceedings unfold, they will likely have significant implications for South Africa’s political landscape, particularly concerning coalition dynamics and fiscal governance. The judiciary’s involvement in resolving these disputes underscores the importance of constitutional adherence and the rule of law in maintaining democratic processes and accountability.
