THEMA: NEEEF-Konzept
03 Aug 2016 23:28 #439711
  • Swakop1952
  • Swakop1952s Avatar
  • Beiträge: 2664
  • Dank erhalten: 2088
  • Swakop1952 am 03 Aug 2016 23:28
  • Swakop1952s Avatar
Denn mal viel Spaß beim Gewinnen von Erkenntnissen aus dieser qualifizierten und nicht aus dem Daumen gesaugten Stellungnahme, mit kaiserlichen Grüßen, lieber Christian. Träumen darf man wohl, jedoch ist die Zielsetzung des Gesetzes eine willkürliche vollständige Enteignungsmöglichkeit, wie Gang und Gäbe in einer Diktatur. Man muß nur richtig lesen (können). Außerdem habe ich auch noch die sehr umfangreiche und belegte Stellungnahme von Herrn Rainer Ritter an das Ministerium, die wohl manche überfordern würde. Dieser Gesetzes-Entwurf ist erheblich krasser als die gesamte südafrikanische BEE Gesetzgebung. Hier wird es Interventionen geben von Staaten, mit denen Namibia ein Investitions-Schutzabkommen geschlossen hat, aber nur insoweit deren Bürger und Unternehmen betroffen sind:

Zitat:

Dear Valued Stakeholder

I refer to the much publicised NEEEF, which has now been transformed to a Bill (the NEEEB) to be tabled before Parliament in September 2016. The latest available draft is attached hereto for your ease of reference.

The Law Reform Commission (LRC), in support of the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), held public consultations commencing in the Khomas Region last week.

Highlights on the latest draft and current situation:
· Andrew Ndishishi from the OPM as well as the LRC made it unequivocally clear that nothing will stop the NEEEB from becoming law, and very soon so.
· It is clear from the latest draft that very few, if any, of the 120 submissions made to the LRC were taken into account in drafting the latest version, and definitely none of the economic impact or constitutionality concerns were addressed.
· In fact, in many respects the latest draft is more horrific than the original.
· So for instance the Bill now affects ALL EXISTING and NEW BUSINESSES (including sole traders), and not only new businesses alone per the original draft.
· All businesses MUST, within a prescribed period, which period is still unknown, have 25% ownership by “Previously Disadvantaged Persons” (PDPs). A revenue cap was proposed, but this amount remains unknown.
· White females are defined as PDP, but the LRC made it clear that they will not allow the practice of husbands selling ownership to their wives. This and similar transactions will likely be prohibited by further regulations to the NEEEB.
· At least 50% of management of all business must be from PDP cadres.
· These minimum transformation targets may be increased, even to 100%, at any time after the Bill is promulgated.
· No PDP’s obtaining ownership in a business may sell such ownership to a white male ever again.
· PDP’s must share in remuneration and profits at the same level of non-PDP owners and management.
· Fronting, i.e. creating simulated transactions whereby PDPs are only on paper part of ownership or management is a crime and punishable by imprisonment.
· Although the LRC stated that the intention is that ownership must be sold at “fair value”, the act does not prescribe this; but does make transfer of ownership compulsory, and untenable impossibility.
· Upon enquiry as to how a fair price can ever be established in an environment where the seller is by statute forced to sell, the LRC could not provide an answer and reiterated that they will not accept any criticism of this Bill any further.
· A major concern is that the Bill in current format remains grossly unconstitutional, although the LRC does not agree with this opinion, but stated that they will receive a final opinion on this from the Attorney General. The Attorney General, Sacky Shangala, is by the definition of PDPs himself also an intended beneficiary of this Bill.
· The question of who will fund these forced selling of businesses remains unanswered, but it appears that peddling in pension fund assets will become rife. This is a result of an amendment to Regulation 28 to the Pension Funds Act that forced pension funds several years back to invest in unlisted investments. It is noteworthy that this amendment to Regulation 28 came about through the office of the then Minister of Finance, who is currently the Prime Minister and promoter of the NEEEB.
· There will be a Council established, consisting of only members of Cabinet and persons appointed by the President, who must set further “transformation standards and targets”.
· This Council may set “transformation targets”, without limitation as to the maximum, scope or area of these targets, and failure to comply with these targets is a crime and punishable by 10 years imprisonment.
· Council decisions are all confidential and not open to public scrutiny.
· Businesses which do not comply are prohibited from entering into any procurement contract with a government body. This includes all public, or state owned enterprises, and includes further all entities established by statute.
· All businesses are subject to investigation and seizure of documents and equipment by the Council.
· No government body may issues any licenses or documents to non-compliant businesses in respect of “any economic activity”. So for instances non-compliant businesses could be refused fitness certificates, tax good standing certificates, social security good standings, transport licenses etc., which will no doubt result in the forced closure of all such businesses.
· There is a concern that already advantaged PDP’s will actually be the major benefactors (and we cannot help to believe that this was the original intention of the drafters). The LRC said they are aware of this concern and are contemplating curbing this eminent risk, however, the current Bill does not address this in any way and unlikely will, as such a further discrimination will be a further abolition of the constitution.
· There can be little doubt that this Bill is grossly unconstitutional, that the unconstitutionality will not pass the “Limitation of Rights” requirements, and that this legislation will be extremely prohibitive for Namibian businesses to be competitive and continue to operate; thus crippling the Namibian economy in a fairly short period and probably before, hopefully, somebody challenges the legality thereof.

Numerous business owners already contacted ISG Risk Services for assistance and advice on their options, both in fighting this Bill in court, as well as migrating their businesses to other countries, especially Mauritius. Mauritius appears to be the country of choice because of its flat 15% tax rates, ease of doing business in that country, and for being the country in Africa with the lowest corruption index while boasting a per capita GDP of N$130,000; the opposite of the non-enabling legal, political and economic environment prevailing in Namibia.

On the topic of a possible legal challenge:
We requested an opinion from a senior advocate on the prospect of challenging the NEEEB at this stage already, and more specifically to ask for a declaratory order from the High Court on the constitutionality of the current Bill. We were advised that although possible, it is more likely that the court will resort to a fall-back argument that the Bill is still in draft format and that the court cannot make an order at this “consultative” stage. We accept this, but still want to be prepared to bring an application on the same day the Bill in its current form becomes law.

On the options of moving businesses offshore:
Extensive research is required to etch out all possibilities and challenges in moving a business to, for instance, Mauritius. On this side several safeguards exist in the Namibian Companies Act, but one must also assume that amendments to this Act will follow to give effect to the NEEEB. So for instance the free transferability of shares on the Namibian stock exchange is not compatible with the prescription of the NEEEB. To enable us to conduct this research and consult with the Mauritius government and experts, we will need the support of a larger forum of businesses to provide the resources required. We have been dealing with this matter, and assisted businesses for free until now, but cannot afford to continue to do so.

For these reasons we kindly request your assistance to gauge the interest from amongst your network of clients and affected businesses to become involved and assist us in this matter further.

Kindly also keep a database of businesses willing to participate, whom we will then contact with more information at the appropriate time.

Kind regards
EBEN DE KLERK
ISG Risk Services CC: (2009/2268)
Letzte Änderung: 04 Aug 2016 00:10 von Swakop1952.
Der Administrator hat öffentliche Schreibrechte deaktiviert.
Folgende Benutzer bedankten sich: Logi
04 Aug 2016 08:58 #439729
  • Swakop1952
  • Swakop1952s Avatar
  • Beiträge: 2664
  • Dank erhalten: 2088
  • Swakop1952 am 03 Aug 2016 23:28
  • Swakop1952s Avatar
Und hier erkennt man, was so ein politischer Schwachsinn produziert, wie kürzlich Zuma mit seinem Finanzminister-Pingpong.
Immerhin ist das hier gerade mal der Anfang der Erosion:

"Yesterday, Trustco Group was inundated by foreign shareholders’ concerns after a N$ 325 million decline in shareholder wealth in one day, due to the media reports on the ‪#‎NEEEF‬ debate. The biggest losers were shareholder-employees of Trustco."
Letzte Änderung: 04 Aug 2016 09:48 von Swakop1952.
Der Administrator hat öffentliche Schreibrechte deaktiviert.
04 Aug 2016 11:40 #439756
  • leser
  • lesers Avatar
  • leser am 04 Aug 2016 11:40
  • lesers Avatar
Was werden denn die Entscheidungskriterien für PDP sein?

Gender ist ja nun (99,9 % ig) klar….aber sonst? DIE Ironie der und dieser Geschichte ist, dass es ist noch nicht lange her ist, dass Menschen mit (ziemlich) weißer Hautfarbe aber vollen Lippen und Kraushaar große Probleme bei der Aufnahme im weißen Club hatten. Damals war der „Sündenfall“ der Vorfahren mit der schwarzen Maid ein Makel, jetzt wird er zum asset…siehe SA. Die Ahnenforschung wird jedenfalls profitieren.... :whistle:
Grüße
PS. Meine Eingangsfrage ist durchaus ernst gemeint: Wurde dazu schon etwas gesagt, wie viel weiß soll denn zulässig sein?
Der Administrator hat öffentliche Schreibrechte deaktiviert.
04 Aug 2016 12:06 #439761
  • Swakop1952
  • Swakop1952s Avatar
  • Beiträge: 2664
  • Dank erhalten: 2088
  • Swakop1952 am 03 Aug 2016 23:28
  • Swakop1952s Avatar
@ leser:
Das soll offenbar ein ministerielles Komitee entscheiden im geschlossenen Kämmerlein ohne Transparenz. Das wollen die Comrades so um sich die fettesten Kuchenstücke untereinander zuschieben zu können. Im Club der zum Teil unermeßlich reichen namibischen Swapo-Oligarchen.
Letzte Änderung: 04 Aug 2016 14:08 von Swakop1952.
Der Administrator hat öffentliche Schreibrechte deaktiviert.
04 Aug 2016 17:05 #439804
  • Logi
  • Logis Avatar
  • Beiträge: 13334
  • Dank erhalten: 9870
  • Logi am 04 Aug 2016 17:05
  • Logis Avatar
www.az.com.na/nachri...eratung-geht-weiter/

Die Beratung/Anhörung, die die Gesetzes- und Entwicklungskommission (LRDC) vergangene Woche mit der Geschäftswelt und Unternehmern über die NEEEB-Gesetzesvorlage durchgeführt hat, geht heute und morgen im NamPower-Zentrum von Windhoek weiter. Die NEEEB-Gesetzesnovelle (New Equitable Economic Empowerment Bill), die auf dem gleichnamigen NEEEF-Rahmenkonzept beruht, wonach die Regierung einseitig intervenieren will, um eine Quotenregelung für Anteilsbeteiligung und die Personalzusammenstellung auf Management einzuführen, hat bisher überwiegend Ablehnung erfahren. So wie die Apartheidsverwaltung vor 1990 in manchen Sparten aufgrund der weißen Hautfarbe Job-Reservierung durchgeführt hat, so soll diesmal aufgrund der schwarzen Hautfarbe im Firmenbesitz und im Management eine Quotenregelung eingeführt werden.
Der Administrator hat öffentliche Schreibrechte deaktiviert.
04 Aug 2016 18:00 #439809
  • Swakop1952
  • Swakop1952s Avatar
  • Beiträge: 2664
  • Dank erhalten: 2088
  • Swakop1952 am 03 Aug 2016 23:28
  • Swakop1952s Avatar
Logi,
diese Apartheidsgesetze sind in Namibia gemeinsam mit der Apartheid bereits um 1975 abgeschafft worden auf Betreiben von Dirk Mudge, in Südafrika beim Militär noch früher. Nun will man solche Gesetze nach 40 Jahren !!!! mit umgekehrtem Rassismus wieder einführen!
H.
Der Administrator hat öffentliche Schreibrechte deaktiviert.