The Democratic Alliance (DA) and the South African government are locked in a heated court battle over the Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEAA). The case is currently being heard in the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria, where the DA is challenging the constitutionality of the act, particularly the new sector-based equality targets.
The legal battle, which began two years ago, has reached its final arguments, with both sides presenting their cases before the court yesterday. Judgement has been reserved, meaning both sides are awaiting a final ruling.
If you’ve been catching snippets of the news but still feel a bit lost on what exactly this all means, you’re not alone. Here’s a breakdown of what’s happening, why it matters, and what the outcome of yesterday’s hearing could mean for you.
What is the Employment Equity Amendment Act?
The Employment Equity Amendment Act, which was signed into law in 2023 and came into effect at the start of 2025, gives the Minister of Employment and Labour the power to set employment equity targets for different sectors and regions. These targets are meant to address racial disparities in the workplace, ensuring that companies are more representative of South Africa’s demographics. In simple terms, it’s an extension of Affirmative Action policies designed to push businesses towards reflecting the country’s racial makeup in their workforce. These targets will set specific hiring goals for different industries (such as mining, finance and manufacturing) in each province based on local populations’ racial demographic makeup.
Why is the DA challenging it?
The DA is not happy with the amendment, to put it mildly. They argue that the new law hands too much power to the Minister of Employment and Labour, allowing them to set quotas without adequate oversight. In their view, this level of control opens the door to government overreach and could hurt businesses (especially smaller ones) that may struggle to meet these targets.
According to the DA, the amendments are “unconstitutional” and ‘unfair’ with DA federal chairperson Helen Zille stating: “If this law is enacted, for example, people belonging to a specific group concentrated in a geographical area could face exclusion from employment based on national quotas set by the minister”.
The party believes that the Act’s heavy-handed approach could drive investment away from South Africa, worsening the unemployment crisis instead of fixing it.
The state’s argument: Why these amendments are necessary
The government, on the other hand, argues that these amendments are crucial for correcting historical imbalances in South Africa’s labour market. During the court proceedings, government representatives highlighted how slow progress has been in achieving workplace diversity since the original Employment Equity Act was passed back in 1998.
President Ramaphosa has defended the amended act, stating that: “The latest report of the Employment Equity Commission shows how far we still have to go in ending the race-based disparities that exist in our economy.”
On Tuesday, the African National Congress (ANC) condemned the DA’s constitutional challenge, with ANC national spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri calling the party ‘anti-transformation’.
“The DA’s persistent campaign against transformation reveals its dangerous agenda to entrench the privileges of the past… It is a betrayal of the democratic gains we have made and a slap in the face of the black working class, women, and the youth who continue to bear the brunt of inequality and unemployment,” she said.
They argue that the amendments will force companies to be more proactive in hiring practices that reflect the nation’s racial diversity. The state also claims that concerns over job losses are exaggerated and that well-managed companies should have no trouble meeting the new requirements.
What are the penalties for not meeting targets?
One of the key points raised in court was the potential consequences for companies that do not comply with the new equity targets. Under the amended Act, businesses that fail to meet the prescribed demographic targets could face severe penalties. These include heavy fines—up to 10% of a company’s annual turnover—and restrictions from doing business with the government.
In practical terms, this means that non-compliant companies may be blacklisted from government contracts, cutting off a significant source of revenue for many businesses. The DA argues that these measures are “punitive” and risk driving companies to downsize or avoid hiring altogether, while the government insists they are necessary to enforce compliance and drive real transformation.
What happened in court yesterday?
Yesterday’s court session was a significant moment in this legal tug-of-war. The DA’s legal team argued that the amendments amount to “race-based social engineering” that disregards merit and economic practicality. They pushed for the Act to be declared unconstitutional, calling it a breach of individual rights and a threat to economic stability.
The state’s defence, however, was firm in its stance that the Act is within the bounds of the Constitution, pointing out that Section 9 of the Constitution allows for measures designed to protect or advance people disadvantaged by unfair discrimination. This is the same section of the constitution the DA argues represents a “radical and harmful” departure from previous employment equity law.
The High Court has now reserved judgment on the matter, meaning both sides will have to wait for a ruling that could either solidify the Act’s changes or overturn them entirely. The outcome is expected to set a major precedent for employment equity laws going forward.
What could the outcome mean for you?
This amendment is more than a legal battle between political parties; it’s a broader fight over South Africa’s economic future. Supporters will argue that it is a necessary set towards correcting deep-seated inequalities. The 2024 Employment Equity Report showed that white people, who make up just 7.3% of the population, still hold 62.1% of top management positions. For many, the amendment is seen as a crucial tool to break the cycle of exclusion and ensure workplaces reflect the country’s true demographic makeup.
However, critics warn that rigid targets may overlook regional and sector-specific differences, possibly leading to job losses or limiting opportunities for certain groups. For ordinary South Africans, this could mean a shift in who gets access to top jobs and the economic mobility that comes with it.
If the court sides with the DA, it could mean a rollback of the new equity targets, potentially allowing companies more flexibility in their hiring practices. Businesses, particularly smaller ones, may find it easier to operate without the pressure of strict government-imposed targets.
On the flip side, if the court rules in favour of the government, companies across South Africa will have to step up their game in terms of workforce transformation. This could lead to a shake-up in hiring practices, with stricter oversight and potentially stiff penalties for those who fail to comply.
Whether you see it as necessary reform or government overreach, one thing is clear: the outcome of this case will set the tone for workplace equity in South Africa for years to come.
Emma is a freshly graduated Journalist from Stellenbosch University, who also holds an Honours in history. She joined the explain team, eager to provide thorough and truthful information and connect with her generation.
