The General Finance Laws Amendment Bill has been held up in Parliament after the Constitutional Court’s invalidation of the Public Procurement Act left one of the Bill’s two components without an Act to amend.
National Treasury wants the Bill processed urgently to provide a statutory framework supporting the transition from the Johannesburg Interbank Average Rate (JIBAR) to the South African Rand Overnight Index Average (ZARONIA). JIBAR’s final publication and discontinuation are proposed for 31 December 2026.
But the Standing Committee on Finance decided on 29 September 2026 not to proceed with the Bill in its current form while it considers the constitutional and procedural implications of rejecting the procurement amendments.
Committee chairperson Dr Joseph Maswanganyi said the Committee would consult National Treasury and the South African Reserve Bank and engage Parliament’s legal team and Secretariat on how to proceed.
“We won’t proceed as it is now,” Maswanganyi said.
The Committee will consider how to remove the procurement amendments, what this means for the Bill’s title and tagging, and whether the change would require further consultation.
Framework for replacing benchmarks
The Bill’s main substantive component is a proposed framework for replacing official benchmarks, including measures to facilitate the transition from JIBAR to ZARONIA.
It would create a statutory mechanism enabling the SARB to designate replacement benchmarks and related adjustments for existing financial contracts.
Treasury said legislative intervention was necessary because existing contracts may not be amended unilaterally. It also said subordinate legislation had proved inadequate to alter their legal consequences.
The Bill would empower the SARB to designate replacement benchmarks, determine the categories of contracts to which they apply, specify effective dates, and determine adjustment spreads and necessary technical, administrative, or operational changes.
The Bill’s other component proposes amending section 68 of the Public Procurement Act to adjust the timeframes for the Minister of Finance’s review of the Act, the publication of the resulting report, and its submission to Parliament.
The Constitutional Court declared the Public Procurement Act unconstitutional and invalid in its entirety on 17 September.
Read: Procurement Act struck down: What happens to the reform now?
Treasury asks Committee to reject procurement amendments
Briefing the Committee, Empie van Schoor, head of National Treasury’s Office of the General Counsel, said the General Finance Laws Amendment Bill was tabled in Parliament on 18 August, when the Public Procurement Act was still intact.
Treasury acknowledged the judgment during its presentation and asked the Committee to reject the amendments to the Public Procurement Act and adjust the Bill’s short title accordingly. This would leave only the proposed amendments to the Financial Sector Regulation Act.
Van Schoor said Treasury could not simply substitute a different Bill for the legislation already tabled before the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment.
Maswanganyi raised whether rejecting the procurement amendments would itself constitute a material amendment requiring further consultation.
He said the Committee could not ignore the Constitutional Court’s findings on material amendments, the proper consideration of public submissions, and the adequacy of consultation periods.
Why the judgment matters
The Constitutional Court found that Parliament had failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in the legislation that became the Public Procurement Act. It identified several deficiencies in the legislative process.
The Court found that the National Assembly did not invite further public comment after materially changing the Bill’s preferential procurement provisions.
It also found that National Treasury had not considered all the comments received and that there was no evidence the Standing Committee on Finance or the National Assembly considered the submissions Treasury did not address.
Parts of the legislative process were conducted within unreasonably compressed timeframes.
The judgment does not mean that every change going beyond the purely semantic or technical is necessarily a material amendment requiring further consultation. The Court said materiality is a matter of degree and depends on factors including the extent of a change and its consequences.
However, the Court held that an amendment that is material requires further public participation.
The judgment does not determine whether rejecting the procurement amendments in the General Finance Laws Amendment Bill would itself constitute a material amendment. That is one of the questions now facing the Committee.
Treasury flags proposed year-end deadline
Vukile Davidson, National Treasury’s chief director for financial markets and stability, told the Committee that the benchmark provisions were intended to address the legal, financial-stability, and operational risks created by contracts that continue to reference JIBAR after it is discontinued.
Davidson said that if the Bill was not enacted by the proposed cessation date, the transition of JIBAR-referencing contracts could be delayed. Market participants could also be exposed to legal risk because the proposed safe-harbour provisions would not be in place.
Members questioned the compressed timetable, the scope of Treasury’s stakeholder consultation, and whether Parliament could satisfy its own public-participation obligations by relying on the executive’s earlier consultation.
Wendy Alexander, a Democratic Alliance MP, asked why Parliament was being requested to process the Bill urgently when it had been tabled so late in the year. She said rushing legislation had recently resulted in the public losing an effective opportunity to be heard.
Other members said Parliament should not be rushed and emphasised that public participation must provide a meaningful opportunity for stakeholders to engage with the legislation.
Van Schoor said Treasury had extended the deadline for comments on the draft Bill to 23 January 2026 after receiving requests from stakeholders.
She attributed the period between that consultation and the tabling of the Bill to the executive approval process, which included consideration by government clusters and the Cabinet.
Van Schoor acknowledged that Treasury’s consultation did not replace Parliament’s constitutional obligation to facilitate public participation.
The meeting did not establish whether the delay would affect Treasury’s request for the benchmark provisions to be enacted before JIBAR’s proposed discontinuation on 31 December 2026.
