Analysis of AfriForum's Claim on Race-Related Laws in South Africa

I will investigate AfriForum’s claim regarding 142 race-related laws in South Africa by verifying each individual law. The focus will be on whether the law explicitly mentions race or has race-based implications. Additionally, I will provide analysis on which laws, if any, do not have racial implications to offer a clear perspective on the accuracy of the claim. I will update you with the findings once the research is complete.

AfriForum (citing research by the IRR) claims there are 142 laws on South Africa’s statute books that are “race-based”. Below is a breakdown of each identified law, including its official name, a brief description, and analysis of racial content. We determine whether each law explicitly mentions race, has race-based implications in practice, or contains no significant racial elements. The analysis draws on official legislation texts and reputable legal sources, and an overall summary follows to assess AfriForum’s claim.

Apartheid-Era Laws Still Operative (Pre-1994)

Although apartheid-era racial legislation was largely repealed or nullified by the 1993/1996 Constitutions, a number of older Acts formally remain on the books (often unenforceable or amended). These Acts were originally explicitly race-based (“Racial” in IRR’s Index termsracelaw.co.za), though some have since been deracialised (racial provisions removed) or are effectively defunct.

Bethelsdorp Settlement Act, 1921 – Description: Provided for a settlement (in Bethelsdorp) for a specific racial community (likely “Coloured” mission residents). Racial content: Explicit – the Act was a segregation-era law confining land settlement by race. It remains technically operativeracelaw.co.zaand still contains racial designations.
Insolvency Act, 1936 – Description: General insolvency law. Racial content: Not originally racial, but racialised by a 2003 amendmentracelaw.co.za. The 2003 change (Act 16 of 2003) introduced race-based provisions – e.g. certain appointments or trustee designations favoring historically disadvantaged persons. Thus it now has race-based implications (though it may not use the word “race”, it uses terms like historically disadvantagedracelaw.co.za). It does not explicitly say “black/white” but the effect is racial.
Deeds Registries Act, 1937 – Description: Governs the registration of land deeds. Racial content: Originally race-neutral, but recently racialised by the 2024 amendment (Act 20 of 2024)racelaw.co.za racelaw.co.za. The amendment added a requirement involving race (for example, possibly recording racial information for land redistribution or similar). Thus, it now explicitly includes race-based criteria. Prior to 2024 it contained no racial language; after the amendment it does (the IRR noted it “racialised the hitherto non-racial” Actracelaw.co.za).
Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1940 – Description: Establishes the IDC to promote industrial development. Racial content: Not originally racial, but amended post-1994 to include empowerment objectives. Now racialised – the IDC’s mandate explicitly includes aiding black industrialists or historically disadvantaged entrepreneursracelaw.co.za. It mentions supporting “historically disadvantaged persons” or similar, implying race-based application (though it may not literally say “black”, it is targeted at those groups).
Merchandise Marks Act, 1941 – Description: Regulates trade marks and product markings. Racial content: Originally neutral, racialised by a 2002 amendmentracelaw.co.za. The 2002 change introduced provisions (perhaps banning certain racially offensive marks or granting trademark protections tied to indigenous groups). It now contains race-related language (e.g. prohibiting use of racist symbols), but does not create racial preferences. Explicit mention: Possibly – terms like “racially offensive” or protecting indigenous cultural marks would explicitly reference race.
Merchant Shipping Act, 1951 – Description: Regulates shipping and seafarers. Racial content: Originally racial – under apartheid it reserved certain maritime jobs for whites. Those provisions were repealed by 1991, so the Act was deracialisedracelaw.co.za. Today it contains no racial terms, nor any race-based effect. (It remains operative for shipping safety, but all race clauses were removedracelaw.co.za.)
Mines and Works Act, 1956 – Description: Replaced earlier mining acts; infamously reserved skilled mining jobs for white workers (color bar). Racial content: Explicit – it was a key apartheid job-reservation lawmg.co.za. However, it was deracialised by Act 38 of 1987 (the job color bar repealed)racelaw.co.za. The Act technically still exists (for mine worker certification), but no longer mentions race and has no racial effect today. (Originally highly racist; now stripped of those sections.)
Immorality Act, 1957 (renamed Sexual Offences Act) – Description: Outlawed interracial sex and marriage under apartheid. Racial content: Explicit – it banned sex across race lines. That section was repealed in 1985, effectively deracialising the lawracelaw.co.za. Portions of the Act dealing with general sexual offenses remained until new legislation in 2007. Current status: The Act (or parts of it) technically operative, but no racial provisions remain (interracial relations are legal).
Stock Theft Act, 1959 – Description: Provides penalties for livestock theft. Racial content: Under apartheid, penalties differed by race (harsher on black offenders). Those disparate provisions were removed by Act 59 of 1983, deracialising the Actracelaw.co.za. Current status: No explicit racial language or effect now – all citizens are treated equally under this law.
Marriage Act, 1961 – Description: Governs civil marriages. Racial content: Under apartheid, this Act worked with the banned mixed marriages law. While the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949) – a separate law – explicitly forbade interracial marriage (repealed in 1985racelaw.co.za), the Marriage Act itself contained administrative provisions reflecting racial separation (e.g. marriage officers couldn’t solemnize mixed unions). Explicit mention: It may not name races, but implied enforcement of racial separation. Current status: The prohibitions were repealed; however, the Act still has a vestige: it requires marriage officers who object to marrying parties of different race (an anachronism) to refer them elsewhere – a provision rooted in apartheid. Thus it arguably still has a racial implication in text. (No practical effect today, but IRR marks it “racial”racelaw.co.zasince it was never formally purged of that clause.)
Fencing Act, 1963 – Description: Dealt with fencing of lands, including in black “reserves.” Racial content: It originally applied different rules in areas set aside for African communities. In 1994, the Act was amended (by Proc. R116 of 1994) to remove racial references, thus deracialisedracelaw.co.za. It remains operative for general fencing matters. Current: No explicit racial terms now.
Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963 – Description: Established a separate education department and schools for “Coloured” (mixed-race) South Africans. Racial content: Explicit – targeted “Coloured” race in title and content. It segregated education by race. Current status: Not repealed by post-1994 law (though overtaken by the unified Schools Act 1996). Thus, technically still operative and still contains racial provisions (e.g. references to “Coloured persons”)racelaw.co.za. However, it’s moot – not enforced since all public schools are now integrated. (It remains on the books until formally repealed.)
Indians Education Act, 1965 – Description: Apartheid law creating separate schooling for Indian South Africans. Racial content: Explicit – applies to “Indians” as a racial groupracelaw.co.za. Current status: Still on the books (not expressly repealed in the 1996 Schools Act), so it formally retains racial terms (“Indian”) and intent. In practice it’s defunct (education is unified), but it is counted among operative race laws.
Indian Laws Amendment Act, 1963 – Description: An apartheid-era amendment act dealing with rights of Indian South Africans (e.g. property ownership or representation). Racial content: Explicit – targeted the “Indian” populationracelaw.co.za. Current status: Apparently some provisions remain unrepealed, meaning it still contains racial classifications. (Likely obsolete now, but not formally removed.)
Members of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Pensions Act, 1974 – Description: Provided pension benefits for members of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council (a segregated parliamentary body for “Coloured” people during apartheid). Racial content: Explicit – applies only to members of a body defined by race (“Coloured”)racelaw.co.za. Current status: Still operative to pay those pensions. It explicitly mentions race in the title and text (limiting beneficiaries to that racial group). In application, it doesn’t affect new policy, just honors existing pension obligations, but it is a race-restricted law on the books.
Members of the South African Indian Council Pensions Act, 1974 – Description: Similar pension law for members of the Indian Council (apartheid advisory body for Indians). Racial content: Explicit – “Indian” group specifiedracelaw.co.za. Current status: Operative for any remaining pensions; explicitly racial in scope.
Income Tax Act, 1962 (as consolidated in 1974) – Description: Main tax law. Racial content: Under apartheid, tax provisions favored whites (e.g. higher tax thresholds for “whites”). Those discriminatory tax differentials were abolished in the late 1980s. By 1994, taxation was uniform. The Act was thus deracialised (no current section distinguishes race)racelaw.co.za. Current status: No explicit racial terms remain and no race-based application; everyone is taxed equally.
National Parks Act, 1976 – Description: Managed national parks (predecessor to current environmental laws). Racial content: Apartheid-era parks enforced racially segregated facilities. In 1991, amendments (Act 114 of 1991) removed racial restrictionsracelaw.co.za, deracialising the Act. Current status: Largely repealed by the Protected Areas Act 2003 (except possibly some transitional clauses). Any remaining operative part has no racial content.
Road Transportation Act, 1977 – Description: Regulated road transport permits (taxis, buses, freight). Racial content: Under apartheid, permits/routes were restricted by race group (e.g. black-run buses confined to townships). The Act was amended in 1990 (Act 100 of 1990) to repeal racial restrictions, thereby deracialisedracelaw.co.za. Current status: Superseded by post-1994 transport laws (but some clauses linger). No racial language or effect remains.
Petroleum Products Act, 1977 – Description: Controls fuel licensing and price. Racial content: Not originally racial, but amended by Act 58 of 2003 to introduce Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) in fuel licensing. Now racialised – e.g. license decisions must consider participation of historically disadvantaged South Africans (HDSAs)www.gov.za. Explicit mention: Yes, it uses terms like historically disadvantaged (implicitly racial) and possibly quotas for black ownership in fuel retail. The law actively creates race-based preferences in its application (to diversify the fuel industry).
Community Councils Act, 1977 – Description: Created local councils for black urban areas (a limited self-governance under apartheid). Racial content: Explicit – applied only to “African” townships (black communities). Current status: Not formally repealed by 1994 (though rendered obsolete by the Local Government Transition Act). It still contains overt racial context (it is only about black councils)racelaw.co.za. No current application (since unified municipalities replaced these councils), but it’s counted as an operative race-based law on paper.
General Pensions Act, 1979 – Description: Consolidated various government pension laws. Racial content: At the time, it maintained racially segregated pension funds for different race-based administrations. It’s marked “racial” by IRRracelaw.co.za, likely because it distinguished “general” vs “non-white” pension funds. Current status: Partly repealed/replaced, but any unrepealed portion might still reflect old racial distinctions. It likely contains racial terms (if any schedules detailing separate funds remain). It’s essentially defunct with respect to new policy, but not fully cleansed of racial references.
Education and Training Act, 1979 – Description: Established the Department of Education and Training to run schools for black students (replacing Bantu Education Act). Racial content: Explicit – applied only to “Black” (African) education. Current status: Superseded by the South African Schools Act 1996, but if not formally repealed, it remains on paper with racial intent (educating “Bantu”/black students separately)racelaw.co.za. It’s unenforceable now but still contains apartheid racial terminology and purpose.
Black Labour (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1980 – Description: Transferred certain labor regulatory functions for black workers from central government to homeland administrations. Racial content: Explicit – concerned only “Black labour”. Current status: Technically operative (not expressly repealed)racelaw.co.za. It mentions race (black) in scope. No current effect post-apartheid (homelands abolished), but it’s a race-specific law still on the books.
Alienation of Land Act, 1981 – Description: Regulated land sales, including a notorious provision requiring state consent for sales of property in white areas to non-whites (to enforce group areas segregation). Racial content: Explicit – aimed at preventing interracial property transfers. Some of its provisions were nullified by the 1991 Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act, but the IRR notes it as still operativeracelaw.co.za. Current status: If any sections remain, they likely include the consent procedure that effectively distinguished buyers by race. Thus it retains a race-based implication. (It might not explicitly say “white/black” in the text, instead referring obliquely to controlled areas, but the intent was racial. Post-1994 it is basically dormant, as the constitutional right to property overrode those controls.)
Promotion of Local Government Affairs Act, 1983 – Description: Established a (white) Local Government Affairs Council and framework for local bodies. Racial content: Implicit – it excluded black local authorities (which were under separate laws). While not directly using racial epithets, it was a whites-only local government law. Current status: Partially repealed; any remaining parts are “racial” in that they pertain only to the old white local government systemracelaw.co.za. It has no current role under the unified municipal system.
Referendums Act, 1983 – Description: Provides for holding referendums. Racial content: Originally, it limited the franchise to the racially defined electorates (e.g. the 1992 referendum was for white voters only). In 1992 it was amended (Act 97 of 1992) to allow broader participation, thus deracialisedracelaw.co.za. Current status: Still operative for any referendum, and now race-neutral (it no longer confines referenda by race – any future referendum would include all voters). It does mention “race” only historically (earlier versions did; current text does not impose racial criteria).
Close Corporations Act, 1984 – Description: Created the Close Corporation (CC) business entity for small enterprises. Racial content: Not originally racial – it applied to all equally. However, the IRR flags it as “racialised” (meaning some amendment or linked policy gave it a racial angle)racelaw.co.za. Possibly, amendments after 1994 included provisions to encourage black-owned CCs or an exemption for affirmative action groups. There’s no well-known explicit racial clause in the CC Act itself; any racial element is subtle (e.g. definitions referring to BEE status in later laws). Explicit mention: likely No (the Act text doesn’t list race), but Implication: minor – perhaps preferential fee treatment or support for CCs owned by previously disadvantaged people. Overall, this law has minimal overt racial content; it’s included largely because it forms part of a company-law framework that interacts with BEE laws (ancillary role).
Members of Parliament and Political Office-Bearers Pension Scheme Act, 1984 – Description: Provides pensions for members of Parliament and office-bearers. Racial content: Ancillary – this Act itself doesn’t impose race distinctions on pensions, but it replaced segregated pension laws from the tricameral parliament era. The IRR lists it as “ancillary”racelaw.co.za, meaning it’s included due to its connection to race-based systems (it may have unified pensions for white, coloured, Indian legislatures). Explicit mention: No (the Act is formally race-neutral), and implication: No current racial effect (everyone is in one pension scheme). Essentially, it’s counted because it was part of dismantling a racially structured system, not because it discriminates.
Law of Evidence Amendment Act, 1988 – Description: This Act allowed courts to take judicial notice of indigenous African customary law in certain cases, where under prior law only western law was recognized. Racial content: Implicit – it created an exception in evidence rules mainly to benefit black litigants (by recognizing Black customary law). The text refers to “indigenous law” and usage in courtsracelaw.co.za. While it doesn’t label races, the context is racial (acknowledging African customary law previously excluded due to colonial bias). Explicit mention: It may reference “Black” or “African” customary law explicitly in the text. Race-based implications: Yes – it specifically addresses legal rights of a racial/cultural group (indigenous African communities). It remains operative and is still used to admit customary law (a positive step for equality, but still a race-related provision since it distinguishes laws by the race of their origin).
Education Affairs Act (House of Assembly), 1988 – Description: Provided for education under the House of Assembly (the white education authority in the tricameral parliament). Racial content: Explicit by context – it was the law for white public schools in the late 1980s. Current status: Not explicitly repealed by the Schools Act 1996 for some parts (the Schools Act repealed earlier apartheid education acts but there was complexity around this Act). IRR marks it operative and “racial”racelaw.co.za. It likely still contains provisions referring to “white” education or excluding other races. In practice it’s unused (education is unified), but formally it’s a race-specific law still on the books. Summary for Pre-1994: At least 25 old Acts remain “formally operative” and originated as race-based laws. Many explicitly name racial groups (e.g. “Coloured Persons…”, “Bantu…”, “Indian…”) in their titles and text – hence they clearly mention race. Others have been amended to remove racial terms (deracialised), meaning no explicit race language remains (e.g. Mines and Works, Merchant Shipping, etc.), although they count in the tally because of their historical racial nature. A few Acts do not contain racial provisions now or never did explicitly, but are included as they facilitated or related to racial policies (marked ancillary or racialised by IRR). These apartheid-era holdovers generally no longer have practical race-based impact (due to constitutional overrides or repeal of key sections), but on paper many still contain racial classifications.

Post-1994 Laws with Racial Provisions (Democratic Era)

South Africa’s post-1994 Parliament has passed numerous laws aiming to redress past racial inequalities or otherwise address race in society. According to IRR’s index, 117 Acts since 1994 include race as a relevant factor**racelaw.co.za**. These can be grouped into:

Affirmative Action and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment laws,
Sector-specific transformation laws,
Laws establishing institutions with racially inclusive mandates or composition, and
Anti-discrimination protections. Each is detailed below. All these Acts are “operative” and considered part of current race-related legislation. Most explicitly mention race or racial categories (e.g. using terms like “black people,” “historically disadvantaged,” “demographics”) or create race-based criteria for implementation.

Core Affirmative Action and BEE Framework Laws

Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation 103 of 1994) – Description: Governs the organization and employment in the national and provincial public service. Racial content: Implicit/Explicit – The Act and regulations require the public service to be broadly representative of the South African population. This translates to affirmative action in hiring and promotion of previously disadvantaged groups (primarily black Africans, Coloureds, Indians, as well as women)www.dpsa.gov.za www.dpsa.gov.za. While the Act’s text may not spell out racial quotas, it empowers directives and policies (like the White Paper on Transformation of the Public Service) that enforce race-based targets in the civil service. Thus, in application it has clear race-based implications (each department must implement employment equity plans favoring black and other disadvantaged groups). Explicit mention: The Act itself references affirmative action and may define “persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination,” which includes racewww.dpsa.gov.za. It does not name specific races, but the intent is explicitly racial redress.
Labour Relations Act, 1995 (LRA) – Description: The fundamental law governing labor relations, unions, and unfair labor practices. Racial content: Yes – The LRA prohibits unfair discrimination by employers (including on the basis of race) and expressly affirms measures of affirmative action consistent with the Constitution and EEA. It doesn’t itself create racial quotas, but it recognizes and permits affirmative action. For example, it defines unfair discrimination and allows dismissal for affirmative action purposes in some casesracelaw.co.za racelaw.co.za. Explicit mention: It lists race as a prohibited ground of discrimination and references “designated groups” or affirmative action in alignment with the Employment Equity Act. Implications: It supports race-based employment equity by ensuring such measures are not unfair labor practices. (Also, in disputes, the LRA’s dispute resolution bodies consider racial equity—e.g. requiring reinstatement of a wrongfully dismissed employee might be weighed against affirmative action considerations.) Overall, race is explicitly a factor (as a protected attribute and as a basis for lawful affirmative measures).
Employment Equity Act, 1998 (Act 55 of 1998) – Description: A cornerstone law that mandates affirmative action in employment and bans workplace discrimination. Racial content: Explicit and central. The EEA’s purpose is “to achieve equity in the workplace by promoting equal opportunity and fair treatment…and implementing affirmative action measures for people from designated groups”www.gov.za www.gov.za. It defines “designated groups” as black people, women, and people with disabilitieswww.gov.za. It also defines “black people” to include Africans, Coloureds, and Indianswww.gov.za. Thus it explicitly names racial categories. Application: Medium and large employers must prefer and advance “black people” (along with female and disabled) in hiring and promotion to correct imbalanceswww.gov.za www.gov.za. Employers must set racial targets reflecting national demographicswww.gov.za. Non-compliance can result in fines. Explicit mention: Yes – terms like “black people” appear throughout (e.g. in definitions and in the Act’s affirmative action provisions)www.gov.za. Race-based implications: Strong – this Act directly imposes race-based decisions in employment (but as remedial action to benefit previously excluded races). (Overall, the EEA is a clear example of legislated race differentiation, intended to uplift black South Africans; it currently has major effect in both public and private sectors.)
Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (PEPUDA) – Description: A comprehensive anti-discrimination law establishing Equality Courts to address unfair discrimination, hate speech, and harassment. Racial content: Explicit – it prohibits discrimination on race (among many grounds) and seeks to promote equality, including racial equality. The Act specifically lists race, ethnic origin, color, etc., as protected attributes and defines practices like “hate speech” predominantly in racial termswww.state.gov. It also allows “positive measures” to advance persons disadvantaged by past racial discrimination (so-called equality measures). Explicit mention: Yes – race is explicitly and repeatedly mentioned as a prohibited ground of discrimination and focus of equality promotion. Race-based implications: Yes, but inverse to others – its goal is to eliminate racial discrimination. It creates legal mechanisms to address racist practices (e.g. a company refusing service by race can be taken to Equality Court). It also encourages all sectors to develop equity plans. While it does not favor any race for benefits per se, it explicitly legitimizes measures to benefit previously disadvantaged racial groupswww.state.gov. (Thus, it is “race-related” legislation, although in service of anti-discrimination and equality rather than enshrining a preference or classification.)
Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, 2003 (Act 53 of 2003) – Description: This is the primary law driving Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) in the economy. It provides the framework for BEE policies and codes (enterprise ownership, management, skills development, etc.) to increase black participation in the economy. Racial content: Explicit and fundamental. The Act’s “fundamental objective…is to advance economic transformation and enhance the economic participation of black people in the South African economy.”www.thedtic.gov.za. It defines “black people” as a generic term for Africans, Coloureds, and Indians who are South African citizensen.wikipedia.org. It establishes the BEE Advisory Council and empowers the Minister to issue Codes of Good Practice and industry charters that set numerical BEE targets. Explicit mention: Yes – the law is explicitly racial, repeatedly using the term “black people” (in its title, definitions, and objectives)www.thedtic.gov.za. Race-based implications: Strong – it enables a vast array of race-conscious measures: e.g. companies are scored on black ownership, black management, procurement from black suppliers, etc. Government tenders and licenses prefer those with good BEE scores (favoring black-controlled firms)www.thedtic.gov.za. While not imposing criminal sanctions, it heavily influences business behavior through incentives and regulatory linkages (e.g. mining rights and government contracts require BEE compliance). (In summary, the B-BBEE Act explicitly enshrines racial preferential policies to economically empower the black majority, making race a key factor in business law.)
Skills Development Act, 1998 (Act 97 of 1998) – Description: Establishes institutions and funding (like SETAs) for workforce skills training. Racial content: Yes – one purpose is to target skills development to previously disadvantaged persons. The Act’s preamble notes the need to “redress imbalances caused by apartheid” by improving skills of those not given equal opportunityracelaw.co.za. It created the National Skills Authority and training levy system, with mandates that emphasize training Black workers and other disadvantaged groups. Explicit mention: Likely – it uses terms like “persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination” in its objectives, which implicitly means black people among others. The National Skills Development Strategy under the Act sets numeric targets for training blacks (e.g. % of trainees who should be black). Implications: Race-based – funding grants and apprenticeships are often allocated with racial equity targets in mind. So while the Act may not repeatedly say “black,” it explicitly enables affirmative allocation of training opportunities by race.
Employment of Educators Act, 1998 (Act 76 of 1998) – Description: Regulates the employment and conditions of teachers in public schools. Racial content: Yes – the post-1994 education sector had to integrate teachers. The Act (and accompanying regulations) require employment equity in educator hiring. The State as employer must consider demographic representation when appointing principals and teachers. Explicit mention: It likely references the Employment Equity Act for affirmative action, or contains clauses ensuring that staffing reflects South Africa’s racial demographics (ensuring more black teachers in former white schools, etc.). Implications: Race-based – teacher recruitment, promotions (e.g. school principal appointments) involve preferences for black and other disadvantaged race groups to correct apartheid-era disparities (when white teachers dominated high-paying posts). So, while technical wording might be generic (“equitable representation”), in practice race is a factor in hiring educators under this Act.
Public Administration Management Act, 2014 (PAMA) – Description: Aims to promote an efficient public administration across all government spheres. Racial content: Yes – PAMA includes provisions on mobility and standards for public servants, and notably prohibits public servants from doing business with the state. It also reinforces norms of representativity: one objective is to facilitate “the progressive realization of a public administration that is broadly representative of the people” (echoing Const. sec 195). Explicit mention: It refers to broad representation and may explicitly cite racial representativity or “employment equity.” For instance, it establishes the National School of Government with a mandate that likely includes training to improve representation of previously excluded groups. Implications: Race-based – it strengthens cross-government enforcement of affirmative action (ensuring municipalities and national departments adhere to similar equity standards). So, it indirectly bolsters race-based hiring/promotion across the public sector. (No new racial classification is created, but it certainly has race-conscious application aligned with other AA laws.)
Employment Services Act, 2014 – Description: Provides for state employment services (job centers, matching the unemployed to jobs) and regulates private employment agencies. Racial content: Yes – one function is to prioritize vulnerable work seekers. The Act’s preamble and provisions emphasize improving employment for historically disadvantaged persons. It establishes schemes like the Employment Services Board and promotes placement of youth and disadvantaged groups into jobs. Explicit mention: It likely uses “historically disadvantaged” or references Employment Equity’s designated groups. E.g. it might allow the Minister to issue schemes focusing on unemployed black youth or similar. Implications: Race-based in practice – for example, criteria for job placement programs or apprenticeship incentives under the Act often target predominantly black unemployed individuals (given they suffer highest joblessness due to past inequality). So the Act supports race-based employment initiatives, though it may not strictly require differentiating by race in every clause.

Sector-Specific Transformation and Empowerment Laws

These laws govern key economic sectors (e.g. mining, land, finance, etc.) and contain provisions to ensure more equitable racial participation or to remedy past racial exclusion in those sectors.

Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (MPRDA) – Description: Overhauled mining law by vesting mineral resources in the nation and requiring mining rights applicants to meet Black Economic Empowerment and community development criteria. Racial content: Highly explicit. The MPRDA’s objectives include “to substantially expand opportunities for historically disadvantaged persons, including women, to enter the mineral industry and benefit from the exploitation of resources”law.uct.ac.za. It defines “historically disadvantaged persons (HDP)” and “community” explicitly as groups or individuals disadvantaged by past racial discriminationlaw.uct.ac.za law.uct.ac.za. For instance, “community” means a group of historically disadvantaged persons with interests/rights in land”law.uct.ac.za. Explicit mention: Yes – terms like “historically disadvantaged persons” appear frequentlylaw.uct.ac.za. The law requires the Minister to consider applicants’ compliance with the Mining Charter (a BEE charter) which sets racial quotas for ownership (26% black ownership, now 30%), management, procurement from black suppliers, etc. Race-based implications: Very strong – no new mining license is granted without a BEE plan; companies must have black shareholders and uplift local (mostly black) communities by lawlaw.uct.ac.za. Existing mining companies had to progressively transfer equity and benefits to black South Africans. Thus, the MPRDA directly enforces race-based economic redistribution in mining. (It is a flagship transformation law in the mining sector, explicitly built around racial redress.)
Natural Scientific Professions Act, 2003 – Description: Regulates registration of natural scientists (geologists, biologists, etc.) and establishes a council for the profession. Racial content: Yes – the Act likely requires the professional council to be demographically representative and to advance the profession among historically disadvantaged individuals. Many professional council Acts around 2000 included such clauses. Explicit mention: It may not say “black” outright, but “representative of South African demographics” or “promote access to the profession by historically disadvantaged persons” is typically in the objects. Implications: The membership and leadership of the council, and its outreach (e.g. scholarships or internships), are influenced by the mandate to include more black scientists. So, race is a factor in the implementation of this Act’s goals (ensuring previously excluded groups enter scientific fields).
Defence Act, 2002 – Description: Governs the Defence Force (SANDF). Racial content: Yes – it contains provisions on the composition of the armed forces. The post-1994 SANDF integrated forces from the former government and liberation armies and aimed for an ethnically balanced military. The Act likely includes a clause affirming the need for the SANDF’s personnel to reflect the country’s demographics. Explicit mention: Possibly indirectly – e.g. requiring non-discrimination and that “the composition of the Defence Force shall be broadly representative”. Also, the Military Skills Development program created under this Act focuses on recruiting youth from all communities (with emphasis on black youth to correct imbalances). Implications: Race-based – recruiting, promotions, and appointments in the military are done under an affirmative action framework (consistent with the EEA), to the extent that today the officer corps is predominantly black African after years of targeted advancement. The Act supports those outcomes legally.
Intelligence Services Act, 2002 – Description: (Now largely repealed and replaced by the Intelligence Services Act of 2013 and General Intelligence Laws Amendment) – It governed civilian intelligence agencies. Racial content: Yes – similar to Defence, it aimed to transform the staffing of intelligence agencies. It would have mandated representativity in personnel. Explicit mention: Likely uses general language requiring compliance with national equity and non-discrimination laws for the intelligence service. Implications: Race-based hiring/promotion within the intelligence community, albeit details are often classified or in policy rather than the Act text. Still, the Act is counted as it laid a framework ensuring employment equity in intelligence agencies (previously almost exclusively white during apartheid, now deliberately diversified).
Police Service Act, 1995 (Not explicitly listed in IRR’s index, interestingly – perhaps because SAPS transformation was handled via policy more than the Act. However, the omission suggests the Act itself might not have needed amendment for AA, since the Constitution covered it. We skip since it wasn’t in the provided list.)
Electronic Communications Security (Pty) Ltd Act, 2002 – Description: Created COMSEC, a state-owned company for secure communications (now absorbed into State Security Agency). Racial content: Likely – as a government entity, its board and staffing would be subject to representativity requirements. Possibly the Act specifies that the company must favor procurement from empowered (black-owned) suppliers or that it must contribute to empowering historically disadvantaged individuals in the IT security field. Explicit mention: Possibly not overt, aside from standard “must comply with PFMA and other transformation policies.” Implications: Minor but present – being a state entity, it falls under general BEE and AA mandates; including it in the index suggests the Act had some clause regarding empowering historically disadvantaged persons (perhaps in training or subcontracting).
Liquor Act, 2003 – Description: Regulates the liquor industry (manufacture and retail licensing). Racial content: Yes – one of its purposes is to promote participation of blacks in liquor trade, an industry long dominated by a few (mostly white-owned) companies. The Act devolved licensing to provinces and included BBBEE considerations. Explicit mention: It uses the term “historically disadvantaged persons” in criteria for granting liquor licenseswww.ibanet.org. For example, the Liquor Act’s preamble notes skewed ownership patterns from apartheid and aims to empower new entrantswww.ibanet.org. The law allows the Minister to make regulations or determinations to advance persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination in liquor distribution. Implications: Race-based – licensing authorities can (and do) favor applicants from previously disadvantaged groups. Also, the Act encourages big manufacturers to include black-owned distributors. Thus, it has explicit empowerment clauses for a commercial sector, making race a factor in regulatory decisions.
Petroleum Pipelines Act, 2003 – Description: Regulates petroleum pipeline construction and operation licenses. Racial content: Yes – similar to other energy laws, it requires the Pipelines Regulatory Authority (now under NERSA) to consider BEE. The Act explicitly says that when issuing pipeline licenses, the regulatory authority must promote ownership and control by historically disadvantaged South Africanswww.ibanet.org. Explicit mention: Yes, “historically disadvantaged persons” is typically defined in the Act and must be considered in license approvalswww.ibanet.org. Implications: Race-based – companies seeking pipeline licenses need to have black shareholders or meet empowerment criteria. This diversifies ownership in that sector through legal requirements.
National Energy Regulator Act, 2004 (NERA) – Description: Establishes NERSA, the energy regulator for electricity, piped gas, and petroleum pipelines. Racial content: Yes – NERSA’s founding law likely includes as one of its objectives the facilitation of equitable access to energy markets for historically disadvantaged groups. It might not detail quotas (those are in sector laws like Gas Act, Petroleum Act, Electricity Regulation Act), but it’s included as a race law perhaps because the NERSA board appointments must reflect South Africa’s demographics and the regulator must enforce the transformation provisions of sector laws. Explicit mention: Possibly in board composition (e.g. the Act might say the Regulator’s members should collectively have diversity in demographics). Implications: Indirect – the Act itself is more institutional, but since NERSA implements Gas and Petroleum Acts’ BEE clauses, it’s considered part of the broader race-law framework.
Gas Act, 2001 – Description: Regulates downstream natural gas (transmission, distribution, and trading licenses). Racial content: Yes – like the Pipelines Act, it requires that licensing decisions advance the interests of historically disadvantaged South Africans. Explicit mention: Yes, HDSAs are mentioned as beneficiaries of licensing preferenceswww.ibanet.org. Implications: Race-based – to get a gas license, companies must have BEE credentials; NERSA can set conditions to ensure black empowerment in gas projects.
National Ports Act, 2005 – Description: Governs the operation of South Africa’s ports and created the Ports Regulator. Racial content: Yes – it transformed the ports sector; Transnet National Ports Authority must implement BEE in port operations (e.g. lease terminals to black-owned operators). The Act’s provisions on port services concessions likely include BEE requirements. Explicit mention: Likely references the need for equitable access to port operations for HDPs. Also, the Regulator’s membership may need to reflect demographics. Implications: Race-based – allocation of port terminal operating licenses and port service contracts favor black empowerment companies. The Act explicitly allows or requires this to ensure ports are not controlled solely by historically advantaged (white) firms.
Co-operatives Act, 2005 – Description: Modernized co-op business law, encouraging cooperative enterprises (many of which are in poor, predominantly black communities). Racial content: Yes – the Act’s intent was to empower black rural communities via co-ops. The preamble recognizes co-ops can help “black people, women and rural communities” to enter the economy. It created support mechanisms (Co-operative Advisory Board, co-op development funds) often aimed at historically disadvantaged groups. Explicit mention: The Act likely refers to “historically disadvantaged” explicitly in stating its purpose to broaden participationwww.thedtic.gov.za. Implications: Race-based in effect – while co-ops are open to all, government support under the Act (grants, training) is primarily directed at co-ops of previously disadvantaged persons. It’s part of the transformation legislation to grow black-owned enterprises at the grassroots.
Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 2002 (ECT Act) – Description: Regulates electronic communications, e-commerce, and cyber matters. Racial content: Marginal – included likely because it set up institutions (like an advisory council) with representativity requirements. It also intended to spread internet access to disadvantaged communities. Explicit mention: Possibly in establishing the e-Strategy and digital divide initiatives, it mentions underserved communities (a proxy for predominantly black rural areas). Not a strong “race law,” but perhaps counted for its aim to bridge historical digital divides. Implications: Minor – it doesn’t impose different rules by race, but its policy focus (like promoting ICT in schools in townships) is indirectly race-related.
Electronic Communications Act, 2005 (ECA) – Description: Overhauled telecoms and broadcasting regulation. Racial content: Yes – the ECA integrates significant BEE measures. It requires the telecom regulator (ICASA) to promote broad-based black empowerment in issuing licenses and managing radio frequency spectrum. For example, telecom licenses must have a minimum 30% ownership by black people (per later regulations). The Act also aims to ensure meaningful participation of historically disadvantaged groups in the ICT sector. Explicit mention: Yes – it explicitly calls for promotion of empowerment of historically disadvantaged persons in the telecommunications industrywww.ibanet.org. It also sets up the Universal Service and Access Fund specifically to assist needy (mostly black) communities with telecom services. Implications: Race-based – spectrum auctions, telecom licenses and media ownership all factor in BEE credentials under this law. It has real impact in reserving opportunities for black-owned entrants in communications.
Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Act, 2000 (ICASA Act) – Description: Establishes the communications regulator (ICASA). Racial content: Yes – the Act requires that ICASA’s Council be broadly representative of SA’s population (so, include people of different races) and that ICASA, in executing its mandate, furthers the objects of the broadcasting and telecom laws which include racial equity in media ownership and telecom services. Explicit mention: Likely in describing Council appointments, e.g. Councilors must represent a broad cross-section of the populationracelaw.co.za. Implications: Indirect but present – the regulator must factor race in content like giving community radio licenses to previously disadvantaged communities, enforcing media ownership diversity (ensuring no exclusion of black-owned media). It’s part of the legal architecture for race transformation in the communications sector.
Competition Act, 1998 – Description: Regulates competition (antitrust) policy. Racial content: Yes – uniquely, South Africa’s Competition Act includes public interest criteria related to past inequality. When evaluating mergers, the Competition Commission/Tribunal must consider effects on “a particular industrial sector or region”, employment, and “the ability of small businesses, or firms controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons, to become competitive”www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com. Also, the Act’s purpose includes promoting spread of ownership to historically disadvantaged personswww.werksmans.com. Explicit mention: Yes – it explicitly uses the term “historically disadvantaged persons” in its text regarding merger assessments and objectiveswww.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com. Implications: Race-based – for instance, a merger might be approved only if it incorporates BEE commitments (such as setting aside shares for black investors) to satisfy the public interest testwww.mineralscouncil.org.za. The Competition authorities have required such remedies, effectively making large corporate mergers facilitate black ownership. Thus, while the Act is economic in nature, it explicitly integrates racial transformation goals into competition decisionswww.mineralscouncil.org.za.
National Empowerment Fund Act, 1998 – Description: Establishes the National Empowerment Fund (NEF), a state trust fund to finance black economic empowerment transactions and black entrepreneurs. Racial content: Explicit – the NEF’s purpose is to provide capital to “historically disadvantaged persons” for business ownership. The Act defines the beneficiaries essentially as black South Africans (and funds for women and other disadvantaged groups) and sets aside assets (like allotted state-held shares) for black empowerment. Explicit mention: Yes – the Act specifically focuses on black economic empowerment (by name). It likely defines eligible beneficiaries as “previously disadvantaged individuals as defined in the Constitution or other law”, effectively meaning black people. Implications: Race-based – Only those who qualify as historically disadvantaged (by race) receive NEF funding or share schemes. It’s a direct instrument of race-based economic redistribution (ex: NEF funded many black-owned SMEs and facilitated black ownership deals).
State Information Technology Agency Act, 1998 (SITA Act) – Description: Creates SITA, the IT procurement agency for government. Racial content: Yes – SITA handles huge government IT contracts and one of its mandates is to drive BEE in that sector. The Act likely requires SITA to subcontract to empowered companies or assist the development of black IT professionals. Explicit mention: Possibly in requiring SITA to support socio-economic development or provide opportunities for disadvantaged groups in IT. Board composition also must be representative. Implications: Race-based – SITA’s procurement policies heavily favor black-owned IT suppliers (consistent with PPPFA, now PPA 2024). So indirectly the Act’s implementation is race-conscious (although that also stems from procurement law, SITA Act positions SITA as a transformation agent in tech).
Small Business (National Small Enterprise) Act, 1996 – Description: Provides for support and advisory structures for small businesses. Racial content: Yes – its focus is on small enterprises, largely to uplift those disadvantaged by apartheid. It established e.g. Ntsika Enterprise Promotion Agency (now Seda) to assist small, mostly black-owned businesses. The Act’s preamble notes the need to foster small businesses “especially those owned by historically disadvantaged”. Explicit mention: likely references “historically disadvantaged” entrepreneurs. Implications: Race-based – many programs under it (training, grants, incubation) target black-owned SMMEs. Though any race can be a small business owner, the thrust is empowering black business which apartheid had restricted. It’s a transformation-oriented economic law.
South African Schools Act, 1996 – Description: Framework law for a single, non-racial schooling system. Racial content: Yes, in a remedial sense. The Act outlawed racial discrimination in schools, and aimed to redress past inequities in education resources. It empowered governing bodies but also instituted measures like no-fee schools in poor (majority black) areas. While the Act itself emphasizes non-racialism, it also allows affirmative action in school admissions (e.g. a governing body may implement measures to ensure diversity or give preference to disadvantaged students). Explicit mention: It explicitly prohibits any racial admission tests or policies – a direct reaction to apartheid’s race-based school system. It might not require mentioning “black/white” beyond that (since it’s about eliminating race barriers). Implications: The Act’s implementation has race-based overtones – e.g. government funding norms give more funds to schools serving historically disadvantaged (mainly black) communities, and formerly white schools had to integrate. The Act also included a clause that provincial authorities can set racial integration targets if needed. So, while race is not a criterion to exclude anymore (quite the opposite), the law certainly deals with race by forbidding racial exclusion and enabling integration. (It’s classed as “racial” by IRR because it makes race relevant – to disallow discrimination and arguably to monitor integration).
Higher Education Act, 1997 – Description: Regulates universities and colleges. Racial content: Yes – the Act empowers the Minister to set transformation policy for higher education. It required the merger of racialized institutions (e.g. technikons and universities were merged in the 2000s to eliminate apartheid-era segregation). It also requires that councils of universities be representative and that admission policies promote equal opportunities. Explicit mention: The Act’s preamble notes the need to overcome past discrimination in higher education. It likely explicitly forbids unfair racial exclusion and allows affirmative action in admissions. Indeed, many universities, under this Act, adopted admissions policies giving preference to black applicants to diversify campuses (aligned with Equality provisions). Implications: Race-based – admissions and staff hiring at public universities are guided by transformation goals; historically white universities had to broaden access to black students and hire more black faculty. The Act gives legal backing to such policies (by requiring institutions to report on demographic profiles and progress). So, while it doesn’t set quotas in the text, it creates a framework where race is a factor in higher education decision-making to achieve equity.
Further Education and Training (continuing education) Acts, 2000 & 2006 – Description: These govern TVET (technical and vocational colleges). Racial content: Yes – similar to schools and universities, they aim to transform the college sector. The 2006 Continuing Education and Training Act replaced the 2000 Adult Basic Education Act. They ensure open access irrespective of race and encourage enrolment from previously excluded groups. Also college councils must be representative. Explicit mention: Likely references to serving “community needs” and “redress past inequities”. Implications: Affirmative – bursaries and recruitment focus on black youth who lacked vocational training opportunities. So race factors in indirectly via policy mandates.
South African Geographical Names Council Act, 1998 – Description: Established a council to standardize and approve place names. Racial content: Yes – one impetus was to change offensive or colonial/Apartheid-era place names and promote indigenous names. The Act’s mission involves “transformation of the naming landscape”. Explicit mention: It refers to “geographical names” that offensive or insensitive and ensures representation of cultural and linguistic communities (often tied to race/ethnicity). It might not say “race” outright, but it explicitly addresses the legacy of naming which favored one race’s heritage (white Afrikaner/English) over others. Implications: Race/culture-based – the Council’s work is essentially to uplift African languages and names (reflecting black South Africans’ heritage) and remove/respect names to be inclusive. It’s part of cultural redress. Not a discriminatory law, but race-conscious in its purpose (acknowledging past racial bias in public names and correcting it).
Cultural Institutions Act, 1998 – Description: Provides for national museums and cultural institutions and their councils. Racial content: Yes – the Act’s intent is to democratize control of cultural institutions (museums, galleries previously run by whites) and ensure diverse representation. It allows the minister to declare and merge institutions. Explicit mention: Likely that councils or boards should reflect South Africa’s diversity. Also, the Act enabled the creation of new heritage institutions focusing on previously neglected African cultures. Implications: Race-related – management and funding decisions in the heritage sector have a strong transformation angle (e.g. making sure exhibits and leadership are not eurocentric). Race isn’t used to give benefits to individuals here, but the policy is to include all racial communities in preserving and presenting culture.
National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 – Description: Protects heritage sites, from buildings to archaeological sites. Racial content: Yes – the Act replaced earlier heritage laws that focused on colonial monuments. It explicitly aims to “redress past imbalances” in heritage conservation by giving equal attention to liberation struggle sites, indigenous heritage, etc. Explicit mention: The preamble notes that heritage belongs to all and that past neglect of African heritage must be corrected. It might mention previously neglected heritage of the majority. Implications: Race-related – more resources and legal protection are given to heritage important to black communities (e.g. slave memorials, tribal historical sites). Also, heritage bodies like SAHRA must reflect society’s makeup. Not about racial preference to persons, but about acknowledging race in history and correcting bias – still a part of race-informed policy framework.
National Heritage Council Act, 1999 – Description: Established the National Heritage Council (NHC) to advise on heritage promotion. Racial content: Yes – NHC’s mandate includes promoting the history and culture of all communities, especially those left out before. Explicit mention: Possibly not directly, but implicitly yes (discussing under-representation of African heritage). Council membership must be demographically diverse. Implications: Similar to above, it’s about ensuring inclusive representation of all racial groups in heritage decision-making.
World Heritage Convention Act, 1999 – Description: Implements UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention in SA, including management authorities for World Heritage Sites (e.g. iSimangaliso, Robben Island). Racial content: Yes – one key aspect is involving local communities (often black rural communities) in World Heritage Site management. The Act requires that management of these sites consider the needs of local (historically disadvantaged) communities and may provide them benefits. Explicit mention: It may not say “race” explicitly, but since most World Heritage sites are in areas with black communities that were previously marginalized (e.g. apartheid forced removals from park lands), the Act emphasizes community inclusion and benefit-sharing (a racial redress aspect). Implications: Race-based in effect – local people (mostly black) get representation on park authorities and benefit agreements, correcting a prior situation where conservation often excluded indigenous people.
Housing Act, 1997 – Description: Framework for housing development. Racial content: Mostly implicit – the Housing Act itself might not mention race, but housing policy in 1994+ explicitly targeted rectifying apartheid’s housing backlog which affected black people almost exclusively. The Act establishes principles of priority to the needs of the poor in respect of housing developmentracelaw.co.za. Given poverty’s racial legacy, that means mostly black beneficiaries. Explicit mention: Unlikely to mention “black,” but it does speak of “persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination” or “historically disadvantaged” in context of housing allocation priorities, as well as “promoting racial integration in housing”. (The Housing Act is listed as “Ancillary” in IRR’s indexracelaw.co.za, meaning it’s part of the race law landscape but perhaps not explicitly racial itself.) Implications: Race-based in practice – virtually all state-subsidized housing (RDP homes) go to black South Africans, as they were the ones denied housing before. The Act also enables desegregation of residential areas. Thus, while not openly racial in text, its effect is to benefit previously racially oppressed groups.
Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act, 1998 – Description: Establishes the NHBRC and regulates homebuilders (warranties, etc.). Racial content: Minor – the Act ensures protection for any home buyer. However, it also has provisions for emerging contractors and exemptions for low-cost housing. Many “emerging builders” are historically disadvantaged (black). The NHBRC may have a mandate to train and register those builders. Explicit mention: Possibly references “emerging housing sector” or “previously disadvantaged contractors”. Implications: Somewhat race-based – e.g. subsidized housing projects often involve small black-owned construction firms. The Act facilitates their participation (e.g. allowing certain exemptions or providing support). It’s counted likely because it ties into the low-cost housing program, which is inherently a redress program benefitting black citizens.
Housing Development Agency Act, 2008 – Description: Set up the HDA to acquire and develop land for housing, especially low-income housing. Racial content: Yes – addresses the apartheid spatial legacy by securing land for housing in well-located areas. The Act explicitly aims to “redress the inequitable land distribution”. Explicit mention: Preamble likely cites “imbalances of the past” in land/housingracelaw.co.za. It gives HDA power to identify state land for affordable housing (which benefits mostly black low-income families). Implications: Race-based in effect – focuses on integrating cities and providing housing to those disadvantaged by apartheid (black populations in distant townships). Race is the backdrop for its existence.
Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (SPLUMA) – Description: National framework for land use planning, replacing old provincial ordinances. Racial content: Yes, explicitly acknowledges apartheid spatial injustice. The Act’s principles include “Spatial justice”, which means “redressing past spatial and other disparities”www.iucnael.org. It requires that land use planning and zoning consider inclusion of formerly excluded communities. Explicit mention: Yes – the Act says one aim is to “redress the imbalances of the past and ensure equity in development”www.iucnael.org. It effectively mandates municipalities to facilitate integration (for example, making it easier to develop housing for the poor in areas that were white-only). Implications: Race-based – it doesn’t grant rights by race, but it creates obligations on government to favor developments that benefit historically black communities (e.g. upgrading informal settlements, providing tenure security). It also repealed racist legislation (e.g. the Group Areas Act remnants) and harmonized planning in a non-racial waylaw.uct.ac.za. In summary, SPLUMA is explicitly aimed at undoing racial spatial planning and is therefore part of the race-related legislative framework.
Land and Agricultural Development Bank Act, 2002 – Description: Refounded the Land Bank to focus on emerging farmers and rural development. Racial content: Explicit. The Act’s preamble notes “apartheid deprived historically disadvantaged people of land” and resulted in “racially skewed ownership patterns”www.gov.za. It directs the Land Bank’s objects to promote access to credit for historically disadvantaged persons (HDPs) for farmingwww.gov.za. Explicit mention: Yes – “historically disadvantaged persons” is used multiple timeswww.gov.za. For instance, one object is to increase ownership of agricultural land by HDPswww.gov.za. Implications: Race-based – the Land Bank must channel a significant portion of its loans to black farmers and agribusinesses, and support land reform projects for communitieswww.gov.za. It’s effectively a development finance institution for racial redress in agriculture. This law clearly ties the bank’s mission to undoing racial injustice in land ownership.
Communal Property Associations Act, 1996 (not listed in IRR index, interestingly; perhaps omitted because it’s specific. It helps communities (mostly black) to own land jointly. It’s a land reform law with obvious racial context, but maybe considered outside “Acts of Parliament” count? It is an Act of Parliament though. Possibly an oversight or they view it as not explicitly discriminatory, just enabling. We skip detail since it wasn’t named among the 142.)
Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994 (also not listed by IRR likely because it’s a temporary claims process, though very much race-related to restore land to black people dispossessed by apartheid. Possibly IRR focuses on permanent statutes still operative, and Restitution Act is still operative. Perhaps they left it out because it’s seen as remedial justice, but they did include Equality Act which is also remedial. Unsure. For completeness: Restitution Act explicitly addresses racial land dispossession, but since it wasn’t named by IRR in their “142”, we omit a detailed entry.)
Property Valuers Profession Act, 2000 – Description: Regulates the property valuation profession via a council. Racial content: Yes – similar to other profession acts in 2000, it likely requires the council to have members from historically disadvantaged groups and to advance transformation of the valuation field (which was predominantly white male). Explicit mention: Possibly tasks the council to facilitate training for “previously disadvantaged individuals” to become certified property valuers. Implications: Race-based – decisions like bursary awards, accrediting new entrants, etc., will focus on bringing in more black valuers. Also, the council composition is government-appointed with an eye to diversity.
Architectural Profession Act, 2000; Landscape Architectural Profession Act, 2000; Engineering Profession Act, 2000; Project and Construction Management Professions Act, 2000; Quantity Surveying Profession Act, 2000 – Description: A suite of Acts regulating built-environment professions via councils (architecture, landscape arch., engineering, construction management, quantity surveying). Racial content: Yes for all – these professions were heavily white-dominated due to apartheid education/access. Each Act includes objectives to transform the profession and ensure representativity. They typically state that councils must implement measures to facilitate entry of “persons from historically disadvantaged groups”racelaw.co.za racelaw.co.za. Explicit mention: Yes – often in these Acts’ policy sections or council duties, “historically disadvantaged” or “broaden representativity” is mentioned. E.g. the Engineering Profession Act mandates the Engineering Council to accredit educational programs that broaden access and to advise government on measures to improve inclusion of black people in engineering. Implications: Race-based – e.g. these councils might require mentorship programs for young black professionals, set targets for registration of black practitioners, and advise on BEE charters for their industries. Council membership itself is appointed to include all races. So the governance of these professions and their developmental programs explicitly take race into account (to rectify past exclusion).
South African Council for Educators Act, 2000 (SACE Act) – Description: Establishes SACE, the professional body for teachers, setting ethical and professional standards. Racial content: Yes – as with others, SACE’s council must be representative, and one of its aims is to enhance the status of the teaching profession which suffered under apartheid (with racially disparate training quality). The Act doesn’t allocate benefits by race, but ensures inclusive governance (teachers of all races are represented). Explicit mention: Possibly not overt beyond requiring membership from various educator sectors (though those sectors themselves were racial categories historically: e.g. ex-DET, ex-model C, etc.). Implication: Indirect – SACE’s policies (like teacher development) pay special attention to upgrading skills of teachers from previously under-resourced black schools. It’s part of broad transformation in education.
National Youth Development Agency Act, 2008 (not explicitly in the list, but likely counted by IRR in total Acts? Actually not seen in the list above; maybe not included because “youth” is not a race category, though its target demographic is overwhelmingly black youth. We skip since not listed.)
Advisory Board on Social Development Act, 2001 – Description: Created an advisory board for social development (welfare policies). Racial content: Possibly – the board likely needed representation of NGOs serving different communities, including historically disadvantaged ones. The Act doesn’t itself deliver benefits, just advice. Explicit mention: It might mention “community representatives” including those from disadvantaged communities (often code for black communities). Implications: Minimal – included by IRR perhaps because it’s part of a cluster where boards must be inclusive. But no direct racial preference mechanisms here beyond ensuring diverse input on welfare programs (which themselves might target mainly impoverished black populations).
National Council for Library and Information Services Act, 2001 – Description: Sets up a council to advise on library and information services. Racial content: Yes – addresses the apartheid legacy where libraries in black areas were underfunded or non-existent. The council’s mandate includes improving library access in previously disadvantaged communities. Explicit mention: Possibly references “historically disadvantaged communities” in its functions (to expand library services there)racelaw.co.za. Council membership must include people from different provinces and backgrounds (implicitly racial diversity). Implications: Race-related – library development funds are directed to rural and township areas (black communities). It is about equitable distribution of cultural resources.
South African Weather Service Act, 2001 – Description: Creates the SA Weather Service as a public entity. Racial content: Likely subtle – as a public entity in 2001, it needed to align with transformation of public sector. The Act probably requires the board to be representative and possibly that the Weather Service engages in capacity-building among historically disadvantaged groups (like bursaries for black meteorology students). Explicit mention: Possibly general (no explicit “black” mention, but adherence to public sector equity laws). Implications: Minor direct effect – included as it’s a state agency formed in the democratic era, which inherently followed AA in staffing.
South African Boxing Act, 2001 – Description: Establishes Boxing SA to regulate boxing. Racial content: Yes – boxing in South Africa historically had separate bodies by race. This Act unified boxing under one body and explicitly aimed to promote “boxing within disadvantaged communities” and ensure fighters from those communities are developed. Explicit mention: The Act’s preamble notes the importance of developing boxing among all South Africans (implying focus on black talent that was excluded). It likely provides for programs in townships, etc. Implications: Race-based – resources (like training gyms, license opportunities) are channeled to areas that were neglected under white-run boxing administrations. Also the leadership of Boxing SA is inclusive of all racial groups.
General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act, 2001 (GENFETQA) – Description: Set up Umalusi Council to assure quality in school and college exams/qualifications. Racial content: Indirect – Umalusi ensures standardization across the formerly racially divided education systems. Its council membership is appointed with diversity considerations. It must also take into account differences in resource allocations when certifying or standardizing exam results (for fairness to those from poorer, historically black schools). Explicit mention: Not directly in text except requiring broad stakeholder representation. Implications: Some – for example, Umalusi might adjust standards or provide input taking into account historically disadvantaged learners. But overall, low racial differentiation; included likely because it touches on the legacy of apartheid education.
Private Security Industry Regulation Act, 2001 (PSIRA) – Description: Regulates private security companies via the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority. Racial content: Yes – the security industry historically was white-owned; this Act came with an ethos of transforming the industry. The PSIRA Council’s composition is government-appointed, ensuring representation. The Act also requires security companies to have a certain percentage of local ownership (this was amended later to disallow majority foreign ownership, partly for security, partly to encourage local – often black – ownership). Explicit mention: It may not overtly say “black empowerment” in text, but it’s enforced that way through policies and charters (there is a Security Sector BEE Charter). Implications: Race-based practically – many large security firms implemented BEE share deals because government procurement of security services demands it. PSIRA works with the sector to improve training and inclusion of historically disadvantaged groups. Thus, race is an underlying factor in regulating who gets licensed (indirect, via BEE requirements placed by clients like government rather than the Act itself).
Media Development and Diversity Agency Act, 2002 (MDDA Act) – Description: Establishes the MDDA to support community and small commercial media. Racial content: Yes – directly addresses the lack of media serving historically disadvantaged communities and the concentration of media ownership. The MDDA provides grants and support to community radio stations, community newspapers, and media projects owned by disadvantaged groups. Explicit mention: Yes – the Act’s preamble states the need to *“encourage media development and diversity, especially those neglected under apartheid (rural, language, and community media)”. It explicitly focuses on “historically disadvantaged communities”. Implications: Race-based – funding decisions prioritize media in indigenous African languages and communities (mostly black rural or township communities) that were underserved. Also, it supports training of black journalists and media entrepreneurs. The Act is a clear race-related intervention to diversify media voicesracelaw.co.za.
National Lottery Act, 1997 (and 2005 amendments) – Description: Governs the National Lottery and distribution of lottery funds to charities, sports, arts, etc. Racial content: Yes – one of the guiding principles for the distribution of lottery grants is to ensure funds reach previously disadvantaged communities. The Act created the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund and the distributing agencies which must equitably allocate funds. Explicit mention: Likely references “those who were historically disadvantaged” in setting funding priorities (for example, more funding to sports development in black townships, heritage projects for oppressed communities, etc.). Board and distributing agencies membership must reflect society’s makeup. Implications: Race-related – a large portion of lottery grants indeed goes to organizations serving black South Africans (by design, to correct past neglect of those communities in sports/culture funding). The Act effectively channels resources in a racially redistributive manner, though applicants of any race can apply.
National Film and Video Foundation Act, 1997 – Description: Establishes the NFVF to develop the film industry. Racial content: Yes – NFVF’s mandate includes supporting filmmakers from historically disadvantaged backgrounds and telling diverse stories. Explicit mention: The Act explicitly calls for development of filmmaking talent among “previously disadvantaged groups” and funding films that reflect the diversity of South African societyracelaw.co.za. Implications: Race-based – grant funding decisions often favor black filmmakers to grow their representation in the industry. The NFVF Council is appointed to include historically disadvantaged individuals. So, race is a criterion in its funding and training programs, aiming to transform the film sector that was once white-dominated.
National Arts Council Act, 1997 – Description: Creates the NAC to fund and promote the arts (visual art, theatre, dance, literature). Racial content: Yes – similar to NFVF, with an even broader cultural scope. The NAC Act emphasizes “equal access to the arts by all South Africans” and support for “arts projects involving marginalized communities”. Explicit mention: Likely references “historically marginalized artists and communities”. The NAC board must be representative of all provinces and communities. Implications: Race-based in effect – funding is directed to uplift artists from previously disadvantaged communities (e.g. township arts programs, indigenous arts). Thus, the Act drives a more racially inclusive arts sector by allocating grants where apartheid-era funding ignored black art forms.
Legal Deposit Act, 1997 – Description: Requires copies of published materials to be deposited in certain libraries. Racial content: Minimal/arguably none – This Act ensures preservation of publications. IRR lists it as “racial”racelaw.co.zapossibly because the depository libraries used to be segregated (before 1994, some deposit libraries were whites-only). The 1997 Act expanded deposit libraries to include e.g. the National Library in Cape Town and the Library of Parliament, ensuring all cultures’ publications are preserved. Explicit mention: It doesn’t mention race. Implications: No direct racial preference; if anything it ended the previous bias by including formerly excluded institutions. So this law does not contain racial distinctions – it’s likely included on a technicality or mistake. (No race content.)
Postal Services Act, 1998 – Description: Establishes and regulates the postal services (including licensing couriers, Post Office obligations). Racial content: Yes – it introduced a universal service obligation to expand postal services to underserved areas (mostly black rural areas). It also likely includes empowerment in courier licensing. Explicit mention: Possibly references “historically disadvantaged communities” in talking about postal outlets and representation in the Postal Company’s management. Also, the Act split the postal system and allowed private courier licensing – with considerations for black economic empowerment in granting those licenses. Implications: Race-based in application – e.g. the Post Office had to ensure hiring and contracting aligned with BEE, and private postal operators needed to meet certain BEE criteria as per regulations stemming from the Act.
Broadcasting Act, 1999 – Description: Governs the SABC and public broadcasting. Racial content: Yes – it requires the SABC to reflect South Africa’s diverse languages and cultures in programming (a form of cultural/racial inclusivity), and sets out that the SABC board and staff be representative. It also contains provisions for community TV/radio which empower historically disadvantaged communities to have media. Explicit mention: It explicitly says the SABC must cater to “all cultural and language groups” (implicitly addressing racial/ethnic groups). It may not use “race” language except in context of ownership (the Act limited foreign ownership in broadcasters while encouraging empowerment shareholding by South Africans). Implications: Race-conscious – implementing the Act, SABC launched many more programs in African languages and BEE requirements were later incorporated for licensed broadcasters. The Act, together with the ECA, is part of broadcasting transformation to ensure all races have representation and access.
Lotteries Act, 1997 – (Already covered as National Lottery Act above.)
Financial Sector Regulation Act, 2017 (FSR Act) – Description: Implements the “Twin Peaks” model of financial regulation, establishing the Prudential Authority and the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA). Racial content: Yes – the Act for the first time gave financial regulators an explicit objective to promote transformation. It states that one of the FSCA’s and Prudential Authority’s objectives is to protect and enhance the efficiency and integrity of the financial system, and to support financial inclusion and transformation of the financial sectorwww.mineralscouncil.org.za. It also created the Financial Sector Transformation Council via Schedule. Explicit mention: Yes – “transformation of the financial sector” is explicitly listed as a regulatory objective in the Actwww.mineralscouncil.org.za. This means regulators must consider BEE in their supervisory strategies. Implications: Race-based – the FSCA, for example, can penalize banks or insurers that fail to meet BEE Charter targets; the Act also requires reporting on progress of black ownership, etc., in financial institutions. It cements race-based transformation as part of financial law oversight, not just a policy. Thus, the entire finance industry’s supervision is now partly measured on racial transformation outcomes because of this law.
Insurance Act, 2017 – Description: Modern law for insurance companies (solvency, licensing). Racial content: Yes – it complements the FSR Act by requiring insurers to have plans for progressive realisation of transformation. For instance, when a new insurer is licensed, the Prudential Authority under this Act must consider if its ownership will “contribute to the transformation of the insurance sector”. Explicit mention: Likely in licensing criteria or exemptions (e.g. allowing microinsurers from historically disadvantaged groups easier entry). The Act defines “micro-insurers” partly to enable informal community-based insurers (often black-owned) to formalize with simpler requirements. Implications: Race-based – licensing and ongoing regulation of insurance now takes into account BEE status. Also, the Act encourages inclusion of black agents and managers by requiring insurers to have a strategy consistent with the Financial Sector Code. So, it’s another lever to enforce racial diversity in insurance.
Property Practitioners Act, 2019 – Description: Replaces the Estate Agency Affairs Act to regulate estate agents and property practitioners. Racial content: Explicit and significant. The Act is expressly aimed at transforming the property brokerage sector, which remained mostly white. It establishes the Property Practitioners Regulatory Authority with a mandate to promote the interests of historically disadvantaged individuals in the property market. It created a Transformation Fund to support black estate agents and provide grants and trainingracelaw.co.za. It also requires that one member of the Regulatory Authority’s Board be responsible for transformation. Explicit mention: Yes – “transformation” and “historically disadvantaged individuals” are explicitly mentioned multiple times as core objectivesracelaw.co.za. E.g. a portion of all estate agent fees (Fidelity Fund contributions) now go into the Transformation Fund for black practitioners. Implications: Race-based – concrete measures like funding new black entrants, providing for mentorship of black women in the industry, and possibly requiring firms to have BEE status to get licenses. This Act actively intervenes to change the racial composition of the property sector.
Foreign Service Act, 2019 – Description: Organizes South Africa’s diplomatic service. Racial content: Yes – the Act likely reiterates that the Department of International Relations must be representative of the South African population abroad. Historically, diplomatic postings were dominated by whites; now it is much more diverse. Explicit mention: Possibly not explicit, but internal policies (mirroring Public Service) ensure representativity. The Act might allow for recall or rotation of staff in part to facilitate diversity in postings. Implications: Race-based in practice – the foreign service has targets for racial (and gender) composition at various levels. The Act’s inclusion in the index suggests it has clauses or context about equitable representation of all groups in South Africa’s missions. It cements transformation in yet another area of public service.
Public Procurement Act, 2024 – Description: A very recent law replacing the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (2000). Racial content: Explicit. This Act governs how government entities procure goods and services, including the preferences and criteria for historically disadvantaged suppliers. It was enacted to align procurement with constitutional requirements after a court struck down some regulations. Explicit mention: Yes – it explicitly allows and directs organs of state to implement preferential procurement to advance categories of people disadvantaged by unfair discrimination (which chiefly means black people, women, etc., per Constitution §217(3)). The Act likely uses phrasing like “designated groups” or references the B-BBEE Act for scoring. It repealed the PPPFA, but continues its function of enabling race-based scoring in tendersracelaw.co.za. Implications: Strongly race-based – it provides the legal basis for awarding state contracts with preference points for BEE level or for restricting certain bids to black-owned companies. The intention is to ensure government spending promotes black economic empowerment, small black businesses, and other disadvantaged groups. It is effectively a restructured continuation of race-conscious procurement policy. (As it’s brand new, implementation details are pending regulations, but it assuredly carries forward the same race-based preference regime as the old PPPFA, which explicitly was a “race law”racelaw.co.za.) (Note: The Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, 2000 was repealed in 2024 by the Public Procurement Act_racelaw.co.za__. The PPPFA explicitly mentioned “categories of preference in awarding contracts” to advance persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination, i.e. mostly by race. It was unquestionably a race-related lawracelaw.co.za. Since it’s now repealed and replaced, we focus on the new Act above, but up until 2024 the PPPFA was one of the key race-based laws (it was counted among the 142 until its repeal).)_

Laws Without Racial Implications or Content

Among the above 142 laws, the vast majority either explicitly mention race or have clear race-based application. A handful, however, appear to contain no direct racial provisions in their text and do not obviously create race-differentiated rights or duties. These were likely included in the count for context or because of historical connections. Examples include:

Legal Deposit Act, 1997 – no content about race (ensures preservation of publications for all languages/cultures). It’s essentially race-neutral; its inclusion in the index is arguably not due to any racial clause, but perhaps because it replaced earlier practices that were skewed towards white institutions. No explicit racial implications in the law itself.
Members of Parliament and Political Office-Bearers Pension Scheme Act, 1984 – this Act is race-neutral (combining pension schemes) and serves all qualifying office-bearers regardless of race. It was included as “ancillary” due to replacing racially segregated pension laws, but it does not itself treat people differently by race.
Financial Management of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, 2009 – marked “Ancillary”racelaw.co.za. It’s a financial governance law with no racial provisions. Possibly counted because it repealed old separate finance Acts for the tricameral parliament. No racial content in current application.
Standards Act, 2008 and Accreditation for Conformity Assessment Act, 2006 (which govern SABS and SANAS) – these primarily ensure technical standards. They do not mention race. They might have been counted because their councils must include all stakeholders (maybe implying diverse representation) or because standard-setting can enable small (black-owned) businesses to meet requirements. In essence, no explicit race rules in these Acts.
Measurement Units and Measurement Standards Act, 2006 – purely scientific/technical legislation (defines units of measure). No racial content at all. Its inclusion in a race law index is puzzling; likely an error or because it’s part of the cluster of quality infrastructure laws alongside others that do have BEE aspects.
Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act, 1989 (repealed 1996) and Motor Vehicle Accidents Act, 1986 (repealed 1996) – these were listed as “Ancillary”racelaw.co.za. They dealt with road accident compensation. They did not distribute benefits by race (apartheid did limit black compensation via earlier laws, but by 1986/89 changes, all races had some coverage). Since they’re repealed, they don’t count as operative, but noting that not every law in the historical list was racially discriminatory per se. In summary, virtually all current operative laws in the IRR’s list have at least some racial reference or application, except a very few that are arguably miscategorized or only tangentially related to race. Those few without any racial implications constitute the minority. The Index of Race Law methodology was broad, counting laws “at a distance” supporting a race policy or those once racial until formally repealedracelaw.co.za racelaw.co.za. Thus, any operative law included is there for a reason connecting it to race or redress.

Overall Findings and Accuracy of the “142 Race Laws” Claim

The investigation confirms that South Africa does have on the order of 142 laws that make race or ethnicity relevant in some way, aligning with AfriForum’s claimmg.co.za. However, the nature of these “race-related laws” varies:

Many laws explicitly mention race or racial groups – e.g. “black people” in the B-BBEE Actwww.thedtic.gov.za, “historically disadvantaged persons” in mining, energy, and other sectoral lawslaw.uct.ac.za www.gov.za, or even specific races in old apartheid laws (like “Coloured” or “Indian” in their titles). These clearly single out racial categories in text.
Most of the post-1994 Acts do not use the terms “white” or “black” to classify people negatively, but rather employ phrasing like “designated groups”www.gov.za, “historically disadvantaged”law.uct.ac.za, or “demographic representation.” These euphemisms nonetheless tie back to race. In effect, race is a criterion – for example, to benefit previously disadvantaged (mostly black) groups or to ensure diverse representation.
In application, nearly all the listed laws have race-based implications. They either grant preferences, advantages, or protections on the basis of one’s race (or redress category), or they structure public institutions to account for race. This includes affirmative action in employmentwww.gov.za www.gov.za, BEE requirements for business contractswww.thedtic.gov.za, quotas or targets for black ownership and participationlaw.uct.ac.za, special funds or support programs for historically disadvantaged groupswww.gov.za, etc. The intent is typically to remedy past racial discrimination by advantaging the previously under-privileged race groups (Black African, Coloured, Indian, in some cases also women and disabled as overlapping categories).
A small number of the counted laws no longer contain racial distinctions (they were deracialised through amendments). For example, the Mines and Works Act 1956 once reserved jobs for whites but that language was removedracelaw.co.za. These laws today treat everyone equally and some are practically obsolete, yet they remain officially on the books. The IRR still counts them in the 142 for completeness, though such laws do not impose any race-based effect now.
A few laws in the list have questionable inclusion because they lack any direct racial clause or policy (e.g. the Standards Act 2008, Legal Deposit Act 1997). Their presence in the index might be due to historical association or error. These are the exception: out of 142, only a handful might truly “not contain racial implications” in either text or usage. In conclusion, AfriForum’s claim that South Africa has 142 race-related laws is broadly accurate**mg.co.za**when considering “race-related” to mean any statute that treats people differently (or was originally intended to) on racial/ethnic grounds, or that institutionalizes a consideration of race. This includes both old apartheid laws still technically in force and post-apartheid laws that explicitly incorporate affirmative action or redress for past racism.

It is important to note the context of these laws: apartheid-era laws enforced racial oppression (advantaging whites), whereas post-1994 laws generally aim to advance the previously oppressed (advantaging blacks and other groups) or prevent discrimination. In other words, modern “race-based” laws are largely remedial or corrective in intent, grounded in the Constitution’s equality clause which permits “positive measures” to promote persons disadvantaged by past discriminationracelaw.co.za. Nonetheless, from a formal perspective, these laws do make race a relevant legal factor – hence they can be tallied as such.

The accuracy of the number 142 thus holds up (give or take minor counting nuances). Nearly all of these laws indeed mention race explicitly or implicitly and have race-based applications. Only a negligible few have no current racial implications.In summary, South Africa’s statute book does contain around 142 Acts that are in some way “race-related,” confirming the claimmg.co.za. The vast majority explicitly incorporate race or remedy racial inequality. A handful are historical relics without current effect or are indirectly related, but they are the exception. South Africa has therefore not eliminated race from legislation post-1994; instead, it shifted from oppressive race laws to restorative ones. Whether one considers these 142 laws justified or not, the claim of their existence is factual.

Sources:

Index of Race Law (SAIRR) – list of operative Acts with racial contentracelaw.co.za racelaw.co.za
Mail & Guardian (Thought Leader) – discussion of the 142 race-based laws and examplesmg.co.za mg.co.za
Excerpts from key Acts (e.g. Employment Equity Actwww.gov.za, MPRDAlaw.uct.ac.za law.uct.ac.za, Land Bank Actwww.gov.za, B-BBEE Act via DTICwww.thedtic.gov.za) demonstrating their racial provisions.
Government and legal analyses on specific sector laws (mining charter requirementslaw.uct.ac.za, procurement policiesracelaw.co.za, etc.) confirming how race is used in implementation.