By Michelle Naidoo – Partner

 and Diyara Ishwarlall – Candidate Attorney

In a significant ruling on South Africa’s employment equity framework, the High Court in NEASA v Minister of Employment dismissed an urgent application to interdict the implementation of sectoral numerical targets issued by the Minister of Employment and Labour on 15 April 2025.

The applicants, NEASA and Sakeliga, had argued that the Minister’s targets were unlawful, inadequately consulted, and would cause widespread harm to employers and employees alike from 1 September 2025. However, the Court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasising both the separation of powers and the principle of legality.

The Rule of Law Prevails

The most striking part is paragraph 17, the Court held that:

“There can be no doubt that in the administrative action of 15 April 2025, the Minister did not act unlawfully. The law empowered the Minister to act accordingly… Even if the alleged mayhem will unfold, such will have been as a direct consequence of the application of the law. Until that law is declared invalid constitutionally, the rule of law demands compliance… Generally, no one is above the law. Thus, no one may be spared from the application of the law unless that law has been declared invalid.”

This passage highlights a core principle of South Africa’s constitutional democracy: until a law is set aside by a competent court, it remains binding, even if unpopular or perceived as being unjust. The Court drew a historical comparison, noting that apartheid legislation, however unjust, was applied until struck down. In the words of the Honourable Court:

“The majority of apartheid legislations were invalid, yet they were applied because they were valid in the eyes of the law at the time.”

No Interdict Against Completed Action

The Court stressed that the Minister had already exercised her statutory powers in April 2025, and therefore an interdict could not “unscramble the egg.” Any alleged future harm would stem not from the Minister’s regulations, but from how employers set their own numerical goals aligned to the mandatory sector targets.

Flexibility for Employers

Importantly, the judgment highlighted that employers retain flexibility under the EEA. While they must align their employment equity plans with the mandatory sector targets, employers shall not face any risk if they can justify deviations or reasons for not meeting the sector targets.

Key points:

• Compliance from 1 September 2025: Designated employers must implement employment equity plans aligned with sectoral numerical targets.

• Judicial review pending: While this case concerned interim relief, a substantive review of the Minister’s decision is pending.
• Risk management: Until such time that the substantive review application is determined, the April 2025 regulations, including the sector targets are binding.  Failure to comply shall result in compliance certificates being refused or withdrawn.

Conclusion

The Court’s ruling is a strong affirmation of the rule of law and constitutional process in the employment equity landscape. For now, employers should proceed on the basis that the new regulations are valid and binding.

In our view the underpinning and intent of the new regulations and sector targets have good intent and supports our constitutional principles to redress imbalances in employment perpetuated due to apartheid policies and practices.

By reiterating the preamble of the Employment Equity Act, we remind ourselves about why it became necessary to introduce mandatory sector targets:

“Recognizing that as a result of apartheid and other discriminatory laws and practices, there are disparities in employment, occupation and income within the national labour market; and that those disparities create such pronounced disadvantages for certain categories of people that they cannot be redressed simply by repealing discriminatory laws”

I consider myself privileged to be an employment equity specialist and to contribute to society by providing compliance solutions connected to this important constitutional imperative.

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash