Conscientious Objection to Race Law

Apartheid laws are making a comeback, once again classifying – and dividing – South Africans by race. As they did during apartheid, it’s time for South Africans of all races to refuse to comply with attempts to re-engineer society according to political diktats. Conscientious objection to race law remains a moral imperative.

South Africa has a long history of damaging and socially divisive legislation, but the Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEAA) is one of the most morally repugnant.

Through regulations introduced in September 2025, the EEAA requires all businesses to comply with strict five-year “sector numerical targets” – effectively employment quotas – based on race, sex, and disability.

All employees must fill out a EEA1 form and be classified under one of four racial options: Black African, Coloured, Indian / Asian, and White (there is no “other” option). Employers must accurately reflect these demographic characteristics when submitting their mandatory employment equity report to the Department of Labour.

Notably, there is no legal mandate for when employees refuse to self-classify by race. The burden of proof therefore falls on the employer to decide what racial group their staff belong to.

Failure by an employer to accurately represent their workforce by race, gender, and disability will incur severe liability, including fines of up to R1.5 million or 2% of turnover for first-time offenders, or up to R2.7 million or 10% of turnover for repeat offenders, whichever is higher.

Furthermore, the Act empowers the Minister to set sector-specific targets by aligning quotas with the “Economically Active Population” data for each economic sector. Regulation 9(10), states that employers “must avoid perpetuating the overrepresentation of any group if their representation exceeds the applicable EAP”.

“Over-representation” is prohibited, meaning that for every 100 people you hire, you may not have more than four white males or one Indian female among your staff, to give just a couple of examples. This benefits majority demographic groups like Black African males (43.5%) and Black African females (37.5%), but these groups are also subject to “over-representation” restrictions.

In some regions and industries, allowed representation for minority racial groups (and minority gender categories within those groups) will often round to zero, amounting to an effective ban on men or women of a specific race from working in a given sector.

Ghosts of the past

On 4 December, Gerhard Papenfus of the National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) sent a letter to the Department of Employment and Labour seeking clarity on the EEAA regulations.

Papenfus asked: How do you determine who is a member of which race group and who decides on the racial categorisation of employees if they refuse to self-classify?

Papenfus specifically sought clarity on Regulation 8(2), which states that employers must use “reliable historic or existing data” when determining the racial status of their employees. The regulation also notes that disabled people have the right not to declare their disability.

In its replying letter of 5 December, the department indicated that that the regulations are referring to “data guided by current and historical legislation which may include the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 as amended, Citizens Act 88 of 1995, and the Population Registration Act of 1950.” (emphasis added).

There you have it, folks.

One of the foundational laws of the apartheid system, rightly and universally condemned as an affront to human dignity, is the guiding framework of the current government’s employment equity agenda. Repealed in 1991, the Population Registration Act is so back.

There is one big difference though.

Unlike with the original Population Registration Act, which was enforced by the National Party (NP) government itself, the EEAA places the odious burden of race classification on employers. This is nothing short of totalitarian: private actors have become involuntary agents of the state’s racial programme.

Defenders of race-based “affirmative action” and Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) more broadly will argue that in order to correct historical discrimination, the original legislation that mandated classification in the first place should be used.

That is to wilfully misunderstand redress policy.

Where past injustices were inflicted upon individuals by the state, justice demands that those individuals must be compensated for their loss and the perpetrators (the state) must be held accountable.

That does not give the current government license to simply implement the same discriminatory actions of the past, punishing innocent people born long after the end of apartheid who happen to share the complexion of past offenders.

Membership of a race group (willing or unwilling) is no grounds for allocating burdens and benefits in a decent society. It is an affront to the foundational constitutional principles of equality, non-racialism, and the rule of law.

Conscientious objection

It was timely that this week the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) released a report calling for conscientious objection to race law.

Authored by Gabriel Crouse, Refusing Forced Racialisation at Work draws on the IRR’s tradition of non-racial liberalism which has guided the Institute since it was founded in 1929.

Crouse argues that 7.5 million workers are likely to be impacted and that discrimination will affect “all eight race-gender pairs overtly and directly.”

The report points out that the Minister of Labour, Nomakhosazana Meth, is planning to hire up to 20 000 “Inspector and Enforcement Interns” who will be empowered to enter any workplace unannounced and without a warrant. 

When one of these pawns of the state come knocking on your company’s doors, how will you respond?

Refusal to comply with these racial edicts rests on a firm moral foundation, Crouse argues, pointing out various grounds that people may use to conscientiously object to the EEAA regulations, including:

1. Adherence to the non-racial moral tradition
2. Trade union solidarity
3. Company first pride
4. A sense of patriotism
5. The right to privacy (section 14 of the Constitution)
6. The right to bodily integrity (section 12 of the Constitution)

The IRR’s research shows that rejection of employment equity is not only justified, it is necessary for a free and flourishing society.

Civil society unrest

The IRR, NEASA, Sakeliga, and my own organisation, the Free Market Foundation, are part of a broad movement of civil society organisations pushing back the tide of race law in South Africa.

These groups are using their platforms and the courts to take the battle directly to the government. They stand ready to defend the rights of individuals who may fall foul of illegitimate laws.

As effective as these organisations are, they cannot act alone. They require the broad support of business and ordinary South Africans to truly affect change. As we know from history, the success of any defiance campaign rests on the willingness of ordinary people of all races and classes to reject unjust laws.

It is for this reason that on 4 September I voted with my conscience against the adoption of the University of Cape Town’s Employment Equity Plan at a meeting of its Council, of which I am a member. Unfortunately, I could not persuade the majority of my colleagues on Council to join me in rejecting race and gender quotas and the plan was approved.

With the EEAA reporting deadline rapidly approaching on 15 January 2026, employers and employees must decide whether they wish to be complicit in an unjust system of racial classification or whether they choose to stand on the side of non-racialism.

Doing what’s right is not costless, but there is no greater cost than what our integrity would suffer if we did nothing.

Ansara is CEO of the Free Market Foundation and a member of Council of the University of Cape Town. He does not speak on behalf of UCT Council.