Officials in South Africa are torn by the decision to make Elon Musk’s company legal

Elon Musk’s debacle with South Africa, concerning his satellite internet service, Starlink, continues to linger, with some of the country’s parliamentary members maintaining their objections.

• South African parliamentary members oppose SpaceX’s Starlink due to ICT licensing concerns.
• Economic Freedom Fighters demand compliance with local laws ensuring 30% Black ownership.
• A proposal to adjust regulations for equity-equivalent schemes faced parliamentary rejection.
• Major parties in South Africa’s coalition government display internal division on this issue.

The South African parliamentary committee in charge of overseeing the nation’s telecommunications sector recently recommended the revocation of a directive intended to allow Starlink and other satellite-internet providers to operate within the country without relinquishing ownership.

In July, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), led by Julius Malema, formally stated that Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite service must be prohibited from operating within South Africa.

EFF MP Sinawo Thambo, a member of South Africa’s fourth-largest political party, accused the government of attempting to change the country’s ICT licensing structure exclusively to accommodate Starlink.

He said, “There’s a security threat that it poses. It must never be allowed to operate in South Africa.”

Their demand for Starlink’s full operation within South Africa is that the company allow 30% Black ownership, under the Black Economic Empowerment laws.

However, Elon Musk rejected the demand, referring to the policy as “openly racist.”

Recently, as reported by Bloomberg, Solly Malatsi, the Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, issued an official notice requesting that the industry regulator change its regulations so that equity-equivalent investment schemes might be counted toward empowerment instead of merely requiring 30% local Black ownership.

The minister said that 90% of the submissions made during the public consultation process were in favor of the order.

However, the parliamentary committee rejected the request.

Malatsi has neither the “legislative nor moral authority to reverse the gains of democracy through this unilateral action,” Khusela Sangoni Diko, chairwoman of the portfolio committee on communications and digital technologies, said in a statement.

DON’T MISS THIS: Canada joins U.S. and China in warning citizens about travel to South Africa

“These policy directives are an affront to the centuries-old fight for equity and redress by the Black majority in this country,” she said.

“They further unintelligibly obfuscate existing law in a spirited attempt to circumvent the mandatory 30% equity ownership by historically disadvantaged groups.”

The African National Congress and the opposing Democratic Alliance, the two major parties in South Africa’s coalition government, have reportedly been split by Malatsi’s declaration.