South Africans woke up on 24 April to news that Treasury had scrapped the planned 0.5-percentage-point VAT increase. The Democratic Alliance (DA) immediately claimed its pending court action “saved consumers.” Yet parliamentary transcripts and media reports reveal something very different: the DA had offered to support the VAT hike—if the government repealed the Expropriation Act. When the swap-deal collapsed, the party pivoted to litigation and is now selling a victory it never won.
1. The DA’s conditional yes
- 28 March 2025. Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana told a joint finance committee that the DA “sent a letter to the president accepting the 0.5 % VAT hike in exchange for scrapping the Expropriation Act.” EWN
- Same day. IOL and The Citizen confirmed the letter’s existence, quoting Godongwana verbatim. IOLThe Citizen
- 31 March. Business Day detailed a “one-year VAT-hike deal” still on the table between the DA and ANC. BusinessLIVE
2. Why the bargain failed
- The ANC refused to junk the Expropriation Act.
- Smaller parties—ActionSA, BOSA, IFP, PAC and others—voted for the Fiscal Framework only after inserting a 30-day clause forcing Treasury to find non-VAT revenue or abandon the hike. The Mail & GuardianIOL
- Faced with certain parliamentary defeat, Treasury capitulated in the early hours of 24 April. Financial TimesReuters
3. The DA’s late-stage litigation
- The party filed an urgent interdict in the Western Cape High Court after its deal imploded. Judgment is still pending. The Mail & Guardian
- Nonetheless, DA press statements framed the U-turn as a “court-driven triumph,” ignoring the absence of any ruling. sundayworld.co.za
4. Claims vs. facts
- Claim: “We always opposed the VAT hike.”
Fact: A written offer shows the DA would endorse it if land-reform law died. EWN - Claim: “Our lawsuit forced Treasury’s hand.”
Fact: Treasury reversed course before the court could hear arguments. Reuters - Claim: “We protected the poor.”
Fact: The party was willing to raise a regressive tax to secure property-rights concessions.
5. The politics of spin
The episode fits a familiar pattern:
- Private horse-trading first, public outrage later.
- Selective principle. Tax hikes are fine if they torpedo redistribution.
- Credit hijacking. When the bargain collapses, rebrand a pending lawsuit as the decisive blow.
The VAT hike reversal is rightly celebrated by consumers, but the credit belongs to the smaller parties that leveraged their parliamentary votes for a pro-poor outcome—not to a party caught on record bargaining to swap higher grocery prices for a land-policy victory. The DA’s narrative rests on a deal that failed and a court case still in limbo. Voters deserve the whole story, not the post-facto spin.