PRETORIA, Gauteng – The looming Public Servants Association deregistration has triggered a fierce legal counter-offensive against the Department of Employment and Labour. Union leadership is vehemently denying allegations of financial non-compliance, arguing that the government’s push to strip their registration violates established legal procedures and ignores previous judicial rulings.
At the heart of the dispute is a complex web of statutory requirements and court interventions. Reuben Maleka, General Manager of the PSA, highlighted a glaring contradiction in the Registrar’s approach. While the Registrar is actively petitioning the Labour Appeal Court to place the PSA under a 12-month administration—effectively seeking to take control of the organization—he is simultaneously arguing that the PSA is not a valid trade union. Maleka questioned the logic of seeking a corporate takeover of an entity whose legal existence the same office is disputing.
This stance directly clashes with an April 17 Labour Appeal Court judgment, where three judges affirmed that the PSA has been a legally registered trade union since 1993 and mandated that its constitution be updated to align with section 95 of the Act.
The Department’s deregistration notice cites potential failures to operate effectively under the union’s constitution and alleged breaches of sections 98, 99, and 100 of the Labour Relations Act. These sections govern financial reporting, record-keeping, and transparency obligations. However, Maleka categorically rejects these claims, describing the union’s compliance record as impeccable. He stated that the PSA “religiously” submits its annual financial statements and membership fees, boasting a history of clean audits with no negative findings. According to the union’s leadership, unaudited annual financial statements for the 2024/2025 financial year were submitted by March 31, 2025, while audited statements are filed by September 31 each year.
The primary friction point revolves around the auditing standards applied to the union’s finances. Maleka acknowledged that the PSA’s statements are currently audited in accordance with the Companies Act rather than the specific statutory framework for trade unions. To rectify this, the union submitted a newly amended constitution on May 15 to conform to the court’s directives.
However, the Registrar rejected this amendment on June 22. In a rapid shift, the very next day, the Registrar introduced a new objection, claiming that a board of directors controls the entity under the Companies Act. Just four days after this initial rejection, a formal notice of intention to cancel the registration under section 106 was issued.
This accelerated timeline is a major focal point of the union’s legal challenge. Maleka pointed out that the Registrar bypassed critical statutory windows designed to protect organizations. Under section 106 of the Act, the union is entitled to a 30-day period to request reasons for a refusal. Furthermore, section 106(2A) mandates a 60-day grace period to correct any deficiencies before a cancellation can be published in the Government Gazette. By rushing the process, the union argues it was denied the fundamental right to explain its position or rectify the issues.
In response to what they view as an unlawful and expedited deregistration process, the PSA is aggressively pursuing legal intervention. Maleka confirmed that the union has formally appealed the Registrar’s refusal to accept their constitutional amendment. Beyond this, the union is exploring multiple legal avenues, including approaching the courts to interdict the deregistration process entirely.
Emphasizing the critical role of the organization, Maleka stated that public servants must not be stripped of their voice by a Registrar who is allegedly ignoring both the Act and binding court judgments, vowing to utilize every available legal channel to protect the union’s members.