Recently, the Property Professions Regulatory Authority (PPRA) required BEE certificates for Fidelity Fund Certificate renewals, sparking concern among industry professionals. Jim Tait expressed these worries through an open letter, facing criticism but ultimately contributing to a policy shift. The PPRA now requires only valid, not compliant, BEE certificates, easing burdens on small agencies. This change highlights the power of constructive criticism and proactive dialogue in shaping fair regulations and industry practices.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
By Jim Tait
In recent months, our industry faced a storm of uncertainty when the Property Professions Regulatory Authority (PPRA) announced that compliance with BEE certificates would be a requirement for the renewal and issuance of Fidelity Fund Certificates (FFCs). The initial response from many in our field was one of concern and alarm—a sentiment I shared. I took it upon myself to pen an open letter voicing those concerns, outlining the detrimental impact such a policy would have on small to mid-sized agencies.
While my letter received support from many quarters, it also drew criticism—some of it harsh enough to make me wonder if I’d mistakenly walked into a cage of disgruntled meerkats instead of a community of professionals. I was told that my stance was uninformed, that I hadn’t “thought this through,” and that expressing these concerns was a waste of time. The critics implied that challenging authority was like trying to teach a cat to do the dishes—pointless, frustrating, and bound to end in failure.
Yet, recent developments have proven otherwise. In a significant shift, the PPRA has amended its stance. They’ve clarified that while BEE certificates will still be required, these need only be valid, not compliant. This distinction is crucial. It relieves many of the burdens that small agencies would have faced, providing breathing room and a more pragmatic path forward.
This change didn’t happen in a vacuum. It was the result of ongoing dialogue, industry pressure, and sustained advocacy, including open letters like mine and the efforts of organizations such as Rebosa. This topic was also the focus of a recent interview on Biz News between Alec Hogg and Sakeliga’s CEO, Piet le Roux. The conversation dives into the broader implications of BEE compliance and explores alternative pathways for real empowerment that don’t involve regulatory overreach. All of this underscores a simple yet powerful truth: when you stand up against autocratic decisions that seem inevitable, your voice can make a difference—sometimes even before you’ve had your morning coffee.
To those who questioned the value of speaking out, I would offer this: constructive criticism and alternative viewpoints are the bedrock of progress. There’s a reason why engaging in dialogue, even when uncomfortable, is more effective than simply acquiescing. When we challenge policies that could have harmful, unintended consequences, we create the opportunity for better solutions to emerge. The recent amendment from the PPRA is a case in point.
Moreover, this situation illustrates something larger about our profession: we need to remain vigilant, informed, and proactive. The industry will always face challenges—some legal, some market-driven, some regulatory. How we respond defines not just the outcomes but also the culture of our industry. Will we be passive, accepting every new rule or policy handed down, or will we engage critically, ensuring that regulations are balanced, fair, and aligned with the realities of our sector? After all, sitting back and doing nothing rarely leads to improvement—unless you’re counting on the universe to miraculously fix things while you binge-watch Netflix.
I understand that there were concerns about timing and past opportunities for public input. Yet, it’s clear that continuing to engage—even if we’re late to the conversation—can still bring about meaningful change. Transformation and inclusivity are important goals, but they must be pursued in ways that empower rather than cripple the industry.
As an industry, let us remember that criticism isn’t inherently negative; it’s the starting point of innovation. Those who dismissed my open letter might now reflect on the impact collective industry voices can have when directed at improving policies. It’s a reminder that standing up, even when faced with resistance or doubt, is not only worthwhile but essential—and sometimes, just a little bit satisfying.
Read also: