Excerpt: The wheels are now officially turning. Following LFN’s urgent High Court hearing on 4 August 2026, the constitutional challenge against the President and Minister of Finance over South Africa’s proposed Capital Flow Management Regulations has moved into judicial case management. While the immediate risk of the regulations being finalised appears to have subsided, the real legal battle is only beginning. This case is about far more than cryptocurrency — it goes to the heart of who controls our future digital money, digital identity, and financial freedom. Discover why this challenge matters to every South African and why LFN believes the rule of law must come before digital transformation.
If you like our work, why not consider a donation or gift of your choice?
or make a quick donation… MobiPaid
On Tuesday, 4 August 2026, Liberty Fighters Network returned to the Western Cape High Court on an urgent basis — this time in a constitutional challenge involving the President, the Minister of Finance, the future regulation of crypto-assets, and a much larger question that South Africans can no longer afford to ignore:
Who has the lawful authority to redesign the rules governing our money?
At first glance, the case may appear to concern technical financial regulations, crypto transactions and exchange control. In truth, it concerns something far more fundamental.
It concerns the gradual digitisation of money.
It concerns the growing connection between financial activity, personal identity, digital records and State oversight.
Above all, it concerns whether sweeping regulatory powers may be exercised by the correct constitutional functionary and in accordance with the law.
What are the proposed regulations?
The instrument under challenge is officially titled the Draft Capital Flow Management Regulations, 2026 — not merely “cash flow” regulations.
The draft proposes a wide-ranging replacement of South Africa’s existing exchange-control system. It expressly introduces crypto-assets into the regulatory framework and defines “capital” broadly enough to include anything with monetary value, including crypto-assets. It also envisages “authorised crypto asset service providers” operating under National Treasury authorisation.
The Government Gazette inviting public comment stated that the proposals were intended, inter alia, to bring crypto-assets within the exchange-control framework, address money-laundering and illicit-financial-flow risks, clarify permissions and exemptions, and introduce administrative sanctions for non-compliance.
That may sound harmless or even necessary.
After all, nobody seriously argues that fraud, money laundering or unlawful capital flight should be left unchecked.
But constitutional government does not permit a public authority to say:
“The objective is good, therefore the legal route does not matter.”
The route matters.
The identity of the decision-maker matters.
The source of the power matters.
The legal problem identified by LFN
Section 9(1) of the Currency and Exchanges Act, 1933, historically confers the regulation-making authority upon the Governor-General. Through the Interpretation Act and the constitutional evolution of that office, LFN contends that the relevant authority rests with the President.
That interpretation is not invented by LFN.
In South African Reserve Bank and Another v Shuttleworth and Another, the Constitutional Court expressly described section 9(1) as empowering the President to make regulations relating to currency, banking or exchanges. The Court also distinguished between the President’s power to make the regulations and the Minister’s downstream role in administering or imposing conditions under those regulations.
However, during September 2025, the President issued Proclamation Notice 290 of 2025, purporting to transfer to the Cabinet member responsible for finance the administration of the Act, together with the powers and functions entrusted by the Act to the President.
The Minister thereafter published the proposed Capital Flow Management Regulations as though the Minister were acting directly under section 9(1).
That is where LFN sounded the alarm.
In its public comments, LFN argued that section 9(1), on its face, does not identify the Minister as the original repository of the regulation-making power. If the Minister relies upon the President’s proclamation, then the complete chain of authority must be disclosed and must itself withstand constitutional scrutiny.
LFN further argued that this was not a minor drafting defect, but a question of legality, vires, transparency, rationality and meaningful public participation.
Put simply:
Can the President transfer a statutory power that Parliament deliberately entrusted to the President, and can the Minister thereafter exercise that power as though the Act itself appointed him?
That question now requires judicial determination.
Why LFN approached the Court urgently
LFN’s urgent Part A relief was designed to preserve the status quo.
The purpose was not to ask the Court to decide the entire constitutional challenge overnight. The urgent relief was intended to prevent final regulations from being promulgated before the Court could determine whether the transfer of authority and the proposed exercise of that authority were lawful.
The initiating application sought, among other things, the record underlying the President’s proclamation, the record relating to the publication of the draft regulations, and interim protection against final promulgation while the legality review remained pending.
This distinction is important for supporters who may not be familiar with court procedure.
Part A was the emergency brake.
Part B is where the Court will ultimately examine the engine, the driver and the legal authority to operate the vehicle.
Without interim protection, final regulations could theoretically have been published while the challenge was still proceeding. LFN would then have been forced to chase a moving target, while the public might already have been subjected to a new regulatory regime.
That is precisely the type of prejudice urgent proceedings are intended to prevent.
What happened in Court?
The President and Minister of Finance delivered a notice of intention to oppose but did not deliver an answering affidavit before the urgent hearing.
The circumstances did not suggest a cynical attempt simply to ignore the application. On the contrary, it appeared that the Respondents genuinely required time to consider the legal predicament, obtain instructions and determine how to address the fact that the draft regulations had been published by a Minister whose authority is itself disputed.
Before the hearing, LFN had already proposed that the matter be removed from the urgent roll and referred to the Judge President for judicial case management, while expressly preserving LFN’s position that the proceedings had properly been instituted as urgent. The proposed order further provided that costs should remain costs in the cause.
Justice Cloete treated me with dignity and respect as LFN’s in-person representative.
No unnecessary obstacle was placed in the way of the Applicants. No attempt was made to turn the hearing into a contest over labels, status or peripheral technical objections.
The Court permitted the matter to proceed through the normal process, with the parties seeking judicial case management from the Judge President so that the substantive issues may be properly ventilated.
This was not a final victory on the merits.
But neither was it a defeat.
In practical substance, LFN achieved an important immediate objective: the constitutional concern has been formally placed before the Court, the responsible national office-bearers are fully aware of the alleged defect, and the matter will now proceed under judicial supervision rather than disappearing into an administrative drawer.
A noticeable contrast in litigation conduct
LFN must also record something positive where it is deserved.
In this matter, the legal representatives acting for President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Minister of Finance did not attempt to derail the case through the type of preliminary technicalities that LFN has recently encountered in litigation involving institutions governed by the Democratic Alliance.
The President’s and Finance Minister’s legal team concentrated on obtaining instructions, considering the substance of the dispute, and regulating the future conduct of the matter.
This is consistent with LFN’s experiences in certain other national constitutional matters, including aspects of the pending Expropriation Act challenge, where engagement with the national executive has generally been more transparent and reasonable than some of our experiences with the DA’s City of Cape Town, Western Cape Premier Alan Winde and Minister Dean Macpherson.
This observation is not about political allegiance.
LFN remains apolitical.
It is about litigation culture.
Where constitutional concerns are raised, public authorities should assist the Court in resolving the real dispute. They should not treat procedural technicalities as a substitute for constitutional accountability like the DA is repeatedly doing.
The Constitution belongs to everyone — not merely to those who can afford senior counsel, extensive legal teams and endless interlocutory battles.
Why this case is about more than cryptocurrency
Many South Africans hear the word “crypto” and immediately assume that the case only affects Bitcoin traders, technology enthusiasts or wealthy investors.
That would be a serious misunderstanding.
The draft regulations form part of a much larger transition.
Money is rapidly becoming digital.
Payments are becoming traceable.
Financial access is increasingly connected to smartphones, databases, identity-verification systems and automated compliance controls.
Your bank account, tax profile, identity record, physical movements, online purchases and financial behaviour can increasingly form part of one interconnected digital picture.
Crypto-assets are only one piece of that puzzle.
The deeper concern is the architecture being created around digital value and digital identity.
Today, the regulation may be described as controlling cross-border crypto transactions.
Tomorrow, the same infrastructure may determine:
- which transactions are permitted;
- which service provider may process them;
- which digital identity must be attached to them;
- what information must be disclosed;
- when access may be delayed or refused; and
- who may be penalised administratively without first appearing before a court.
The draft regulations already envisage authorised service providers, thresholds determined by the Minister, broad concepts of capital and transfer, enforcement mechanisms, and administrative sanctions.
That does not automatically make the proposed system unconstitutional.
It does, however, make constitutional compliance essential.
The more powerful and technologically integrated a regulatory system becomes, the more important it is that every foundational power be exercised lawfully.
Why authority cannot be treated as a technicality
Some may ask:
“Why does it matter whether the President or Finance Minister signs the regulations, as long as government eventually regulates crypto-assets?”
It matters because South Africa is founded upon the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law.
A public official may exercise only the power lawfully conferred upon that official.
One Cabinet member cannot simply assume the statutory power of another because the outcome appears administratively convenient.
Nor may constitutional safeguards be treated as red tape.
The rule of law is often tested not when government does something obviously malicious, but when government pursues a seemingly sensible objective through a legally questionable process.
Once citizens accept the principle that the correct source of power does not matter, the door opens much wider than any single set of financial regulations.
Today it is crypto.
Tomorrow it may be property, identity, movement, access to services or participation in the economy.
What happens now?
The matter will proceed in the normal course.
LFN and the Respondents will seek judicial case management from the Judge President. That process should assist in determining a proper timetable, regulating the production of the relevant records, narrowing the disputes and arranging the adjudication of the merits.
At present, it appears highly unlikely that final Capital Flow Management Regulations will suddenly be promulgated without careful consideration.
The President, Minister of Finance, National Treasury, State Attorney and their legal representatives are now fully aware of the potential constitutional difficulty.
That awareness is itself an important form of protection.
But LFN will not assume that awareness alone is enough.
The challenge must continue until legal certainty is obtained.
LFN needs renewed public support
This case demonstrates precisely why LFN exists.
We do not wait until a questionable system has already been implemented and ordinary people begin suffering under it.
We investigate.
We comment.
We warn.
Where necessary, we litigate.
LFN receives no guaranteed institutional funding. We do not charge our members for the legal guidance and public-interest work we provide. We rely upon voluntary public support to continue travelling, printing, filing, researching and appearing in matters of national importance.
This case affects far more than crypto traders.
It concerns every South African whose future economic participation may depend upon a digital identity, a digital payment system and rules written into an increasingly automated financial network.
The constitutional question is therefore not merely:
“How should cryptocurrency be regulated?”
The real question is:
“Who may lawfully build and control the digital gates through which our money must one day pass?”
LFN intends to ensure that this question is answered openly, constitutionally and in the interests of the people.
Please support our work, share this article widely and encourage others to follow the case.
Digital systems may be complicated.
The constitutional principle is not:
No public power without lawful authority.
If you like our work, why not consider a donation or gift of your choice?
or make a quick donation… MobiPaid
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.