New ‘Afrikaans Uber’ Faces Legal Challenges
The new Afrikaans Uber, Wanatu, a new e-hailing service launched in Centurion and Pretoria in October 2024, has quickly gained traction in South Africa’s competitive ride-hailing market. With over 30,000 driver registrations reported by late January 2025, the company’s rapid growth demonstrates the strong demand for its services. However, Wanatu’s Afrikaans language requirement for drivers has sparked significant legal and social debates, raising concerns about fairness, equality, and potential legal violations.
ALSO READ: Uber and Bolt Drivers Protest in Gauteng Over Vehicle Impoundments, Halting Pretoria Traffic
Wanatu’s Afrikaans Language Policy And Legal Challenges
Funded by private investors, Wanatu was developed to offer a distinct service that prioritizes Afrikaans speakers. CEO Judith van der Walt highlighted the company’s mission to “restore dignity in our communities’ jobs in Afrikaans.” While the app accommodates English-speaking users through a built-in translation feature, the company requires its drivers to demonstrate Afrikaans proficiency.
Although the platform’s focus on Afrikaans is part of its unique value proposition, the language requirement has raised eyebrows among legal experts and labor advocates. Critics argue that such a policy could violate South Africa’s constitutional and labor laws, which explicitly protect against discrimination based on language.
Legal Concerns and Expert Opinions
According to legal experts from Werksmans Attorneys, Wanatu’s Afrikaans language requirement could contravene Section 9(4) of the South African Constitution and Section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act (EEA). These provisions prohibit both direct and indirect discrimination, including discrimination based on language.
Werksmans Attorneys explained that if Wanatu employs its drivers as staff rather than independent contractors, it must justify the language requirement as rational and indispensable for the job. Case law in South Africa provides a precedent for determining whether language requirements are lawful. For instance:
- 2006 Stojce v University of KwaZulu-Natal and Another: The Labour Court upheld a decision requiring sufficient English fluency for a senior lecturer role, citing effective communication as essential to job performance.
- 2021 De Bruyn v Metorex Proprietary Limited: The Labour Appeal Court ruled that requiring Chinese proficiency for managerial positions was justified due to the company’s operational reliance on Chinese communication.
However, Wanatu’s ability to accommodate non-Afrikaans-speaking users through its translation feature may weaken its argument that Afrikaans proficiency is indispensable for drivers. The translation feature indicates that the service can operate in a multilingual environment, making the Afrikaan’s requirement potentially redundant.
If Wanatu’s drivers are classified as independent contractors, the EEA’s provisions would not apply. Nonetheless, the company could still face scrutiny under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), which prohibits unfair discrimination in both public and private sectors.
Balancing Language Preservation and Inclusivity
Wanatu’s focus on Afrikaans aligns with broader efforts to preserve South Africa’s linguistic and cultural heritage. Language is a powerful tool for fostering a sense of belonging and maintaining cultural identity, particularly in a multicultural country like South Africa. However, such efforts must be balanced with the constitutional imperative to promote inclusivity and equality.
Legal experts warn that language policies if not carefully implemented, can perpetuate marginalization and undermine social cohesion. In a society striving to overcome historical divisions, businesses like Wanatu must consider the broader implications of their policies on diversity and equality.
Public and Societal Reactions
Wanatu’s launch has sparked mixed reactions across South Africa. Supporters praise the platform for promoting Afrikaans and providing economic opportunities for Afrikaans-speaking drivers. Detractors, however, question whether the language requirement is fair or necessary, particularly in a region as diverse as Gauteng, where multiple languages are commonly spoken.
Critics argue that prioritizing one language over others in a public-facing service risks alienating non-Afrikaans speakers and creating barriers to employment. Others have expressed concerns that Wanatu’s policy could set a dangerous precedent, opening the door to other exclusionary practices.
Future Outlook for Wanatu
As Wanatu continues to grow, the company faces mounting pressure to address the legal and ethical questions surrounding its language policy. Courts reviewing potential cases against Wanatu would likely evaluate whether its Afrikaans requirement is proportionate, necessary, and fair.
Beyond Wanatu’s legal challenges, Wanatu’s approach underscores the complex interplay between cultural preservation and inclusivity in South Africa’s evolving society. Striking the right balance will be crucial not only for Wanatu’s long-term success but also for fostering unity and equality in a diverse nation.
While Wanatu’s mission to promote Afrikaans is commendable, its success will ultimately depend on how well it can navigate South Africa’s legal landscape and respond to public concerns about fairness and inclusivity. Whether the “Afrikaans Uber” can maintain its unique identity without compromising on equality remains to be seen.
