Rehabilitasie na sekwestrasie ingevolge die Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936 is die enigste wyse waarop 'n natuurlike persoon ingevolge die Suid-Afrikaanse verbruikersinsolvensiereg 'n kwytskelding van voorinsolvensie skuld op sy of haar skuldeisers kan afdwing. Alhoewel skuldenaars ook skuldverligting kan bekom deur die prosesse van administrasie en skuldhersiening te inisieer, maak hierdie prosesse nie vir enige kwytskelding voorsiening nie. Verder: alhoewel 'n kwytskelding een van die gevolge van rehabilitasie is, is dit nie 'n hoofdoelwit van die Insolvensiewet om skuldverligting aan skuldenaars te verleen nie en is 'n kwytskelding beskore slegs vir skuldenaars wat oor voldoende bates beskik om voordeel vir skuldeisers te bewys. Daarteenoor is rehabilitasie en derhalwe die verlening van 'n sogenaamde fresh start (oftewel 'n vars begin) 'n hoofdoelwit van verbruikersinsolvensieregstelsels wêreldwyd.
Ingevolge die Wêreldbank se nuutste verslag oor verbruikersinsolvensie moet die ekonomiese rehabilitasie van skuldenaars een van die hoofdoelwitte van 'n verbruikersinsolvensieregstelsel wees. Die standpunt is dat die verlening van 'n blote kwytskelding ingevolge insolvensiewetgewing nie voldoende is om aan skuldenaars 'n betekenisvolle fresh start te verleen nie. Blywende skuldverligting moet verleen word en skuldenaars moet in staat gestel word om oorbesteding in die toekoms te vermy.
In hierdie artikel word rehabilitasie ingevolge die Suid-Afrikaanse verbruikersinsolvensiereg ondersoek met die doel om dit teen internasionale tendense en riglyne te meet en uiteindelik voorstelle vir regshervorming te maak. Die onderskeid tussen die Anglo-Amerikaanse "straight discharge"- en die Europese "earned discharge"-benaderings word onder die vergrootglas geplaas en met die Suid-Afrikaanse regsposisie vergelyk. Die ondersoek toon dat die Suid-Afrikaanse stelsel, vergeleke met ander stelsels, in 'n baie beperkte mate op die rehabilitasie van skuldenaars gerig is.
Daar word aan die hand gedoen dat regshervorming aan die hand van die belangrike grondbeginsels van rehabilitasie soos uiteengesit in die Wêreldbankverslag moet plaasvind. Alle skuldenaars, ook diegene wat nie voordeel vir skuldeisers kan bewys nie, moet in staat wees om 'n kwytskelding van skuld te ontvang. Insolvensiebeperkings en onbevoegdhede wat voor en na rehabilitasie op skuldenaars van toepassing is, moet sover moontlik afgeskaal word en die wetgewer moet aandag gee aan wetgewing en meganismes wat op die bevordering van verantwoordelike kredietgebruik gerig is.
Rehabilitation after sequestration in terms of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 is the only way in which a natural-person debtor may force a discharge of pre-sequestration debts on his or her creditors. Although a debtor may obtain debt relief by implementing the income restructuring procedures of administration in terms of section 74 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 and debt review in terms of section 86 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005, these procedures do not provide for any discharge of debt. Moreover, although a discharge of debt is one of the consequences of rehabilitation, the primary object of the Insolvency Act is not to grant debt relief to harassed debtors, but rather to benefit creditors. The act lays down advantage to creditors as a prerequisite for sequestration applications and rehabilitation and the concomitant discharge of pre-sequestration debts are thus only available to debtors who have sufficient disposable assets to prove advantage. As opposed to this, rehabilitation, and thus the opportunity to obtain a so-called fresh start, is an important feature of consumer insolvency systems worldwide.
Over the past few decades the world has witnessed not only a strong increase in the granting of credit to individuals, but also a sharp increase in the levels of consumer over-indebtedness. However, the South African situation is unique as the system has to deal with a developed first world economy as well as a developing third world economy that reflects in consumer patterns and needs. Probably as a consequence of apartheid, the position is still that some consumers can obtain credit from the conventional financial institutions while the majority have to approach the so-called micro-lenders that grant loans at high interest rates. The question thus arises whether the South African system, with an insolvency act that dates from 1936, provides for adequate debt relief measures to comply with all needs. However, it should be clear that the system is extremely creditor-oriented and over the past 20 years several commentators have repeatedly requested law reform that would bring about a more balanced approach. Among other things, the view is that the exclusion of certain debtors, commonly known as the "no income no asset debtors" (NINA debtors), from a discharge procedure merely because they are not able to prove advantage, may be unconstitutional as it infringes their fundamental right of equality.
