The ghost of past discrimination still haunts the country's retirement funds which could be forced to pay out billions of rands in compensation to victims.
The huge state pension fund has provisionally set aside R1,5 billion to compensate employees who were victims of discrimination in the past, particularly "casual" employees who worked for years for the government but were never allowed to join the pension fund.
Neva Makgetla, deputy director-general of Public Service Administration and head of the Pension Task Team set up by the government and the civil service unions to look into the issue, says this will not affect the pensions of any member of the fund.
But there is no indication yet of how private sector funds will deal with the issue.
Makgetla says Government and the unions have agreed to set aside one percent of the state pension fund's assets as a pool from which victims can claim.
The task team is now identifying categories of people who can claim compensation. Women teachers, who were struck off the fund's books when they married, could also be in line for compensation.
A report will be delivered to the Public Service Bargaining Chamber, which brings together the government and the public sector unions, before the end of the year, Makgetla says.
"We expect that the biggest group of people who can claim will be those who have no pensions at all, because they were classified as casual or temporary employees. Some of them worked for the state for 20 years."
She says the decision to set aside one percent of the fund's assets will not affect any member's pension because it is a defined benefit fund, guaranteed by the state.
The decision by the State Pension Fund could open the floodgates for thousands of people who were victims of discrimination in private sector pension funds.
It is also likely to trigger heated debate as to who should finance compensation, says pensions consultant Peter Strasheim.
"Private sector claims could run into billions. Someone will have to pay.
"The state has taken the lead and now it is up to the industry and the Financial Services Board (FSB) to develop a code of conduct for the future and decide who should pay."
Some, such as Sanlam employee benefits head Chris Bosenberg, think the company concerned should foot the bill.
"We must be sympathetic to those who were discriminated against in the past, but it is the company concerned, and not the retirement fund, which must pay," says Bosenberg.
He says each case should be negotiated on its merits and the costs of paying compensation must be weighed against the risk of the company going out of business. But neither past nor present members of retirement funds should be expected to finance compensation, he says.
The head of the pensions department of the FSB, Dube Tshidi, agrees it would not be right to take money from retirement fund members who had no hand in excluding others from their fund.
"It would be a good thing if we could redress the wrongs of the past. But we cannot take money to compensate those who were disadvantaged, from those who were advantaged through no action of their own."
"When employers set up retirement funds they turn to administrators for help. Depending on the kind of advice given, some adminstrators may find it difficult to escape part of the responsibility for discriminatory practices."
Tshidi says at the moment the FSB's role is limited to checking that the rules of retirement funds conform to the law. But the board could co-operate with business in drawing up guidelines for retirement funds to help them tackle the issue of compensation, he says.
"We would like to work together with the retirement industry, the Pension Funds Adjudicator and the labour movement on this issue."