PunchTrump hails Russia deal to release diesel as midterms loomThe Jerusalem PostThe West Bank revolution: How Bezalel Smotrich changed Israel's map for the better - opinionBollywood HungamaAjay Devgn begins shooting for Chauhaan in Kargil; returns to Ladakh 23 years after LOC: KargilInquirerRecto orders faster public spending, early procurement for super El NiñoESPN Deportes¡En vivo! La lluvia provoca que se demore la arrancada de la carrera sprintESPNTransfer rumors, news: Man United youngster Gabriel has Bayern Munich talksZDF heuteAktuelle Pressemitteilungen des ZDFCNN TürkSavaş, ABD'deki sandığa kilitlendi: Trump ve İran neden ara seçimleri bekliyor?UOLApucarana terá sábado chuvoso com máxima de 25°C, prevê SimeparColliderJust 1 Week Later, Tom Cruise’s Ambitious New Movie Is Officially Getting the IMAX BootSRF NewsNach dem Hitzesommer – Skifahren auf schwindendem Eis: Wie lange noch?Antara NewsGov't to build three egg, meat processing plants: Minister
The Daily Newsstand · Free, Always
Saturday, October 10, 2026

SASSA breaks its silence on grants paid to people who should not have received them

Translate

The South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) has responded to reports that grant money was paid to people who were allegedly ineligible to receive it during the 2025/2026 financial year.

In a media statement issued on Friday, 9 October, the agency said it welcomed “the continued scrutiny of the administration of public funds.” The matter came before the Portfolio Committee on Social Development on Wednesday, 7 October.

SASSA says the grant system must be protected

SASSA said social assistance remains a constitutional obligation and a critical safety net for millions of vulnerable South Africans. However, the agency stressed that it must also shield the system from abuse.

“It is therefore equally important that the social grants system is protected against fraud, abuse, error, misrepresentation and payments to people who no longer meet the requirements for social assistance,” the statement reads.

The agency argued that the public should view the reported payments against the broader measures it has intensified to strengthen the integrity of the grant system.

Agency rejects claims that reviews target legitimate beneficiaries

SASSA acknowledged that its intensified grant reviews and eLife certification measures have drawn criticism from some sections of society and from interest groups.

Critics have raised concerns that these interventions aim to push legitimate beneficiaries out of the system. SASSA called that view “outrightly incorrect.”

“The integrity of the social grants system cannot be protected by avoiding reviews simply because reviews may be uncomfortable or inconvenient,” the agency said.

According to SASSA, its job is to make sure grants reach people who meet the eligibility requirements and who continue to meet them for as long as they receive assistance.

‘Controls must therefore evolve’

The agency said these interventions matter because the social assistance system manages substantial public resources and serves millions of beneficiaries.

SASSA added that it cannot rely on old records forever, because identities, personal circumstances and payment arrangements change over time.

“Controls must therefore evolve accordingly,” the statement concludes.

For grant recipients, the message is clear. SASSA will continue with reviews, eLife certification and biometric enrolment. The agency maintains that people who qualify have nothing to fear.

“Where beneficiaries are legitimately entitled to social assistance, they should not fear a process designed to verify that they remain eligible,” SASSA said.

Win R2 000 in the South African SASSA grant survey

If you receive a SASSA grant and want to share your story, we want to hear from you.

Take part in our survey and stand a chance to win R2 000. Your responses help us tell the stories that matter

View the original on The South African →

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.