SASSA responds to R1.33-billion AUDIT fallout

SASSA has responded to the fallout from the Auditor-General’s damning findings last week. In a media statement, the agency insisted it, “strengthens social grant controls to protect the integrity of the social assistance system.”

Likewise, the agency “noted recent media reports” of R1.33 billion paid to allegedly ineligible beneficiaries in the 2025/26 financial year. It said it welcomed the scrutiny raised before Parliament’s portfolio committee on social development on Wednesday 7 October 2026 …

SASSA AUDIT FALLOUT

The South African Social Security Agency’s core message is that what it does is a ‘constitutional obligation.’ As such, SASSA acts as a critical safety net and protecting it against fraud, abuse, error and misrepresentation is part of that same duty. Moreover, it acknowledged that its practice of on-going grant reviews and eLife certification has drawn criticism.

Many large interest groups argue the measures end up pushing legitimate beneficiaries out of the system. However, SASSA calls that view incorrect. It reminds those receiving social grants that: “They are not an unconditional entitlement that continues irrespective of changes in a beneficiary’s circumstances.”

WHAT’S REALLY BEHIND SASSA REVIEWS

Therefore, beneficiaries must tell SASSA when their income, employment, marital status, banking details or residential circumstances change. It’s just one part of grant reviews that act as an administrative mechanism to verify that beneficiaries still qualify. The system’s integrity “cannot be protected by avoiding reviews simply because reviews may be uncomfortable or inconvenient.”

Moreover, eLife certification aims to establish whether beneficiaries are still alive and are the legitimate recipients, so as to not make payments to the deceased. And beneficiary biometric enrolment strengthens real-time identity verification, and reduces impersonation and fraudulent transactions.

DON’T FEAR THE PROCESS

SASSA says none of the above controls are designed to arbitrarily terminate grants. And beneficiaries should not fear a process designed to verify their eligibility. Unfortunately, the framing doesn’t exactly line up with the Auditor-General’s findings. It complains that the agency leans heavily on applicant-submitted information and poorly integrated government IT systems that can easily be manipulated. This is prefaced by more the R260 million being fraudulently paid to government employees annually. A number that’s risen from the year before …

But what do you think? Should SASSA face harsh censure after the Auditor-Generals findings? What accountability processes should there be? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below …