SASSA Explains Why It Paid Grants to 75,000 Dead People

SASSA presented its audit action plan to Parliament on Wednesday.

• A total of R140-million was paid to about 75,000 dead people in 2023/24.
• SASSA says grants are sometimes paid to deceased beneficiaries because they pass away during the payment cycle and sometimes death registrations with Home Affairs are delayed.
• Irregular expenditure at SASSA has dropped from R1.8-billion in 2018/19 to R1.1-million in 2024/25, which the agency attributed to improved oversight and training.
• The Hawks are investigating potentially fraudulent disability and old-age grant payments made to 486 beneficiaries at the Cradock Local Office between 2018 and 2023.

The South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) has blamed delays in death registrations and system limitations for its payment of R140-million in social grants to about 75,000 deceased beneficiaries.

On Wednesday, SASSA presented its audit action plan to Parliament’s portfolio committee on social development, following a financially unqualified opinion by the Auditor-General for 2023/24.

SASSA Chief Financial Officer Tsakeriwa Chauke explained that the issue stemmed from the timing of payment processing. At the end of each month, SASSA prepares payment files for the next month. But some beneficiaries may pass away between when the payment file is generated and when the payment is made, and they are included in the payment run.

Chauke said the agency is working on a new system, set to be tested in April, which will allow bulk recalls of payments to beneficiaries found to have died based on record of the Department of Home Affairs.

Executive manager for grant operations at SASSA Brenton van Vrede said, “Although we are fully synchronised with Home Affairs, we are still dependent on citizens reporting a death.”

He explained that while most death cases are captured, some fall through the cracks, representing 0.02% of the total grant budget.

SASSA is also investigating potentially fraudulent disability and old-age grant payments made to 486 beneficiaries at the Cradock Local Office between 2018 and 2023. Chauke confirmed that these payments have been suspended and that the Hawks are investigating the officials involved.

“Based on the preliminary assessment, we’ll know whether there’s a need for disciplinary processes, if SASSA officials are involved, and have a full criminal investigation,” Chauke said.

Irregular expenditure has decreased

The agency’s irregular expenditure peaked at R1.8 billion in 2018/19. For 2023/24, it was R34.2-million and for 2024/25 it has dropped to R1.1-million. Chauke attributed the decrease to improved oversight and supply chain management training.

The R1.1-million irregular expenditure for 2024/25 consisted of:

• R1-million in the Western Cape for unapproved cleaning services;
• R77,000 in the Eastern Cape due to an “unapproved variation order”;
• and R49,000 in the Northern Cape paid to a doctor with an expired contract.

The Auditor-General also identified five cases of material irregularities in the 2023/24 financial statements:

• R74-million paid to the controversial Cash Paymaster Services (CPS) in 2018 for services that were not rendered;
• R316-million overpaid to CPS, which the High Court in Pretoria ruled CPS should pay back to SASSA;
• R150-million in R350 SRD grants paid to ineligible applicants;
• R7.8-million awarded to a company for photocopy machines in the Eastern Cape;
• and R1.7-million in fraudulent social grant payments made by SASSA officials.

Chauke said the material irregularities from 2023/24 were now resolved and will not appear in the 2024/25 audit later this year. The CPS matter is with the company’s liquidators and the other material irregularities are receiving legal attention and being investigated.

“The Auditor-General evaluated all the steps we’ve taken and was satisfied with the way management has handled these cases,” Chauke said.

Insufficient record keeping

The Auditor-General found that not all beneficiaries who received grants were listed in SASSA’s Beneficiary Records Management (BRM) system. SASSA uses two databases – BRM and the Social Grant Payment System (SOCPEN) – which are not fully synchronised.

Chauke said SASSA’s internal audits found discrepancies and missing information in some cases. He said they would do a population analysis to measure records in SOCPEN against BRM. “Whatever exceptions we find, we will resolve,” he said.

The Auditor-General also flagged issues with the manual registers used in local offices. Chauke explained that when someone visits a SASSA office, their details are recorded in a manual register. Auditors found that some of the beneficiaries listed in these registers were not reflected in the agency’s internal control and assurance system.

This raised concerns about the completeness of enquiry records and whether all cases were properly logged in SASSA’s digital systems. Chauke said SASSA is working to address these gaps and is phasing out manual registrations except when systems are down.

MPs react

Committee chair Bridget Masango (DA) questioned whether SASSA gave enough attention to internal auditors. “If we strengthen our internal audits and act on their reports, we won’t have as many findings made by the Auditor-General,” she said.

Stanley Ramila (ANC) commended efforts to curb fraud but warned against officials resigning to avoid disciplinary action. “When this happens, it’s an indication that these officials have judged themselves guilty,” he said, suggesting that pension payouts be withheld until cases are resolved.

But Paulnita Marais (EFF) criticised the slow pace of fraud investigations. “Some of these cases happened in 2018 and still today aren’t sorted out,” she said.

Chauke assured Parliament that progress is being made. Although challenges remain, he said SASSA is taking steps to strengthen financial controls and improve audit outcomes.

© 2025 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.

We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.