R30 million to make Sassa CEO look good

Sassa is the South African Social Security Agency. It is a government agency responsible for delivering social security services, including social grants. Its chief executive is the senior manager responsible for directing the organisation and ensuring that it carries out its public mandate.

The chief executive would normally oversee strategy, administration, finances and senior officials. The article focuses on Themba Matlou, who became acting CEO after Totsie Memela was suspended and was later appointed permanently. It also links his office to tender approvals and the appointment of bid evaluation committee members.

That makes the CEO’s conduct important beyond ordinary management. Decisions about a R30-million communications contract and procurement committees can affect public money, suppliers and Sassa’s reputation. The article reports allegations against Matlou, but they remain allegations; it also records that the Public Protector previously cleared him over one claim and later found other irregularities involving him and officials.

The contract was a communications and stakeholder engagement tender allegedly approved by Sassa chief executive Themba Matlou. It was intended to run for three years, from 2025 to 2028. Communications contracts can cover public messaging, events and engagement with stakeholders, but this tender is under scrutiny because of how sources say it was used.

Sources told the Mail & Guardian that the arrangement helped organise media briefing sessions and influence journalists. Sassa’s chief director of communications, Paseka Letsatsi, allegedly arranged briefings at hotels across provinces. In September 2026, a media engagement took place at the Kennaway Hotel in East London while Sassa executives met elsewhere.

The concern is that a public communications programme may have become a tool for managing unfavourable reporting about Matlou. Sources said the sessions discouraged journalists from publishing allegations involving him. The article provides those claims and invoice evidence, but it does not establish that the contract was unlawfully used.

The communications and stakeholder engagement contract was valued at R30 million and was intended to last three years, from 2025 to 2028. That is a substantial allocation for communications work at a public agency. Its scale matters because procurement decisions determine how public funds are committed and monitored.

Invoices seen by the Mail & Guardian show payments to event production company Chulumanco Lilitha during the first year. The payments totalled R29,038,816.33. According to the article, that first-year spending was allegedly close to the entire stated value of the three-year contract.

The figures raise questions about whether spending matched the contract’s purpose, timetable and value. They also intensify scrutiny of the tender because sources connected the events to efforts to manage reporting about Matlou. The article reports alleged spending and allegations from sources; it does not provide a final finding that the payments were unlawful.

Media briefings are not automatically improper. Public agencies may need to explain policies and answer questions. The concern arises when officials allegedly use publicly funded events to build personal relationships with journalists or discourage scrutiny. That can weaken independent reporting and reduce the public’s access to information about possible wrongdoing.

The article describes briefings organised by Paseka Letsatsi at hotels across provinces. In one week in September 2026, Sassa held a media engagement at the Kennaway Hotel in East London, while its executive committee met at the International Convention Centre. Invoices linked related event payments to Chulumanco Lilitha.

Sources said the arrangements created a perception that Matlou and Letsatsi had cultivated journalists to prevent unfavourable coverage. The reported R29,038,816.33 first-year spend adds a public-money concern. The key issue is whether events delivered legitimate communication value, or mainly served private reputational interests. The article presents allegations, not a completed investigation finding.

A bid evaluation committee, or BEC, is a group that examines suppliers’ tender submissions against the stated requirements. It assesses issues such as compliance, capability and pricing, then supports a recommendation about the preferred service provider. Its work matters because government procurement must be fair, competitive and transparent.

The article says Matlou took over approval of BEC appointments under his office. A source alleged that this gave him the ability to select members who would follow his instructions about which providers to appoint. The article also reports claims that, during a 2021 communications tender, people associated with Matlou improperly stored bid documents.

Control over membership could create a conflict if the person influencing the committee also has an interest in the outcome. Retained bid documents could expose confidential information, allowing preferred bidders to adjust prices or proposals, according to a source. These are allegations requiring investigation; the article does not report a final finding on the tender’s fairness.

The current tender is attracting scrutiny because it follows earlier allegations about Matlou and Sassa. Sources alleged maladministration and corruption, and said complaints were reported to the Public Protector and Public Service Commission without investigations producing accountability. The article does not say every allegation was proven.

A 2018 video reportedly showed Matlou campaigning for a Gauteng ANC provincial executive committee position while using state funds. The Public Protector later cleared him of irregular use of funds. However, a 2023 Public Protector report found irregularities involving Matlou and other senior officials that cost Sassa R278 million while he was Gauteng regional executive.

The article also refers to claims about improperly stored bid documents in a 2021 communications tender. These earlier events matter because they raise questions about procurement controls and oversight when a new communications contract allegedly spent R29,038,816.33 in its first year. The article does not state that the current tender has been found unlawful.

Safeguards exist to ensure that public money is spent for lawful public purposes. Procurement rules should require open, fair evaluation, documented decisions and protection of confidential bids. Independent investigations then test whether officials or suppliers breached those rules. These controls matter because public agencies manage resources belonging to citizens.

Oversight bodies such as the Public Protector and Public Service Commission can examine complaints and irregular conduct. Internal controls should also limit conflicts of interest, separate tender approval from evaluation and preserve an audit trail. In this case, the article says complaints about Matlou were reported to both bodies, while a 2023 Public Protector report found irregularities costing Sassa R278 million.

The safeguards only work when allegations are investigated and findings lead to consequences. The article says some investigations against Matlou fell flat and that complaints produced no investigations, according to a source. That makes scrutiny of the current tender important. It does not, however, establish that the tender or Matlou breached the law.