JOHANNESBURG – The Constitutional Court has expressed serious concerns that the SA Social Security Agency (Sassa) may have acted in contempt of court. This follows revelations that no budget was allocated to continue services linked to the Postbank grant payment system, despite a standing court order to maintain the status quo.
The court convened yesterday to hear arguments on whether to grant Postbank an interim interdict to prevent Sassa from terminating the master service agreement (MSA), which governs essential services related to social grant payments.
The justices raised pointed questions about whether Sassa deliberately reprioritized funds while litigation over the MSA termination was still before the court, potentially violating the court's order.
Deputy Chief Justice Dustin Mlambo questioned why the matter was even before the court, given the apparent failure of the interministerial committee (IMC) to effectively mediate the dispute. "The underlying reason is clear from the IMC report: there has been no attempt to bring the parties together to resolve these disputes. This is also a concern for this court. There is a court order, and we expect parties to comply…" Mlambo's remarks underscored the court's frustration with the lack of progress in resolving the dispute.
Postbank’s lawyer, Realeboga Tshetlo, informed the court that the IMC process had stalled due to Sassa's continued intention to terminate the MSA, despite the pending court process and presidential intervention. Tshetlo argued that the IMC process should be restarted, as the current stalemate was not beneficial.
Tshetlo also highlighted concerns about the composition of the IMC, noting that the exclusion of the finance minister was problematic, given that the dispute involved R30 billion from national coffers. "Respectfully, the ministers who convened the IMC excluded the minister of finance, which is problematic since this concerns R30bn from national coffers," he stated.
Justice Zukisa Tshiqi questioned whether Sassa, along with the relevant minister, had ignored the December 2025 court order. "It’s important because I need to know if it was Sassa, the minister, or National Treasury that disregarded our order. No budget means no payments — that’s contempt," she asserted.
Sassa’s advocate, Oupa Modisa, conceded that there was "no approved allocation" for the continuation of the MSA in the 2026/2027 financial year. However, he maintained that grant payments to beneficiaries would continue uninterrupted and that only the MSA was at issue, with no prejudice to beneficiaries. "Grant payments to beneficiaries continue uninterrupted. There is no disruption — only the MSA is at issue, with no prejudice to beneficiaries. Sassa was informed that the MSA allocation was reprioritised; funds are no longer available for the contract, not grant payments," Modisa explained.
Justice Steven Majiedt pressed Sassa on how the budget reprioritization occurred despite the standing court order. "You can’t just wave this away and say this is a commercial agreement. The department wouldn’t know that these funds should be reprioritised. Sassa must have told them to reprioritise, isn’t it?" Majiedt questioned.
"Here is the court order in December 2025. It says, ‘retain the status quo while we decide this issue.’ Then, in March 2026, there comes a budget allocation letter stating that those funds have been reprioritised. Is that not in contempt of the court order?" Majiedt asked, emphasizing the apparent contradiction between the court order and the subsequent budget decision.
Sassa denied any intention to defy the court. "We’re in no means having an intention to be in contempt of court or disregard the court order," Modisa stated.
The Constitutional Court has reserved judgment on the matter, leaving the future of the MSA and the potential consequences for Sassa uncertain.
