MEDIA STATEMENT: THE LATEST POLITICAL FUNDING DISCLOSURES REVEAL SECRECY AND NONCOMPLIANCE

Much has been made in the media of the overall amount disclosed in the latest IEC quarterly report of private funding to political parties. Parties collectively disclosed just shy of R100 million for the period from 01 January to 31 March 2026. However, there have been quarters in which parties have received significantly more. In the period between January and March 2024, parties received more than R150 million, followed by almost R200 million in the subsequent quarter. Of particular interest is that the total value of private donations above the disclosure threshold has now exceeded R1 billion

With a few exceptions, the latest quarterly disclosures do not provide many new insights into the private funding of South African politics. We know the donors that dominate the landscape, many of whom represent economically powerful sectors of the economy such as mining and finance. Patrice Motsepe’s Botho Botho (R10 million) to the ANC; Betway billionaire Martin Moshal (R5 million) and Heman Mashaba (R3 million) to ActionSA; Main Street 1564 and Harry Oppenheimer’s daughter Mary Slack (R10 million each), and R23 million cumulatively from two entities controlled by Capitec founder Michiel Le Roux to the DA. As has been the case in every quarter of 2025/26, the DA received the lion’s share of disclosed private funding.

However, there are two main takeaways from this set of disclosures. First, problems persist with parties complying with their disclosure obligations. Second, we remain in the dark regarding the identity of many donors, with the R30 million loan/donation from We are the People to Rise Mzansi being emblematic of opacity and an obvious loophole in a law that is meant to promote transparency.

COMPLIANCE IN PRINCIPLE, NONCOMPLIANCE IN PRACTICE

Noncompliance is something we have seen in most quarters. Parties regularly report after the prescribed deadline. After five years of the Political Funding Act (PFA), the basics reporting requirements are not consistently adhered to. This is simply unacceptable and undermines key tenets of the law.

Of particular interest in this reporting period is the ANC’s failure to report two donations that were disclosed by their donors. One of these unreported donations came from Valumax, a company that has received billions in tenders from Gauteng’s Department of Human Settlements. According to the M&G, Valumax donated R29.5 million to the ANC (before the PFA existed) between May 2018 and February 2020, and one of its directors is a friend of the deputy president, Paul Mashatile. Since April 2021, the company has donated almost R3 million to the party.

There is sufficient evidence to show that not all political parties, whether represented or unrepresented, are fully complying with their legal obligations under the law. This includes failing to disclose donations on time, failing to submit audited financial statements, or failing to disclose donations altogether. There are allegations that the activities of parties like the EFF and MKP are irreconcilable with their stated income, and further, that the IEC is not sufficiently investigating and enforcing noncompliance.

The IEC has indicated that it is working towards intensifying investigations into valid complaints lodged against political parties and candidates. However, its ability to enforce the PFA is limited by the fact that it can only investigate complaints with prima facie evidence of noncompliance. In the absence of a valid complaint, its powers to investigate parties for noncompliance are limited.

The IEC must be given adequate funding, staffing capacity, and a clear legislative mandate to monitor and investigate parties’ funding sources and fundraising activities. The fact that the IEC’s budget for its Party Funding programme remained static at R25 million per year for several years and is set to decrease to R23 million for the 2026/2027 financial year further limits its powers to fully implement the law. The IEC’s enforcement limitations were identified as a major concern in the HSRCs 2025 report, entitled Regulating Political Finance in South Africa.

There are, however, measures that do not require extensive budgets or investigative capacity and which, if implemented, would significantly improve the value of the disclosures. For example, identifying information that would enable the public to know who donors are is available and should be disclosed.

TRANSPARENCY IN NAME, SECRECY IN PRACTICE

The most striking aspect of the latest disclosures is the R30 million from an entity called We are the People to Rise Mzansi. This is significant for two interrelated reasons. First, it appears to be the first time under the PFA that a loan has been converted into a donation. MVC raised concerns about this possibility in a 2025 report, highlighting that such scenarios could be problematic. Second, it is the first R30 million donation disclosed under the PFA.

In August 2025, the President doubled the maximum donation limit from R15 million to R30 million. We have consistently pointed out that the process leading to this decision to double the maximum donation limit, first in Parliament and ultimately by the President, was deeply flawed and unsupported by empirical evidence. MVC was successful in a Rule 53 application that compelled the President to provide us with the record that was before him when he made his decision. We are currently engaged in litigation aimed at having the President’s decision declared unlawful, unreasonable, irrational, and set aside.

The primary concern with this loan/donation is that the public has no idea who We are the People actually is. There is no publicly available information online – no website, no details of its directors, and no registration on CIPC. For an entity that donates R30 million to a political party, it is remarkable that nothing is publicly known about it. This renders the disclosure almost meaningless from a transparency perspective, because the principal value of a disclosure lies in enabling the public to identify the donor.

However, the problem extends beyond the donation from We are the People. It highlights something fundamentally wrong with the disclosure regime. While some donors to political parties are identifiable because they are well known individuals or companies with public profiles, other donors that have made contributions since the PFA came into effect are simply not identifiable. The issue is not that this information does not exist when disclosures are made. The PFA has a dual disclosure mechanism. Both the party receiving the donation and the donor are required to complete and submit forms to the IEC. These forms, available here on pages 25 and 26, require donors to provide identifying information, including their identity, registration numbers, or trust numbers. Given the potential for undue influence associated with private donations, a donor’s privacy cannot supersede the public’s right of access to information necessary making informed political decisions.

MVC will be making PAIA applications to request information about all donors that are not identifiable. We are also exploring ways to improve the level of detailed information included in the IEC’s quarterly reports. Having to submit PAIA applications should not be a requirement to identify a donor.

CONCLUSION

The changes to the disclosure threshold and maximum donation limit that came into effect in August 2025 continue to increase secrecy in political funding and enhance the ability of donors to exert greater influence over our politics. While we have made great strides with the PFA, South Africa remains far from having a fully effective system. MVC is involved in ongoing litigation aimed at strengthening the PFA so that it can be able to achieve its stated objectives of transparency and accountability.

Secrecy and noncompliance undermine the ability of voters, journalists, civil society, and oversight institutions to scrutinise political funding and assess whether money may be influencing political decision-making. When disclosures are late, incomplete, or fail to reveal the true source of funding, accountability is weakened and the public is denied information that is necessary to make informed democratic choices.

To find out more about political funding, the disclosures and how much money political parties receive, please visit our new and improved Whose Vote Counts 2.0.