WATCH | ConCourt raises contempt concerns against Sassa over grants payments

The Constitutional Court has raised concern that the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) may have acted in contempt of court after it emerged that no budget had been allocated to continue key services linked to the Postbank grant payment system.

This is despite a court order that the status quo remain in place.

The court is hearing arguments on Tuesday to determine whether it should grant Postbank an interim interdict to prevent Sassa from terminating the master service agreement (MSA) for the payment of social grants.

The justices questioned whether Sassa deliberately reprioritised funds while litigation over the termination of the MSA was still before the court.

The MSA between Sassa and Postbank is an agreement that governs services attached to social grant payments.

Deputy chief justice Dustin Mlambo questioned why the matter was before the court when the interministerial committee (IMC) process failed to properly 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,” he said.

“This is also a concern for this court. There is a court order, and we expect parties to comply rather than undermine it.”

Postbank’s legal representative Realeboga Tshetlo told the court that the IMC process had effectively stalled because Sassa remained intent on terminating the MSA despite the pending court process and presidential intervention.

“The pleadings’ arguments were canvassed, leading to a stalemate: both sides held intractable positions with no resolution. And that’s what we will tell the president. We submit that that doesn’t assist the president at all because the IMC was convened for his benefit. In short, we think the IMC process should be permitted to restart.”

Tshetlo added that the bank warned that the exclusion of the finance minister from the IMC process was deeply problematic, given the scale of public funds involved.

“Respectfully, the ministers who convened the IMC excluded the minister of finance, which is problematic since this concerns R30bn from national coffers,” he said.

Justice Zukisa Tshiqi directly questioned whether Sassa, along with the minister, had ignored the order given in December 2025.

“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 said.

Sassa’s advocate Oupa Modisa conceded there was “no approved allocation” for the continuation of the MSA in the 2026/2027 financial year.

“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," he said.

However, justice Steven Majiedt pressed Sassa extensively on how the budget reprioritisation 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?” he asked.

“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?”

Sassa denied any intention to defy the court.

“We are in no means having an intention to be in contempt of court or disregard the court order,” said Modisa.

Judgment was reserved.

Sowetan