‘We need the truth’: committee says defence ministry is stalling accountability

The department of defence and military veterans (DoD) has been accused of deflecting responsibility for deficiencies in its planning and expenditure. The department on Wednesday provided responses to budget review recommendations made by its portfolio committee, which was left widely dissatisfied. While the discussion touched on financial matters, the committee demanded answers on controversial South African National Defence Force (SANDF) projects and the establishment of the board of inquiry into Exercise Will For Peace 2026.

Among others, the committee were expecting to hear feedback on the disciplinary actions related to irregular expenditure tied to the SANDF’s deal with Cuba. The DoD spent R1.7 billion on Project Kgala, and the committee had given the department until 30 January to provide written feedback. Committee questions included Project Kgala’s predecessor Project Thusano, with the committee curious about whether a dispute on the findings made by the auditor-general of South Africa (AG) was submitted.

The department told the committee that the matter was still under review and that the review would only be completed by May, following which remedial actions would be considered. Committee members had also been waiting for details on Project Zingisa since November, with the department explaining that the project was still in the “conceptual” phase and had not yet commenced. “Comprehensive information covering the scope, timelines, governance arrangements, and other pertinent matters will be provided once the conceptualisation and feasibility process is finalised.

[paywall]

“At that point, the DoD will provide a structured update to Parliament, stakeholders and the public,” the presentation stated. Project Zingisa is a roughly R250 million deal that is expected to see the Chinese military refurbish the SANDF’s mission deployment site in Bloemfontein. The DA’s Chris Hattingh said he was “not satisfied” with the department’s “disappointing” approach to the budget review process.

[/paywall]