Over 100 public servants flagged for financial misconduct, most cases only ended with little more than a warning
· Citizen
The Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) has been backed into a corner to account for the state of lifestyle audits in the public service, revealing a programme riddled with capacity gaps and incomplete record-keeping.
DA MP Eleanore Spies submitted two written parliamentary questions to the Minister of Public Service and Administration, Inkosi Mzamo Buthelezi, in March 2026, probing the status of officials flagged for financial disclosure anomalies.
Visit h-doctor.club for more information.
The questions referenced 141 public officials reportedly identified through lifestyle audits.
However, the DPSA moved quickly to correct that figure. The department confirmed that it was, in fact, 117 officials, and not 141, who were flagged for potential financial disclosure anomalies.
“These cases are currently at different stages of investigation within their respective departments,” said Buthelezi.
He acknowledged that, due to capacity challenges, it had not been maintaining case-level records centrally.
“In the past, the DPSA did not centrally maintain case-level information on the specific national or provincial departments in which the officials are employed, their seniority levels or salary bands, or the estimated total monetary value of any undeclared income, assets, or financial discrepancies,” Buthelezi’s department stated.
It added, however, that “this information will be maintained from the new financial year.”
Most lifestyle audit cases resolved with little more than written warning
Of the 117 flagged officials, the DPSA provided a breakdown showing outcomes that critics may find underwhelming.
The bulk of concluded cases – 53 in total – were wrapped up with sanctions no more serious than verbal or written warnings.
Seven cases were finalised with officials found not guilty, while 22 cases remain under active departmental investigation.
Beyond that, 24 cases have been earmarked for investigation by external service providers but remain pending, and 11 cases were closed after officials either resigned or moved to other departments.
The DPSA confirmed that “the departments that closed cases of officials who resigned and left for other departments were requested by the DPSA to reopen the cases and to continue to finalise them.”
“In terms of current progress reported to the DPSA, none of the investigations currently finalised required referral to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks) for criminal investigations,” the department stated.
Separate batch of 24 cases flagged by Presidency sits uninvestigated
Spies also asked specifically about 24 cases flagged by The Presidency for suspected undeclared income or concealed assets.
The department revealed that no meaningful investigative progress has been made on these matters, citing a lack of internal capacity
“The department has indicated a lack of capacity to conduct an investigation on the 24 cases that were flagged,” the DPSA said.
It added that “plans are being undertaken by The Presidency to refer the cases to an external service provider to assist with investigation.”
Regarding whether any of those cases had been handed to law enforcement, including the SA Police Service, the Hawks, or the National Prosecuting Authority, the department was vague.
“Where potential criminality is identified, matters would be referred to relevant law-enforcement authorities,” it said.
The department conceded that it “did not centrally maintain a consolidated record of all referrals, as operational management rests with the employing departments.”
Furthermore, it however, committed that “from the next financial year, this information will be maintained.”
DPSA says it sets policy, departments must do the actual work
A recurring theme in both responses was the DPSA positioning itself as a policy and oversight body rather than an operational investigator.
The department stressed that responsibility for conducting lifestyle audits, investigating anomalies, and instituting remedial action rests with the respective national and provincial departments, under the authority of their Heads of Department.
“DPSA has provided guidance to the respective department on proper procedures for investigating anomalies and taking remedial action in line with applicable legislative, regulatory, and ethical frameworks,” the department stated.
It added that it “continues to monitor implementation trends, provide technical support, and strengthen ethics and integrity systems to ensure that lifestyle audit outcomes are properly pursued across the Public Service.”
On disciplinary outcomes, the department acknowledged that “some cases have resulted in disciplinary or administrative action under the Public Service disciplinary framework, while other cases remain under investigation or departmental follow-up.”
However, it declined to provide case-specific details, citing “the ongoing nature of these investigations and the sensitivity of personal and financial information.”
Nowhere to hide for officials who resigned or moved departments
One of the more significant announcements buried in the DPSA’s response relates to a new accountability mechanism that could close a loophole exploited by some flagged officials.
Currently, public servants under investigation can sidestep consequences simply by resigning or transferring to another department.
The DPSA confirmed that a Central Register for Discipline – mandated for all three spheres of government – is set to become effective in April 2026.
“When the Central Register for Discipline becomes effective in the next financial year, it will become incumbent on national and provincial departments as well as municipalities to reflect criminality as an outcome of these investigations on the register,” the department said.
Critically, all departments and municipalities will be required to consult the register before making any new appointments.
The DPSA said this measure would “address the current lack of keeping individuals accountable who move between departments to circumvent responsibility.”
NOW READ: ‘It’s an expensive process’: Provinces grapple with high cost and resistance to lifestyle audits