Going after the gogos: South Africa’s ‘welfare fraud’ crackdown

The document argues that while South Africa's social grant system is perceived as rife with fraud, the majority of high-value fraud is perpetrated by government officials and predatory third parties rather than beneficiaries. It criticizes the government's current 'crackdown'—which includes biometric verification, credit bureau checks, and automated algorithms—as being ineffective and exclusionary, often wrongly branding eligible poor people as fraudsters. The author recommends moving away from narrow poverty targeting and focusing on rooting out public sector corruption to protect the rights of vulnerable citizens.

• The majority of social grant fraud by value is committed by government employees, contractors, and predatory third parties, rather than individual beneficiaries. Reported cases between 2014 and 2025 show that government officials constitute the largest group of those who have "unduly benefitted" from the system, with documented thefts by public officials totaling at least R354.88 million.
• Government anti-fraud measures, such as credit bureau checks and database verifications, are often based on outdated or inaccurate data, leading to the wrongful exclusion of eligible beneficiaries. Research indicates that automated verification through banks and government databases has resulted in the wrongful exclusion of between one-third and one-half of eligible applicants.
• The in-person review process implemented by SASSA is hindered by a lack of capacity and onerous requirements. In May 2025, 200,000 people were placed under review, yet SASSA reported a capacity to process only 25,000 reviews per month, forcing vulnerable people to face long queues and high costs for documentation.
• Biometric verification and 'Electronic Know Your Customer' (eKYC) systems create significant barriers for the most vulnerable. These systems often fail for those with green ID books or those without access to the necessary technology, and facial recognition technology is noted to discriminate against women of colour.
• Bank account monitoring is an ineffective tool for detecting fraud because inflows do not always represent personal income, such as in cases of child maintenance or loans. The IEJ found that 76% of Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant rejections based on bank checks were incorrect.
• Private actors exploit beneficiaries through illicit credit schemes, unauthorized deductions for insurance and funeral products, and websites that mimic the official SASSA site to steal personal information.

APA

Institute for Economic Justice (2025). Going after the gogos: South Africa’s ‘welfare fraud’ crackdown. https://www.iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/IEJ-UBIG-13-fact-sheet-2.pdf

Chicago

Institute for Economic Justice. Going after the gogos: South Africa’s ‘welfare fraud’ crackdown. 2025. https://www.iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/IEJ-UBIG-13-fact-sheet-2.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Institute for Economic Justice |title=Going after the gogos: South Africa’s ‘welfare fraud’ crackdown |date=November 2025 |url=https://www.iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/IEJ-UBIG-13-fact-sheet-2.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{instituteforeconomicjustice2025going, author = {{Institute for Economic Justice}}, title = {{Going after the gogos: South Africa’s ‘welfare fraud’ crackdown}}, institution = {Institute for Economic Justice}, year = {2025}, month = nov, url = {https://www.iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/IEJ-UBIG-13-fact-sheet-2.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }