Citizen's Special Report

15 CITIZEN’S REPORT I O ON THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT’S COVID-19 INITIATIVES Payment of the R350 social-relief-of-distress grant and top-up grant Before: In our first special report, we stated that Sassa’s outdated, limited databases and inadequate verification controls resulted in people who were not in distress receiving the social-relief-of-distress grant, while those who were in distress were sometimes unfairly rejected. After: Sassa stopped the payment of grants to the individuals we flagged who could also be receiving income from other sources until they can prove that they are entitled to the grant. The agency has advised us that it is investigating all these cases and planning to recover the money paid. Farmers’ relief Before: In the first special report, we raised concerns about the fairness of the application process and the selection of the suppliers used to redeem vouchers, as well as inadequate record keeping and voucher reconciliation. After: The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development is re-evaluating all rejected applications based on the report. However, in some instances the commitments made to address the weaknesses we identified were not adequately and timeously implemented. Sport, arts and culture social relief fund Before: In the first special report, we reported that the criteria used to evaluate applications were not specific enough to prevent payments to people with other sources of income, including relief from other funds. After: The criteria were subsequently clarified, but there were no mechanisms in place to prevent such payments from being made. In the second special report, we identified 286 beneficiaries of the fund who potentially also benefitted from Ters benefits, the social-relief-of-distress grant and government pensions, or who were government employees. Tourism relief fund Before: In the first special report, we reported on the risks created by amendments to the original criteria and process for determining which applicants qualify for relief, inadequate review processes, and the potential for human error. After: In auditing the application, approval and payment processes, we determined that these risks had materialised. The Department of Tourism could not provide us with the supporting documents for some of the approved applications, and we identified weaknesses in the verification of the validity of the supporting documents and in the review processes.