‘SANDF is in throes of collapse’ EFF rejects defence and military veterans budget vote

Why the EFF says the votes must be rejected

In his speech, Niehaus argued that the proposed allocations represent more than fiscal mismanagement: they amount to what he described as a deliberate and managed decline of South Africa’s defence capability and an abandonment of military veterans. The EFF’s objections focus on funding cuts, service backlogs, procurement failures and what it calls ideological spending priorities.

Key budget figures and cuts cited

The 2026/27 allocation for the Department of Defence is R57.605 billion, which Niehaus noted is a nominal decrease from the previous year and a real-term cut of over 5.6%. He highlighted that defence spending remains at 0.7% of GDP.

For the Department of Military Veterans, Niehaus pointed to a cut in Programme 2responsible for housing, pensions, healthcare and counsellingof R39.4 million, an 11.35% real cut. He said housing targets fell to 450 houses over the three-year MTEF and described the veterans database as fraudulent and incomplete.

Operational shortfalls and procurement concerns

Niehaus told Parliament the SANDF faces deep operational problems: he cited R8 billion in maintenance backlogs, unfunded capabilities across air, sea and land, and looming unauthorised expenditure on compensation of employees.

He also criticised procurement and defence industrial projects. Citing Armscor, Niehaus referred to prolonged delays on Project Hotel, the hydrographic survey vessel, and said the SAS Isandlwana frigate refit and the Simon’s Town dockyard were in trouble. He described low bids followed by large variation orders as a pattern amounting to “looting.”

On Denel, Niehaus noted operating losses of more than R600 million annually and said Denel’s R5.2 billion recapitalisation had been consumed by legacy debts rather than growth.

Political and symbolic objections

Niehaus criticised a proposed R4 million transfer from the SANDF budget to the Castle Control Board, calling the Castle a “359-year-old symbol of colonial invasion and Black subjugation” and objecting to what he described as administrative-heavy spending at the expense of core programmes.

Demands and alternatives from the EFF

The EFF set out several demands in rejecting the votes. Niehaus called for the immediate redirection of resources away from colonial relics and bureaucratic bloat toward:

• genuine military modernisation
• veteran welfare
• forensic audits of all irregular procurement
• the suspension of those responsible for procurement failures and other wrongdoing

He said the party would not support the current budgets unless defence spending was increased, arguing that the SANDF needed funding levels above current allocations to enable modernisation, youth rejuvenation of the force and defence-sector industrialisation.

Closing remarks delivered in Parliament

“The SANDF is in the throes of collapse… We cannot and we will not support these votes.”

Niehaus framed the EFF’s stance as a defence of soldiers and veterans, calling for a professional, combat-ready SANDF that cares for its members and contributes to national and regional security. He concluded the address with a reiteration of the party’s rejection of Votes 23 and 26 and a call for radical transformation of the defence sector.