Short-sighted and lacking a credible plan, critics say after Godongwana’s MTBPS

Key announcements and targeted allocations

The minister highlighted just under R40 billion in medium-term savings. Those savings and other measures fed into several headline allocations cited by parties responding to the statement: an extra R21 billion for municipalities, and further sums to metros R13 billion for fuel-related costs and R3.5 billion for smart meters. The MTBPS also included almost R4 billion directed at a coordinated response to gender‑based violence, and an increase in the municipal equitable share.

Godongwana introduced a temporary cut to the fuel levy described in the statement as a short reprieve. Critics noted it was a two‑month relief and observed it remained less than recent price increases at the pumps.

Opposition parties: funds risk being wasted without better oversight

The Freedom Front Plus warned that additional municipal funding would amount to little if existing problems were not addressed. FF+ finance spokesperson Wouter Wessels said poor management and corruption in municipalities put new funds at risk of being wasted.

“If the current mismanagement and corruption prevalent in most municipalities continue unabated, these additional funds will also be wasted and bring about no improvement in service delivery. The only way to turn these dire economic circumstances around is to intensify fiscal discipline. Every rand of taxpayers’ money must be spent wisely,”

Wessels added a warning on the broader fiscal stance:

“A cause for concern is that the minister increased government expenditure in response to the windfall from higher tax revenue, rather than building up contingency reserves.”

ActionSA’s Alan Beasley said the relief measures and allocations were not enough to tackle deep economic weaknesses. He welcomed extra funding for the police and armed forces but said the national coalition had not produced a credible plan to reverse low growth and rising unemployment.

“Two and a half years into the government of national unity, it has failed to present a credible plan to address low economic growth, rising unemployment, increasing poverty and constrained fiscal space. The practical impact is that we are not even creating enough jobs to absorb new graduates entering the labour market, let alone provide opportunities for those who are already unemployed,”

Trade unions and civil society: more needed for poverty and job relief

The Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) said Treasury missed an opportunity for bolder, poverty‑focused interventions. Cosatu spokesperson Matthew Parks listed the structural challenges the union believes the economy faces and criticised the MTBPS for not prioritising job‑creation and support for the poorest.

“Treasury and government collectively missed the opportunity to table a bold package of interventions that would tackle the fundamental crises of a staggeringly high 43.8% unemployment rate, weak economic growth averaging 1% for over a decade, entrenched levels of poverty and inequality, high rates of crime and corruption, and embattled public and municipal services,”

Parks also highlighted what he described as missed social‑protection measures:

“It is extremely disappointing that no further allocations have been made to boost the Public Employment Programmes to give hope to 12 million unemployed. It is beyond shameful that despite R13 billion worth of savings in social grants, yet again there is no inflationary relief for the 8 million destitute Social Relief of Distress grant recipients,”

Calls for transparency on fuel pricing and limits of short-term relief

Political leaders pressing for stronger consumer relief demanded more transparency on the fuel‑levy decision. Floyd Shivambu’s Afrika Mayibuye urged government to publish the fuel‑pricing review and to scrutinise levies and margins so consumers could see how savings were transmitted to pump prices.

“Government must publish the fuel‑pricing review, scrutinise levies and margins, monitor the transmission of savings and invest in affordable public transport and domestic fuel‑supply capacity,”

Shivambu argued that the allocations for municipalities and metros would not, by themselves, resolve longer‑running infrastructure backlogs or maintenance shortfalls:

“Covering higher bulk‑service costs does not automatically finance new infrastructure or reverse years of inadequate maintenance. Smart meters can improve billing, but cannot create income for an unemployed household or repair a failed water‑treatment plant,”

Mixed assessments from smaller parties and commentators

Rise Mzansi’s Songezo Zibi offered a balanced view: he welcomed specific elements such as the targeted savings, the fuel levy relief, GBV funding and local government support, while signalling concern over cuts elsewhere and admitted vulnerabilities.

“Temporary fuel levy reductions do not resolve embedded food supply chain costs, and small businesses driving local economies received no targeted relief. South Africa cannot build a resilient economy on temporary band‑aids. Government must tackle structural cost drivers head‑on,”

What the reactions mean

The responses show broad agreement on one point: the MTBPS contains some targeted measures and identified savings, but many stakeholders say those steps are insufficient to address entrenched economic and social problems. Critics focus on themes repeated across parties and organisations the need for stronger oversight of municipal spending, clearer long‑term strategies for growth and jobs, and greater support for the most vulnerable households.

Such scrutiny is common after major fiscal statements. Opposition parties and unions typically press for either deeper relief or clearer plans for sustainable change; meanwhile, government proponents often point to the trade‑offs inherent in balancing short‑term relief with fiscal discipline. Readers should expect further debate in the coming days as parties and civic organisations parse the detail of the MTBPS and press for follow‑up measures.

Summary of the main factual points

• Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana presented the medium‑term budget policy statement on 22 October 2026.
• The statement identified just under R40 billion in medium‑term savings.
• Allocations cited included R21 billion for municipalities, R13 billion and R3.5 billion for metro fuel and smart‑meter costs, and almost R4 billion for a GBV response.
• A temporary fuel levy cut was announced as a two‑month reprieve that many described as insufficient.
• Opposition parties and unions criticised the package as short‑sighted or lacking a credible long‑term plan, while also praising some targeted measures.

Reporting note: This article summarises reactions published following the MTBPS and uses direct quotes and figures provided in those responses.