Airport security shake-up as Acsa’s multibillion-rand tender heads to court

For millions of travellers passing through South Africa’s airports each year, security scanners are just part of the routine, shoes off, laptop out, step through. Few would imagine that behind those machines lies a court battle worth billions.

But that’s exactly where things now stand.

A massive airport security tender issued by Airports Company South Africa (Acsa) has been scrapped and the fallout is heading to the Gauteng Division of the High Court.

At the centre of the dispute is Mafoko Security Patrols, a company that says the cancellation was unlawful and is asking the court to overturn it.

A contract meant to modernise airport security

The tender was no small undertaking.

It covered the design, supply, installation and maintenance of “smart” detection equipment across nine Acsa-operated airports for a decade. That included full-body scanners, advanced X-ray systems, explosive trace detectors and automated tray return solutions, the kind of technology seen in leading international airports.

In short, it was about modernising passenger screening infrastructure nationwide.

Though Acsa has not officially disclosed the value of the deal, sources close to the process estimate it could have ranged between R3 billion and R6 billion over its full term.

That’s not just a procurement exercise, it’s a generational infrastructure upgrade.

The cancellation that raised eyebrows

According to court papers, Mafoko was the designated awardee when the tender was abruptly cancelled at the adjudication stage.

Acsa reportedly cited a “material irregularity in the tender process” as grounds for the decision.

But here’s where it gets complicated.

Mafoko argues that Acsa relied on Regulation 13 of the 2017 Preferential Procurement Regulations, rules that were repealed in January 2023 and replaced by a new 2022 framework. If that’s correct, the company says, the cancellation rests on outdated law and is therefore legally flawed.

Under the 2017 rules, an organ of state could cancel a tender before award only in specific circumstances: if the need fell away, funding was unavailable, no acceptable bid was received, or if there was a material irregularity.

Mafoko insists none of those apply, at least not lawfully under the current framework.

Acsa spokesperson Ofentse Dijoe declined to comment on the alleged irregularities or confirm whether Mafoko had been the intended awardee. He did confirm that no other bidders have challenged the cancellation and noted that similar security tenders have been scrapped in recent years.

A company already under scrutiny

The legal battle unfolds against a complicated backdrop.

Earlier reporting revealed Mafoko’s controversial award of a R36 million explosive trace detection equipment contract on an emergency basis three years ago, equipment that, according to reports, remains unused and uncommissioned. Acsa acknowledged irregularities in that earlier process.

In January, further scrutiny followed claims that some security staff at key national installations had not been paid over December.

Mafoko remains a current service provider to Acsa and supplies security personnel at OR Tambo International Airport, the country’s busiest aviation hub.

That history adds layers to the present dispute and raises questions about governance, oversight and procurement consistency.

What Mafoko says

In his affidavit, managing director Lebo Nare maintains that the company met every requirement: compulsory briefings, site visits, deadlines and compliance criteria.

He argues the evaluation process had been completed before the cancellation was issued and that detailed reasons were never provided, despite repeated requests.

From Mafoko’s perspective, the decision was sudden and damaging.

Why this matters beyond the courtroom

This case isn’t just about one company or one contract.

It’s about trust in public procurement, especially in sectors tied to national security. Airport security equipment is not cosmetic. It’s central to safety, international compliance and passenger confidence.

South Africans have become increasingly alert to procurement controversies, particularly when multibillion-rand deals are involved. On social media, reactions to the dispute have ranged from scepticism to fatigue. “Another tender drama,” one user posted on X. Others questioned whether constant cancellations delay urgently needed upgrades.

There’s also the practical question: what happens to airport security upgrades in the meantime?

If the contract remains stalled in litigation, the rollout of modern detection systems could face significant delays at a time when global aviation standards are evolving rapidly.

The next step in court

Acsa has until 10 March to file the full record of its decision under Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court a procedure requiring an organ of state to produce all documentation and reasons underpinning a decision under review.

That record may finally clarify what the alleged “material irregularity” was and whether the reliance on repealed regulations holds legal weight.

Until then, South Africa’s airport security upgrade remains grounded, its future tied to arguments set to unfold in a High Court courtroom rather than a departure terminal.

For travellers moving through security queues this week, it’s business as usual. But behind the scanners, a multibillion-rand fight is only just beginning.