Parliamentary committee to probe SAPS’ R600m anti-migrant deployment

The Portfolio Committee on Police will call the South African Police Service (SAPS) to explain how it arrived at and spent a R600 million mobilisation to manage nationwide anti-migrant unrest linked to the June 30, 2026 protests. The committee said SAPS must justify the methodology behind the figure and whether the allocation required reprioritisation from other programmes.

Committee seeks detailed accounting

Committee chairperson Ian Cameron said the committee will probe whether the expenditure complied with legislative requirements and whether appropriate control measures were in place to ensure the spending was authorised, lawful and properly accounted for.

“The committee intends to undertake focused and rigorous oversight to determine whether the expenditure complied with all applicable legislative prescripts and whether the necessary control measures were in place to ensure that the spending was authorised, lawful and properly accounted for,”

Cameron said the assessment will be done both as a standalone oversight matter and as part of the committee’s Budgetary Review and Recommendation Report (BRRR) process. He said the committee wants to establish whether public funds were used efficiently, economically and in accordance with the principles of sound financial management.

Scope of the SAPS operation and accountability steps

Acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia previously announced the R600m special security operation, saying the mobilisation was necessary to protect critical infrastructure, monitor social media threats and prevent a recurrence of widespread violent civil unrest. The budgeted items included calling up police reservists, paying officers overtime, buying fuel and providing nationwide accommodation.

According to reporting, out of 120 protest marches linked to the June 30 demonstrations, 108 proceeded peacefully while 12 required police action, resulting in more than 900 arrests for offences including public violence and immigration violations.

Cameron said the committee will require SAPS to explain whether the R600m allocation required reprioritisation of resources from other programmes and “what the funds were ultimately spent on.” He added that, given ongoing scrutiny of SAPS financial management by the Madlanga Commission and the Ad Hoc Committee, a project-specific audit of the deployment expenditure may be necessary.

“While the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) will assess the expenditure as part of the BRRR process, the committee believes that a dedicated project-specific audit would provide a more detailed assessment of the planning, authorisation, procurement, expenditure and value for money associated with the deployment,”

Cameron said such an audit would “strengthen accountability, enhance transparency and provide assurance that all expenditure complied with the applicable legislative and regulatory framework.”

Responses and wider criticism

Questions directed to Acting Police Minister Cachalia were referred by his spokesperson Kamo Mogotsi to SAPS spokesperson Athlenda Mathe, who refused to comment and said the finance department indicated they have until August to complete the consolidation.

The committee’s scrutiny follows criticism from civil society groups and political parties. The South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO) in KwaZulu-Natal rejected the financial outlay as unethical, arguing the money should go toward permanent border security and immigration enforcement rather than costly policing deployments.

ActionSA’s Parliamentary Chief Whip Lerato Ngobeni said the party expects SAPS and the National Treasury to show what oversight, verification and audit mechanisms were used to safeguard public funds and to demonstrate that “every rand was spent for its intended purpose.” Ngobeni added that operational requirements must be shown to justify expenditure of this magnitude above normal policing budgets.

Security strategist and retired Interpol Ambassador Andy Mashaile questioned whether the money was spent effectively, saying the expected threats produced no actual outcomes and expressing uncertainty that R600m was necessary for the event.

“But I think it would have been better in the mind of the state to go over budget than under budget and to be left with egg on its face,”

Next steps

The Portfolio Committee on Police has confirmed the matter will come before it and that SAPS will be expected to provide detailed explanations of the funding methodology and spending. The committee indicated it will pursue both the BRRR process and potentially a project-specific audit to examine planning, procurement and value for money.