Parliament, Friday, 27 February 2026 – The Select Committee on Economic Development and Trade has noted the legal advice obtained by the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies that confirmed that the alleged “R3.8 billion commitment” was conditional and subject to the budget process.
The Chairperson of the committee, Ms Sonja Boshoff, said the legal clarity provides some semblance of sanity, and is in line with how the committee understood issues.
“There can never be room for misunderstanding the issues regarding the bailout for the Post Office of SA. When putting the statement explaining Parliament’s and committee’s position, it was not to question the existence of a Business Rescue Plan, nor the statutory role of the Business Rescue Practitioners (BRPs). The committee corrected some misconceptions regarding SAPO. The statement addressed the repeated public assertion that R3.8 billion was promised, approved, or legally committed by National Treasury and is now being withheld,” said Ms Boshoff.
“A policy intention, a Cabinet discussion, or a funding assumption referenced in litigation or incorporated into a Business Rescue Plan does not constitute a legally binding fiscal obligation. Public funds cannot be disbursed on the basis of expectation or projection. They require parliamentary appropriation,” emphasised Ms Boshoff.
On the State of the Nation Address day, the committee clarified the position of a R3.8 bailout and the prevailing conditions that needed to be satisfied. Some sections including organized labour reportedly made statements that the bailout had been concluded and that the National Treasury was playing hard to get.
Ms Boshoff repeated that such a position was not supported by law. “No Appropriation Act or Adjustments Appropriation Act allocates R3.8 billion to SAPO. Therefore, legislation cannot be interpreted as creating legal liability against the National Revenue Fund.”
Section 213 of the Constitution is explicit, money may be withdrawn from the National Revenue Fund only in terms of an appropriation by an Act of Parliament or as a direct statutory charge. The Public Finance Management Act reinforces this requirement.
“Workers, creditors, and the public must not be led to believe that an enforceable bailout exists when no such appropriation has been passed. Oversight requires clarity, not ambiguity,” said Ms Boshoff.
If the BRPs maintain that a binding commitment exists, it is incumbent on them that they provide the committees of Parliament with documentary basis for such assertion, including:
* The written instrument evidencing the alleged R3.8 billion commitment;
* Proof of concurrence from the Minister of Finance where required in terms of the PFMA;
* Any Cabinet resolution relied upon;
* Confirmation of the specific Appropriation or Adjustments Appropriation Act under which the amount was lawfully secured; and
* The legal basis upon which they contend that the amount constitutes an enforceable obligation against the National Revenue Fund
Ms Boshoff said a credible plan must be fully costed, lawfully funded, and operationally sustainable without reliance on funding that has not been appropriated.
“This is not about opposing funding, but constitutional compliance and fiscal honesty. South Africa’s public finance framework exists precisely to prevent ambiguity around the withdrawal of public funds. That framework must prevail. A turnaround strategy built on unsecured fiscal assumptions remains contingent.”
Ms Boshoff said the committee remains committed to constructive engagement, but public communication around SAPO must reflect legal reality, not aspirational funding scenarios.
ISSUED BY THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMUNICATION SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE, MS SONJA BOSHOFF.
For media enquiries, please contact the committee’s Media Officer:
Name: Sibongile Maputi (Mr)
Cell: 081 052 6060
E-mail: smaputi@parliament.gov.za
Arrange a tour