A major blow to transparency

President Cyril Ramaphosa has gazetted new regulations that double both the disclosure threshold and the maximum amount a single donor can donate annually.

This has been met with concerns of the deterioration of transparency in party funding in South Africa and undue influence in governance.

The gazette allowed political parties to accept donations in higher amounts, up to R200,000, without disclosing it.

Additionally, a single donor can now donate up to R30 million a year to a party and may make donations within this limit to as many parties as they choose.

“This will deepen secrecy in political funding and make it easier for private interests to influence our politics and for corruption to occur,” said civil society group My Vote Counts (MVC).

This gazette follows a resolution taken earlier this year by the National Assembly (NA), which amended the Political Funding Act (PFA), which was enacted in 2018 and enforced from 2021. 

It previously required disclosure of private donations above R100,000 and capped individual contributions at R15 million per year – now doubled.

MVC welcomed the PFA in 2017 but argued its limits weakened the Act. Now, this limit has doubled.

“The amount of the increase, with no rational foundation, will tend to harm transparency in that any significant change makes it easier for donations to go unnoticed,” said independent election analyst, Michael Atkins.

“Now that the amendment gives the president total discretion to change the reporting threshold, it is no longer true that the Funding Act provides access to information.”

Atkins said that the Act empowers the president to raise the figure to an amount so high that nobody would know anything. “We now rely on him, and not on the Act, for access to that information.”

During the parliamentary process, parties cited financial strain to defend higher private limits, even as they approved a budget that “sees no increase in the public funding granted to political parties.”

Earlier this year, finance minister Enoch Godongwana said that “the implementation of the PPFA has, in some measure, led to a significant drop in private funding for many political parties, making it challenging for them to meet operational costs.”

“Transparency is at the heart of party-political funding. To make informed choices when voting, voters need to know who is behind the funding of political parties and what agendas they are pursuing,” Godongwana added.

Donations are needed ahead of the 2026 local government elections, and with the resolution from the NA.

The process

Atkins said that the process of increasing the thresholds has been “completely and utterly mismanaged from the outset, to the point of it being farcical.”

When the PFA was amended in early 2024, “the old limits were overwritten, leaving no regulations in place.”

He added that giving the President total discretion was “likely unconstitutional,” as it meant the Act no longer guaranteed access to information on political funding.

Parliamentary Legal Services advised that the President could sign the amendments and have the National Assembly approve a motion “the next day” to pass regulations.

A motion with proposed donation limits and thresholds was drafted but later withdrawn, and a new version with no figures was passed instead.

This left “a three-month period from May to August 2024 in which no limit or reporting threshold was in place,” which coincidentally was during the expensive election period.

The Western Cape High Court later ordered the original limits to stand, though not retrospectively.

Atkins defended the motion approved by the NA last May, stating it was valid and did not require suggestions.

He criticised the judge for implying that the motion should have included limits and thresholds, noting that this was not part of the Order.

From September, the National Assembly undertook a “long and tortuous process” of research and public consultation. The research found that while it was difficult to set exact figures, “inflation-linked increases was the only objective basis” for decisions.

Despite this, in May 2025 the Portfolio Committee recommended doubling the limits, “despite it being pointed out… there was no rational basis for this, and nothing in the Report suggested that.”

He questioned whether the President simply followed the Assembly’s lead or “applied his mind to the new criteria set out in the Funding Act.”

Atkins warned that Section 32 of the Constitution requires legislation to guarantee access to information, a principle affirmed in the 2018 My Vote Counts ruling that resulted in the PPFA.

“Now that the amendment gives the president total discretion to change the reporting threshold, it is no longer true that the Funding Act provides access to information,” he said.

“The Act empowers the president to raise the figure to an amount so high that nobody would know anything. He has not done this, but we now rely on him, and not on the Act, for access to that information.”

MVC said that “this is indeed a setback for our democracy. We cannot allow those in power to jeopardise our democracy and water down constitutionally protected rights for their narrow, self-serving interests.”

“MVC will continue to advocate and litigate when necessary, to ensure the PFA is constitutional and upholds the principles of transparency and accountability.”

Shielding parties from scrutiny

In his speech at the Independent Electoral Commission’s (IEC’s) Symposium on Political Funding in South Africa, the finance Minister warned that loopholes and weak enforcement continue to threaten the integrity of democratic processes.

“Despite these advances, challenges remain in enforcement, local transparency, and curbing illicit financing,” said Godongwana.

For example, the majority of parties have failed to submit annual audited statements over the past three years, as required by law, and the IEC is pursuing sanctions.

Godongwana added that current legislation excludes local government, calling for expanded oversight as an opaque donation system enables undue influence and fund misallocation.

“As the National Treasury and the government as a whole, we must commit to improving transparency and oversight of political finance to prevent abuse by illicit networks.”

Following the NA’s approval of the amendments, MVC, which was critical to the establishment of the donations declarations, said that while party funding is essential, decisions about limits must be “rational, explicable and fit for the context.”

Instead, Parliament exposed “political expedience, serving party and donor interests over the people of South Africa and the Constitution.”

The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) had already recommended inflation-linked increases. Yet the Portfolio Committee “chose an arbitrary method… simply to double the limits.”

The PBO’s report showed that a true inflation adjustment would have set the upper limit at R21 million, not R30 million, and that “South Africa as a middle-income country is an outlier” with such high caps compared to wealthier nations.

The civil society organisation has long argued that the Act “does not go far enough to promote the right of access to information,” since it fails to require full disclosure or impose strong controls on private funding.

In 2023, they launched a constitutional challenge, heard in February 2025, arguing the limits lacked evidence and were irrational, and that the President’s power to set them is unconstitutional.

Judgment is pending. Meanwhile, MVC is exploring further legal action and pressing the President to disclose his reasoning and records.