Sa Steps up the Recovery of Public Funds

The focus on recovering lost funds should not overshadow the need to understand how financial misconduct happened in the first place.

When fraud or financial misconduct is uncovered, the first question is usually whether the money can be recovered. It is a fair question and recovering losses is an important part of holding people accountable. For many business owners, it is also the most visible sign that something is being done.

In September 2026, the SIU announced new investigations into public-sector tenders and secured a judgment setting aside an R85 million South African Airways contract, with recovery of profits also being pursued. These cases illustrate the importance of not only identifying financial loss, but understanding how weaknesses in processes and controls allowed problematic transactions to happen in the first place.

This focus on recovery has remained prominent in South Africa this year, with Parliament calling for stronger coordination between law-enforcement agencies and faster recovery of lost public funds. At the same time, the SIU continues to pursue matters involving alleged maladministration, corruption and financial losses, including cases where contracts have been set aside or assets preserved.

Recent discussions in Parliament around material irregularities referred by the Auditor-General to the Special Investigating Unit have once again highlighted the importance of recovering public funds where wrongdoing has taken place. While recovering money is important, it is only one part of what an investigation can achieve.

A forensic investigation also helps explain how the problem developed. Documents, emails, financial records and system activity all help build a picture of what happened. They can also show where processes stopped working as intended or where existing controls no longer provided the level of protection the business expected.

That distinction is particularly relevant when looking at the lessons emerging from public-sector investigations. "The question is not only how much money can be recovered, but what allowed the irregularity to happen in the first place," says David Loxton, CEO at Loxton Forensics

Where there is smoke... 
New employees join the team, responsibilities are shared differently and suppliers come and go. Processes that worked well a few years ago can gradually change as people find quicker or more practical ways of getting things done. Those changes are often made for good reasons, but they can sometimes create gaps that nobody noticed.

That is why an investigation can be valuable even when it begins with a single concern. Looking closely at one payment, one supplier, or one transaction often provides useful insight into how the wider business is operating. It gives business owners the opportunity to see whether existing controls are still working as intended or whether they need to be strengthened.

It can also give leaders confidence in the decisions they need to make next.

Whether the outcome points to fraud, a process failure or a misunderstanding, decisions are always stronger when they are based on facts instead of assumptions.

"Acting too quickly can damage trust, while waiting too long can allow problems to grow", says Loxton. 

Questions of consequence
The recommendations that follow an investigation are often just as valuable as the findings themselves. Improving approval processes, tightening supplier management, reviewing user access or strengthening financial controls all help reduce the risk of similar problems developing in future.

Those improvements may never attract the same attention as recovering money, yet they can save a business from much bigger losses later on. Many business owners assume that if nothing has gone wrong recently, their controls must be working well.

In reality, the best time to understand how resilient your processes are is before they are tested by a serious incident. Even well-managed businesses benefit from occasionally stepping back and asking whether the way they operate today still reflects the way the business has grown.

The same principle applies beyond the public sector. "A finding that identifies financial loss but leaves the underlying control weakness untouched can address the consequence without addressing the vulnerability that allowed the problem to occur", says Loxton

South Africa's current focus on material irregularities also illustrates why this matters. Parliament has raised concerns about delays in investigations and prosecutions, while the SIU has continued to report new investigations and court outcomes.

The public discussion therefore extends beyond identifying wrongdoing to questions of consequence, recovery and whether weaknesses are being addressed so that they are not repeated.

The bigger picture
Recovering money will always be an important outcome where it is possible. The businesses that come through difficult situations most successfully are usually those that treat an investigation as more than a response to a single event.

They use it as an opportunity to ask better questions about how decisions are made, how risk is managed and whether the business is as well protected as it could be.

That shift in thinking often delivers value long after the investigation has been completed because stronger businesses are built on good information, not assumptions.

ENDS