The September 30 deadline for submitting annual reports to parliament passed without 49 government departments and public entities complying, depriving lawmakers of essential financial and performance data for the 2025/26 fiscal year. The overdue submissions, now a week late, hinder parliament’s ability to assess how public funds were allocated and whether agencies fulfilled their objectives, according to official records.
Key institutions still missing reports include the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), SABC, Broadband Infraco, Telkom, the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa), and the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS). While corrections and police departments filed just before the cutoff, the Public Service Commission and the department of land reform & rural development have not yet submitted theirs.
Annual reports are a central part of parliament’s oversight of the executive, giving committees information on an institution’s financial performance, service delivery and progress against its annual plans. Without these documents, MPs cannot thoroughly question accounting officers or verify whether budgets were used as intended. This can affect the timing of committee hearings, oversight reports and recommendations on corrective action.
By October 7, parliament had received 13 written explanations for late submissions, including letters from SAA, NYDA, Prasa, and the department of justice & constitutional development. However, these explanations were not published, only their receipt acknowledged. Speaker Thoko Didiza classified the late filings as violations of transparency laws, directing them to relevant committees for public review.
Read Also: Court Invalidates BBBEE Code Over Tau’s Procedural Error
Some agencies did submit after the deadline: the department of human settlements filed on October 2, while the department of public works & infrastructure followed on October 6. The backlog impacts critical public services, including rail operations managed by Prasa and broadcasting by SABC, both of which remain outstanding.
Late reports do not prevent parliament from eventually scrutinising an institution, but they disrupt the timetable through which that scrutiny is meant to take place. Committees can still examine institutions, but without complete data, their evaluations become less thorough. The speaker’s decision to treat the explanations as part of the oversight process means the delays themselves could become a focus of parliamentary review-a rare instance where non-compliance is scrutinized.
Without the missing reports, parliament operates with incomplete information. The annual reports allow parliament to move from broad policy commitments to detailed scrutiny of what institutions actually delivered during the financial year. For the public, the process provides a formal route for determining whether government institutions have used their budgets as intended and whether they delivered on the commitments for which parliament approved funding.
