Spaza Shop Support Fund · Expanded evidence audit
1,386 approval rows. The audit trail is still incomplete.
The fuller schedule lists R83,951,000 in support packages. It reconciles the first 162 rows, contains six exact repeat groups and exposes conflicts in the accompanying company classifications.
Download PDF edition ↓This is an audit of released records, not a finding that a beneficiary committed fraud, received a duplicate payment or was ineligible. The schedule records approvals and package values; it does not prove payment or delivery.
What we found
The fuller schedule contains 1,386 approval rows. Its opening 162 reconcile with the original disclosure, and six groups repeat every disclosed field.
Why it matters
Repeated entries and conflicting company classifications need explanation before the schedule can support a reliable audit.
The open question
Can each row be linked to a unique application, dated verification decision, and delivery or payment record?
The larger record
1,386 approval rows.
R83.951 million in listed packages.
The SACR-shared copy contains approval names, dates, broad geography and package values. FixSA has not independently verified its chain of custody to SEDFA, although its row count and total align with the programme scale previously published.
The first 162 entries retain the same sequence, approval dates and disclosed geography after punctuation and province-label normalisation. Ten names are spelled differently in the fuller annexure. That correction trail matters: a misspelling can cause a company search to return a false negative.
Inspect the row-by-row reconciliation ↗Exact repeated-row review
Six groups repeat every disclosed field.
These groups create seven additional rows representing R416,000 in schedule value. Without unique application references and payment records, that remains a structural schedule finding—not duplicate-payment evidence.
Rows 97, 350 and 364SIZABANTU
SIZABANTU · Rows 97, 350 and 364
The name, approval date, province, district, municipality and package value repeat after punctuation is normalised.
Inspect the schedule rows ↗Rows 511 and 579MATHULAS
MATHULAS · Rows 511 and 579
The name, approval date, province, district, municipality and package value repeat after punctuation is normalised.
Inspect the schedule rows ↗Rows 805 and 840NKANYISO
NKANYISO · Rows 805 and 840
The name, approval date, province, district, municipality and package value repeat after punctuation is normalised.
Inspect the schedule rows ↗Rows 902 and 1,179IMINATHI STORE
IMINATHI STORE · Rows 902 and 1,179
The name, approval date, province, district, municipality and package value repeat after punctuation is normalised.
Inspect the schedule rows ↗Rows 1,113 and 1,141MBALI'S
MBALI'S · Rows 1,113 and 1,141
The name, approval date, province, district, municipality and package value repeat after punctuation is normalised.
Inspect the schedule rows ↗Rows 1,354 and 1,373POWER OF FOUR O LEGACY
POWER OF FOUR O LEGACY · Rows 1,354 and 1,373
The name, approval date, province, district, municipality and package value repeat after punctuation is normalised.
Inspect the schedule rows ↗The supplied company audit also needs quality control.
This section tests the accompanying classification workbook, separately from the approval schedule and FixSA’s own company checks.
The accompanying workbook labels 856 rows “REGISTERED” and 530 “NOT REGISTERED”. Those labels are not 1,386 independently proven beneficiary identities.
Against the authenticated checks already completed for the opening 162 rows, 154 classifications aligned and eight disagreed. One conflict is demonstrable without login-only data: the workbook marks MAHLASELA FRUIT AND VEG MARKET “NOT REGISTERED”, while an open B2BHint page displays the exact legal name and enterprise number K2024847003.
That does not make every negative result wrong. It proves that name search—especially where spellings change—is not a reliable final status test unless the exact enterprise number is checked.
What open company searches found
Positive traces are useful only when identity strength stays visible.
Eight exact enterprise-number matches and 12 probable name, locality or operating-footprint matches.
Eighteen remain name-search candidates because the schedule itself does not print their company numbers.
A silent search means only “not found in the checked source”. It is not proof that a company does not exist.
One chronology question
The schedule date comes before the incorporation date displayed for K2025646994.
The approval schedule prints the identifier K2025646994 (SOUTH AFRICA). Its open B2BHint page displays incorporation on 14 August 2025—almost three months after the listed approval date.
That sequence requires a documentary explanation. Possibilities include a wrong approval date, a mistyped registration number, a later entity substitution or an outdated secondary-directory field. The current evidence does not establish which explanation is correct.
Inspect the open company page ↗Supporting checks: related companies, procurement and official records
Twenty-two direct related-company leads were checked. No second exact schedule match was found.
The public corporate-role pages produced 22 direct related-company leads. FixSA checked each against all 1,386 schedule rows by exact enterprise number and normalised full legal name. None matched.
That result means only “not found in this checked approval schedule”. A shared officer or corporate role is a research lead, not proof of common control, duplicate funding or wrongdoing.
Relationships can point to the next record to check. They are not a verdict.
Treasury screening
One hundred supplier-name leads. Zero identities confirmed by company number.
Distinct supplier-name strings also appear in the approval schedule.
Supplier names also align with a registered enterprise name in the supplied audit workbook.
The dashboard does not expose a CIPC number, so name overlap alone cannot resolve legal identity.
Treasury describes the dashboard as procurement-classified payment data and excludes grants and transfers. BAS and LOGIS can overlap and must not be added. These are possible separate procurement-history leads—not evidence of a second Spaza Fund payment.
Narrow negative checks are recorded as narrow negatives.
No exact schedule-name or candidate-number match was found in the National Treasury restricted-supplier report checked. No exact match was found in 1,539 indexed Companies Tribunal decisions or 16 published B-BBEE Commission ruling files. Thirty OCDS monthly releases returned no exact whole-field supplier or bidder match.
None of those results is a clean-history certificate. They describe only the particular public sources and matching method checked.
- State the source checked.
- State the matching threshold.
- State what the result cannot prove.
Nine records SEDFA should publish
Release the decision trail—not private applicant files.
Identity numbers, private contacts, home addresses, banking information and genuinely confidential business records can be redacted while the decision and delivery outcomes are made auditable.
- 01Authoritative schedule
The current beneficiary schedule together with its publication and correction history.
- 02Unique reference
A non-sensitive application or approval reference for every row.
- 03Legal identity
The legal entity name and enterprise number used at application and approval.
- 04Dated verification
The registration and operating-status result accepted on the decision date.
- 05Verified geography
The province, district, municipality and operating-site outcome checked for each application.
- 06Decision trail
The score, reason code and responsible approval authority.
- 07Delivery and payment
Disbursement status, delivery status, dates and non-sensitive transaction references.
- 08Corrections
An explanation for exact repeated rows and changed spellings.
- 09Chronology
The documentary explanation where an approval date appears earlier than a cited entity's incorporation date.
What FixSA is publishing now
Four evidence layers. No silent leap from lead to conclusion.
All 1,386 public approval rows and their listed package values.
The original 162 entries together with their spelling-correction trail.
Exact-number matches kept separate from probable name and operating-footprint leads.
Authenticated and official-source screens, each with its scope and limits stated.
Inspect the evidence
Public sources used.
Open the evidence hub first. The longer source ledger is collapsed so it remains available without turning the article into a wall of links.
View all 12 source links
Document provenance and integrity
File: sssf-annexure-a-approvals-list-1386.pdf
Archive date: 24 August 2026
SHA-256: be860a2db462184d336b80e9da1abf6b0fded11689c4970381d246ae7b75c19a
The hash lets readers test whether another copy is byte-for-byte identical to the file FixSA archived. It does not prove the document’s origin, authorship or accuracy.
Right of reply and corrections
FixSA invites SEDFA and every named business to add the missing record.
Documented responses, corrections and source material can be sent to fixsaza@gmail.com. Verified material will be attributed and added to the evidence trail.