South Africa’s military is under increasing strain as it is asked to do more work with limited resources, even as government itself acknowledges there is not enough funding to properly sustain the force it already has.
From gang-affected hotspots in parts of the country, to deployments linked to operations against illegal mining and border control, the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) has been given growing responsibility—much of it outside its traditional war-fighting mandate.
In recent years its workload has increasingly been stretched into domestic security and support operations: assisting SAPS against organised crime and gang violence, combating illegal mining, supporting public-order operations, helping secure elections, responding to disasters, managing border security and maintaining international commitments.
Defence Minister Angie Motshekga has described the situation as a “fundamental and persistent misalignment between mandate, expectations and funding”. The 2026/27 Defence allocation is about R57.6 billion, of which roughly R37.7 billion goes to employee compensation.
Government has also earmarked around R823 million for SANDF operations supporting SAPS, while about R150 million has been allocated for the military’s role in the 2026 local government elections.
The question is whether each new task is being funded without weakening something else.
The department’s own budget documentation has repeatedly pointed to the pressure.
Of the R57.183 billion allocated to Defence for 2025/26, R36.703 billion was set aside for employee compensation.
A further R8.359 billion was earmarked for commitments including accommodation and municipal services, the SAMIDRC deployment in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Armscor, maritime maintenance, emergency repairs, and border vehicles and technology. Motshekga has said this leaves about R12 billion for the Defence Force to meet its constitutional mandate.
However, officials and oversight bodies say this is not a new problem.
Deputy Defence Minister Bantu Holomisa has previously told Parliament that SANDF deployments often begin immediately after presidential authorisation, even while funding from the fiscus is still being processed. He has warned that the Defence Force cannot simply withdraw troops once deployed, even if funding is delayed.
He has also cautioned that, in practice, resources are often shifted from already constrained programmes to cover operational shortfalls, a situation he has described as unsustainable and potentially exposing the department to audit risks. He has previously called for a more predictable and dedicated funding mechanism for authorised deployments.
“What we are doing in practice is shifting resources from already constrained programmes, which is not sustainable in the long term and may expose the Department to audit risks,” he said. “This is precisely why we have raised the need for a predictable and dedicated funding mechanism for all authorised deployments,” Holomisa said.
The Joint Standing Committee on Defence has also raised concerns about the need for a more sustainable funding model for such operations.
The financial pressure becomes clearer in specific deployments. In one instance, 3,405 SANDF members were authorised for a 14-day contingency deployment to support SAPS during planned nationwide protests linked to illegal immigration. The estimated cost was about R54.6 million. Defence stressed that these troops were separate from those already deployed under Operation Prosper, which targets gangsterism and illegal mining.
Operation Prosper itself required about R823 million for 2,200 troops deployed against illegal mining. The National Treasury has said the Minister of Finance approved the release of funding for the operation on August 6 in terms of section 6(1)(c) of the Appropriation Act. It said this provision was the best available mechanism to ensure the earliest release of funds given the timing of the announcement.
The pattern points to a broader issue: not just the number of deployments, but the cumulative cost of layering multiple missions onto a force already under pressure, and the risk that funding one operation may delay or displace another.
International commitments add another layer. During the final withdrawal from MONUSCO in the Democratic Republic of Congo, around 70 SANDF personnel remained involved in logistical and administrative work, at an estimated cost of about R41.9 million. Their tasks included repatriating equipment and closing down the mission.
At the same time, the military continues to face long-standing capability challenges. Government has acknowledged ageing patrol vehicles, deteriorating infrastructure, and weak border fencing and road networks. Additional allocations have been made for fighter capability maintenance and naval repairs, while officials have warned that critical systems require long-term rebuilding.
These pressures extend beyond active service members.
The Department of Military Veterans, which sits within the same ministerial portfolio but operates separately from the SANDF, received R912 million in 2026/27. Government has acknowledged weaknesses in its IT systems, administrative capacity, and service delivery structures, which continue to affect how effectively it can support former service members.
Parliament is also considering the Special Pensions Amendment Bill, which would broaden access to benefits for people who participated in the liberation struggle, as well as their families. The bill includes provisions for late applications and adjustments to survivor and funeral benefits, with Parliament noting that both policy and financial implications require careful scrutiny.
Taken together, these developments add another layer to the question of what the state owes its veterans, and whether the systems responsible for delivering those obligations are adequately resourced and functional.
At issue is not whether SANDF deployments are justified as many are legally mandated and operationally necessary. The broader question is whether South Africa is steadily expanding the military’s responsibilities without matching that expansion with the funding, personnel, and infrastructure required to sustain it.