The latest political funding disclosure has sparked intense debate over the true meaning of transparency in South Africa’s politics, with civil society organisation My Vote Counts (MVC) warning that current laws are leaving voters in the dark about who controls the cash.

Ahead of the upcoming local government elections, political parties declared a combined R116.8-million in private donations for the first quarter of the 2026/27 financial year.

This explosive three-month surge represents more than half of the R175-million declared across the entire previous 2025/26 financial year.

The DA single-handedly drove the quarter's funding boom, accounting for about R104-million, nearly 89% of the total declared across all parties.

However, it is the structure of these donations, rather than just the staggering amount, that is turning heads.

The DA’s declarations included R30-million from Fynbos Ekwiteit and R25-million from Fynbos Kapitaal.

Both corporate entities are directly linked to Capitec founder Michiel le Roux, totalling a R55-million injection in just three months.

While these donations technically comply with the Political Party Funding Act because they were made by separate legal entities, MVC argues they expose a critical loophole in South Africa's democracy.

"Does our political funding framework adequately account for connected entities and common beneficial ownership when assessing the concentration of political influence?" MVC questioned on Tuesday, noting that transparency is meaningless if systemic issues are ignored.

The organisation is currently engaged in ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Act.

Its legal challenge aims to enforce strict limits on cumulative donations made by related or connected donors to prevent single wealthy individuals from exercising disproportionate influence through corporate webs.

MVC also expressed concern over individual donors appearing in the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) records with incomplete names or only initials.

The organisation cited examples like “Mr M Moshal” or “Mr D Barnes” as evidence of a framework that it says fails ordinary citizens.

"Voters should not have to search the internet, cross-reference records or submit PAIA (Promotion of Access to Information Act) applications simply to establish who has donated significant sums," MVC stated.

The organisation emphasised that full identification must be mandatory within the disclosure itself to ensure true accountability.

While the DA dominates the funding charts, the ANC is drawing criticism for non-compliance. MVC labelled the ruling party's failure to meet its statutory obligations part of a "recurring pattern”.

MVC said the ANC’s failure to comply with legislation designed to strengthen accountability is a direct hit to public trust.

Consequently, MVC has called on the IEC to ensure that compliance rules are enforced equally, regardless of a party's size or political weight.

The current funding landscape also raises tough questions about the Multi-Party Democracy Fund (MPDF). Established by law, the MPDF allows corporate and individual donors to contribute to South African democracy anonymously, with funds distributed proportionately among all represented parties to avoid buying direct political favour.

Yet, private donors continue to overwhelmingly reject the MPDF in favour of direct party contributions.

This preference matters deeply, MVC said. Direct funding creates exclusive relationships of access and influence between billionaires, corporations, and politicians, it argued.

MVC suggests that if big-money donors “genuinely care” about safeguarding South Africa's multi-party system rather than purchasing political leverage, they must reconsider where they direct their financial power. With local elections on the horizon, the call for systemic reform has never been more urgent, the organisation stated.