A dispute over payments for a 90-kilometre game fence at Mpumalanga’s Songimvelo Nature Reserve has raised questions about how public infrastructure projects are measured, verified and paid for in difficult terrain.
The Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) identified a possible R17 674 573.87 overpayment, including VAT, after its audit team physically checked sections of the fence. The provincial Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs has challenged that calculation, saying drone footage indicated that more of the project had been completed than the auditors recorded during their inspection.
Auditors worked under wildlife protection
The inspection was carried out in Songimvelo Nature Reserve, where elephants, buffaloes and leopards move through rugged mountain and valley terrain. Auditors were accompanied by the contractor and protected by game rangers while they measured the installed fencing.
AGSA spokesperson Africa Boso said the team inspected the project during October and November last year. The work required auditors to enter an area where ordinary access is difficult and where the fence is intended to play an important role in separating wildlife from nearby communities.
“The auditors had to be accompanied by game rangers to protect them against wild animals during the remeasurement,” Boso said.
The circumstances underline the unusual conditions under which public-sector auditing sometimes takes place. In this case, the verification of construction quantities could not be completed through paperwork alone. The audit team had to examine the fence on the ground and measure sections of the material in a protected conservation area.
Different measurements lie at the centre of dispute
AGSA’s inspection covered about 58 kilometres of fencing. That measurement led to the audit finding that the state may have paid for work that had not been completed at the time of assessment.
The provincial department disputed the finding and submitted drone footage showing that approximately 67.5 kilometres had been completed. The difference between the two measurements is about 9.5 kilometres, making the timing of each assessment central to the disagreement.
| Item | Figure |
|---|---|
| Fence planned | 90 km |
| Fence measured by AGSA | About 58 km |
| Distance shown in departmental drone footage | 67.5 km |
| Possible overpayment identified | R17 674 573.87 |
Boso said construction resumed after the auditors’ visit, which meant the physical inspection and the department’s later evidence reflected different stages of the project. Because the site was not easily accessible, AGSA could not simply return to repeat the inspection at a later date.
“The fence is in an area not easily accessible,” Boso said.
According to AGSA, those conditions informed the decision to defer further audit work. The available information does not indicate that the disagreement has been resolved, nor does it establish that an overpayment was finally confirmed.
Why the fence matters to communities and conservation
Songimvelo is Mpumalanga’s largest provincial nature reserve, covering about 48 000 hectares near the Eswatini border. It forms part of the Songimvelo-Malolotja Transfrontier Conservation Area, a cross-border landscape known for its geology and biodiversity.
The fence is meant to secure the conservation area and reduce the risk of dangerous animals moving into neighbouring communities. Its condition and completion therefore have implications beyond the value of the contract. A delay, incomplete section or disputed measurement can affect both the protection of public assets and the safety arrangements around settlements near the reserve.
The project also illustrates the tension between conservation work and conventional procurement oversight. A fence installed across mountains and valleys may be difficult to measure, while the use of drone footage and on-site verification can produce different results if the work continues between assessments.
Public money under scrutiny
The dispute places renewed attention on the need for clear records showing when work was completed, what sections were inspected and how payments were linked to verified construction. Those details are particularly important where projects involve large areas, challenging access and infrastructure intended to serve both environmental and public-safety purposes.
For Mpumalanga residents, the issue is not only the disputed amount. It concerns whether taxpayers received the infrastructure they were billed for, whether the reserve is adequately secured and whether audit findings can be followed through when site conditions make further checks difficult.
- AGSA identified a possible overpayment of R17.67 million, including VAT.
- The provincial department challenged the finding using drone footage showing 67.5 kilometres of completed fencing.
- Further audit work was deferred after the site’s difficult access and changing construction stage complicated a follow-up inspection.
The case demonstrates the importance of independent verification in projects where progress claims carry significant financial consequences. It also shows the practical risks auditors may face while checking public expenditure in conservation areas, where accountability work can require the same precautions as field operations in the reserve itself.
