Sassa warns grant recipients of ‘Ubuntu Life' misusing name, logo
Sassa is expected to disburse August social grants to beneficiaries in the first week of August. Picture: sassa.co.za
The South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) has issued a stern warning to the public about 'Ubuntu Life', which it says is unlawfully using Sassa's name, logo, and brand to mislead beneficiaries.
Sassa has unequivocally distanced itself from any association with this entity and refutes any claims or suggestions that Ubuntu Life is affiliated with, endorsed by, or contracted by the agency in any capacity.
Precaution
The agency has urged South Africans to remain vigilant and report any fraudulent activities.
Sassa CEO, Themba Matlou, has urged the public not to engage with any individuals or organisations that claim to operate on behalf of the agency without official verification.
'Sassa does not outsource grant applications or beneficiary services to private companies such as Ubuntu Life or any other company for that matter.
'We appeal to the members of the public, especially our beneficiaries, not to fall prey to these fraudulent acts committed in Sassa's name. Please exercise vigilance and verify the authenticity of such acts with Sassa before partaking in them,' emphasised Matlou.
ALSO READ: Sassa cracks down on beneficiaries flagged for not disclosing income
No fees
Matlou further reiterated that Sassa does not charge any fees for social grant services, as these services are provided free of charge by employed Sassa officials.
'Sassa's legal team has taken steps to initiate formal action against the unlawful use of its brand and will pursue all legal avenues to protect the integrity of its services and the safety of South African social grant beneficiaries
'All official Sassa communications come via its official platforms and service points. If anyone has been approached or misled by Ubuntu Life or any similar entity, they are urged to report the matter immediately to the nearest South African Police Service or call Sassa on its toll-free number, 0800 60 10 11 or email [email protected],' Matlou said.
August grants
Meanwhile, Sassa is expected to disburse August social grants to beneficiaries in the first week of August.
The agency administers more than 19 million grant payments, including the Older Persons Grant, Disability Grant, War Veterans Grant, Care Dependency Grant, Foster Child Grant, Child Support Grant, Child Support Grant Top-Up, and Grant-in-Aid.
Older Persons Grant – Tuesday, 5 August 2025
Disability Grant – Wednesday, 6 August 2025
Children's Grants – Thursday, 7 August 2025
Sassa grant amounts:
Old Age (60-74 years) and Disability grants – R2 315;
Old Age (75+ years) Grant – R2 335;
War Veterans Grant – R2 315;
Care Dependency Grant – R2 315;
Child Support Grant – R560;
Foster Care Grant – R1 250;
SRD Grant – R370
ALSO READ: More than 200 000 will experience Sassa grant delays — here's why
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
South African Lens: Pakistan's Divorce Laws Leave Women in Financial Limbo
As it stands, Pakistan follows a model where property remains separate unless jointly titled—regardless of a woman's unpaid contributions to the household or her support for her husband's career. This issue has been spotlighted in Pakistan's courts. Image: Supplied In many societies, divorce is not just a personal rupture but a financial reckoning — especially for women. This is starkly true in Pakistan, where the legal system fails to recognise a woman's right to marital property, often leaving divorced wives with little more than the clothes on their backs. For South Africans watching global gender justice trends, Pakistan's legal landscape raises urgent questions about how tradition, law and social norms can entrench inequality in the private sphere. Despite Islam's emphasis on justice and the protection of the vulnerable, Pakistani women who exit a marriage often do so without any claim to assets acquired during the relationship. This is because Pakistan does not currently have legislation that guarantees women a share in property accumulated while married. As it stands, the country follows a model where property remains separate unless jointly titled, regardless of a woman's unpaid contributions to the household or her support for her husband's career. This issue has been spotlighted in Pakistan's courts. The Lahore High Court recently instructed the federal government to consult on a proposed amendment to the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance of 1961. The amendment, initially brought forward by Senator Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, introduces terms such as 'matrimonial asset' and seeks to give women fairer recognition of their contributions. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The court's intervention may become a turning point, as public discourse grows around the injustice of women leaving long marriages with nothing, despite having raised children, run households and sacrificed careers. To understand the impact, it helps to look beyond Pakistan's borders. Countries such as Turkey, Malaysia and Morocco — Muslim-majority states like Pakistan—have adopted laws that balance Islamic principles with modern family realities. In Turkey, marital assets are presumed to be jointly owned unless otherwise agreed. Malaysia takes both financial and non-financial contributions into account when dividing property. Morocco's Family Code permits couples to decide beforehand how to share property, with the law recognising joint management during the marriage. These countries demonstrate that religious values and women's rights need not be in conflict. Legal frameworks can uphold the dignity and equality of both spouses, particularly when marriages dissolve. Currently, Pakistan's system mirrors what legal scholars call a pure separate property regime. Under this model, property belongs only to the person who earned or acquired it. There is no assumption that marriage creates an economic partnership, and courts generally require strict proof of ownership. This often disadvantages women who have worked in the home or made indirect contributions, as they lack titles or formal income records. South Africa, by contrast, provides multiple options when couples marry, including community of property, which assumes equal ownership of assets acquired during the marriage. This legal approach acknowledges that both spouses contribute to the financial foundation of the household, even if in different ways. South African courts, when dividing property, also take into account each partner's needs, contributions and the duration of the marriage. It is a system far more aligned with the complex social reality of marriage than Pakistan's outdated laws. The cost of inaction in Pakistan is high. Women who divorce often lose access to shelter and income. Even where they have invested years in managing the home or caring for children, the law offers no recourse. Many end up dependent on their families or feel pressured into remarriage for economic survival. This perpetuates gendered cycles of poverty and limits women's agency. Pakistan has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which requires states to ensure equality in marriage and family relations, including property rights. CEDAW's guidance calls for equal access to marital assets. Other Muslim-majority countries have made strides toward compliance. Tunisia and Iran, for instance, have introduced property-sharing rules that acknowledge both partners' roles in a marriage. Pakistan, however, remains out of step. Legal reform is not only a technical matter. It is about recognising that women are equal partners in family life, deserving of financial security when that partnership ends. Amending the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance to define and protect matrimonial property would help courts provide more consistent, fair outcomes. It would also signal that Pakistan is serious about its commitments to gender equality, both to its citizens and the global community. For South Africans, watching this debate unfold is a chance to reflect on how far we have come and how far others still need to go. In a world where women's rights are constantly under pressure, the battle for fairness within the family is as important as any public policy reform. Pakistan stands at a fork in the road. One path leads to continued injustice and economic hardship for women. The other leads to fairness, dignity and the recognition of women's work — paid or unpaid—as valuable and deserving of protection. The choice, now, is in the hands of lawmakers.
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Who will steer the R55bn marriage of MultiChoice and Canal+?
There's a new power couple in African media. After nearly five years of courting, Canal+ has finally put a ring on MultiChoice to form a pan-African content colossus with global ambitions. French media titan Canal+ has secured the final go-ahead to acquire MultiChoice in a landmark R55-billion deal. After years of quiet manoeuvring and regulatory hurdles, the merger is now a question of who controls what. The Competition Tribunal's conditional approval, granted late last week, closes the chapter on a five-year 'creeping takeover' and opens a new era in African broadcasting. Now it's a balancing act weighing foreign capital with national sovereignty on a digital scale with local content. Enter the media monarchy In return for its princely sum, Canal+, owned by the French conglomerate Vivendi, gets access to MultiChoice's 14.5 million Anglophone and Lusophone subscribers, the DStv powerhouse, sports juggernaut SuperSport, and a foothold in streaming via Showmax. MultiChoice, facing rising costs and subscriber declines, finds itself rescued by a suitor with deep pockets and pan-African ambition. Combined, the merged entity will serve more than 24 million subscribers across 50 countries — instantly becoming the largest pay-TV and streaming provider on the continent. However, if Canal+ was hoping for free access, South African regulators had other plans. The deal's approval came wrapped in layers of red tape — not as a deterrent, but as a deliberate design feature. Transformation goals Central to the regulatory conditions is the creation of LicenceCo, an independent company that will hold MultiChoice South Africa's broadcast licence. It will be majority-owned and controlled by historically disadvantaged South Africans and employees. Crucially, Canal+ has no control and no board seats. This structural firewall protects South Africa's legal requirements around media ownership, ensures transformation goals are met and serves as a template for foreign investment in other sensitive sectors. Phuthuma Nathi, the B-BBEE shareholder darling, increases its economic interest in LicenceCo to 27%, with a new employee trust added. The licence, and the local airwaves it governs, stay South African. The R30bn lobola The Competition Tribunal didn't just demand structural separation; it also extracted a commitment package valued at more than R30-billion. This includes: A three-year moratorium on retrenchments linked to the merger; Significant investment in local content production, sports broadcasting, SMME procurement and Corporate Social Investment programmes; Ongoing free-to-air broadcast access for key sporting events, safeguarding the public's ability to view major matches without a subscription; and Local skills development through Canal+'s 'University Programme', to train historically disadvantaged individuals in broadcasting and production. In a media environment where Netflix and Amazon Prime are increasingly dominant, this local-first approach is designed to future-proof South African media. Showmax, SuperSport and scale Behind the regulatory muscle lies a clear commercial imperative. MultiChoice has struggled in recent years, shedding 2.8 million linear subscribers and burning cash to prop up Showmax 2.0, its streaming reboot built on Comcast tech and bolstered by NBC Universal's 30% equity stake. Canal+ brings financial stability and scale. It also inherits Irdeto, MultiChoice's profitable cybersecurity unit, and Showmax's potential to become Africa's answer to global streamers. Vivendi, Canal+'s parent company, views this merger as critical to its own transformation and part of a plan to split into three listed entities, with Canal+ as its global growth engine. Listing Canal+ on the JSE within nine months of deal completion is a further nod to local inclusion, visibility, and capital market confidence. The shiny ring can't cover controversial holes While South Africa celebrates a structurally sound deal with tangible local benefits, not all observers are convinced. Critics warn that Canal+'s track record and the Bolloré Group's 30.4% stake in it come with baggage. Vivendi's past includes one of the largest corporate losses in history and regulatory infractions that still cast a shadow. Vincent Bolloré, the billionaire behind the curtain, faces corruption charges in France and has been accused of turning Canal+'s French media outlets into right-wing political mouthpieces. With Canal+ now embedded in South Africa's broadcasting ecosystem, some fear creeping influence over editorial independence, particularly if there are future attempts to deepen ownership or control beyond the current firewall. Marriage isn't buying a horse Mergers are easy to announce but hard to manage. However, the competition bodies have played their hand cleverly — extracting commitments, safeguarding jobs and setting a precedent for how global capital must behave when it enters South Africa's strategic sectors. The long-term test lies ahead. Can Showmax truly compete with Netflix? Can SuperSport keep its sports crown as global streamers outbid for rights? Will LicenceCo be a transformative force or a regulatory box-ticker? Will Canal+ respect the firewall, or try to chip away at it over time? The merged entity is now king of the hill in African broadcasting, but it's a kingdom that won't run on size alone. Trust, execution and transformation will be the currencies of success. DM
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The Finance Ghost: The battle for MAS is over – now begins the war?
With Hyprop terminating its bid for MAS Real Estate, Prime Kapital has won the first skirmish. But the war is in its early stages… MAS Real Estate is the company that nobody expected to become the juiciest M&A story on the JSE this year. All the ingredients are here – big hitters on either side of the table and a board in the middle that is coming under increasing pressure by the day. And depending on the outcome of the extraordinary general meeting that has been scheduled for Wednesday, 27 August, at the request of a group of South African institutional investors, we could see an equally big hitter like Des de Beer landing up on the board as well. But why all this interest and opportunistic dealmaking activity? Why are such impressive sharks circling this particular boat? Blood in the water Although MAS isn't exactly a household name, it does have a market cap of R15.6-billion. Despite this significant size, MAS has been struggling to prepare for upcoming bond maturities, flagging weak support in the bond market for companies with MAS' risk profile. This led to the suspension of the MAS dividend in 2023 and subsequent panic selling by dividend-focused investors. Then, as various other strategies to strengthen the balance sheet came to fruition, investors with more of a net asset value (NAV) or total return focus (vs purely caring about the dividend yield) bought shares, leading to a recovery in the share price to levels seen before the panic selling. But here's the really important bit: the current share price still represents a substantial discount to NAV, which means that there's money to be made by getting control of the assets and managing the balance sheet in such a way that value can be unlocked over time. A lot of money. And in reality, the progress made by MAS towards being ready for bond refinancing or redemption activity is probably the major catalyst for the recent flurry of interest, as the best time to acquire control of a business is when it is still a recovery story rather than a bright and shiny object that everyone loves (and hence wants to be paid a fortune to part with). Either way, the substantial gap between the 52-week high of R24.65 and 52-week low of R15.76 tells quite a story, with plenty of opportunities for traders along the way. But aside from the short-term gains (and losses) on offer, the real story here is the battle between Prime Kapital and Hyprop, with both parties keen to get their hands on the MAS value unlock opportunity. Disclosure, dividends and liquidity – these are the tools of war In the world of corporate finance, parties bring different negotiating tactics to the table. At Prime Kapital for example, one of their key strengths in this fight is that they hold the keys to unlocking the capital that is currently tied up in the joint venture between MAS and Prime Kapital. With so much focus on the balance sheet at MAS and a desire to get back to paying dividends, that capital is a highly valuable bargaining chip. This joint venture has been a major bone of contention for institutional investors, with allegations that the board of MAS didn't disclose important elements of the joint venture agreement to the market. Simply put, investors have been caught by surprise that Prime Kapital holds quite so much influence over the broader MAS balance sheet and cashflow profile. This has led to the demand by investors for changes to the board, which would include the removal of a couple of directors and the appointment of several new independent directors. The 'white knight' for these investors is Hyprop, a JSE-listed Reit (real estate investment trust) that is well known to the local institutional investor community. Such is the support that Hyprop enjoys that it had no difficulties in raising more than R800-million in an accelerated bookbuild process, based on little more than a vague suggestion that it would have a go at acquiring MAS if it raised the money. But of course, R800-million is nowhere near enough to acquire control in a fund with a market cap of R15.6-billion, which brings us to the next negotiating point: liquidity of the shares. For Prime Kapital to acquire control of MAS, it needs to convince shareholders to accept a part-cash, part-shares deal. Although it is currently suggesting that it would put more cash on the table than Hyprop (which is a positive), the downside to its indicative offer is that the equity portion would take the form of an inward-listed preference share that is unlikely to have much liquidity at all. The actual terms of the preference shares do have some appealing features, but they will almost certainly require investors to take a long-term view of holding them until some kind of redemption event. In contrast, Hyprop shares are liquid and investors who swap their MAS exposure for shares in Hyprop would have no trouble in reducing that stake if required. The Hyprop offer is thus perceived as having a stronger equity portion, while the Prime Kapital indicative terms are stronger on the cash side. Understanding these levers is important, as it shows how we got to a place where Hyprop put in a bid that was terminated almost as quickly as it arrived. A highly unusual offer structure Offers to shareholders are usually open for a long time, as there's a process in which the board of the target company is given a chance to hire an independent expert and give the market a proper view on the transaction. Such offers are also usually open for acceptance even once important conditions have been met, allowing shareholders to accept an offer that they know is going ahead. And in most cases, those conditions are outside of the control of the offeror, i.e. they relate to regulatory approvals. The Hyprop offer followed none of these market norms. Before Hyprop decided to terminate the bid, the structure of the offer was that it would have been open for acceptance for only a few days from when it was announced. This doesn't give the board time to properly opine on the terms, nor does it give enough time for any of the important underlying conditions to be fulfilled. In other words, investors would have to accept the offer (via an irrevocable undertaking) and then wait and see how long it would take for conditions to be met. But there's more: one of the conditions was a demand by Hyprop to be given the same access to information as Prime Kapital, which of course ties in beautifully with the institutional investors and their valid concerns around disclosure shortcomings. Now, had there been no attempt to address those shortcomings, this would be fair. But the nuance here is that the MAS board had already released a detailed legal summary of the terms, so this demand by Hyprop implied that there were still significant disclosure issues. If true, that casts the MAS board in a very poor light. And if false, then it creates inappropriate optionality in the offer that prejudices shareholders who must give an irrevocable undertaking in the hope that Hyprop eventually chooses to go ahead with closing the offer, something that could take several months. As the demand by Hyprop wasn't going to be met by Prime Kapital (as this would've required detailed disclosure of documents by a party that is in no mood to cooperate with Hyprop's bid terms), Hyprop decided to walk away from this offer. Much as it may lay the blame at the door of poor disclosure, I still can't see how they could justify such an aggressive offer structure. Why was it necessary for the acceptance period to be just one week, particularly when the price implied by the offer was at a substantial discount to the current traded price of MAS? What's next? With Hyprop terminating its bid, Prime Kapital has won the first skirmish. But the war is in its early stages, as we are still talking about a substantial property fund that is trading at a juicy discount. Will Hyprop stay in this fight? Will another party enter the fray? There's no way of knowing. All we know is that Prime Kapital certainly isn't going anywhere, as it is a significant minority shareholder in MAS and holds great influence over its economics. We also know that the institutions won't just roll over, as they are pushing for changes to the board and answers about disclosure. It feels unlikely that this will just fizzle out. All eyes will now be on the extraordinary general meeting in August, followed by the responses of the (potentially new) board to the institutional investor questions. If nothing else, perhaps the lesson to learn here is that if you are going to attempt an offer with highly unusual terms, you are setting yourself up for an unpleasant outcome. Had Hyprop simply dialled back some of the terms to more reasonable levels, it wouldn't have given Prime Kapital so much ammunition to discredit its bid. DM
