The South African Revenue Service has taken decisive legal action against two of its own former employees, securing court-backed preservation orders as part of a sweeping crackdown on fraud and corruption within government departments. The move signals a clear shift in how SARS intends to handle internal betrayal — and it’s sending a message that resonates far beyond Pretoria.
Through an ex parte application in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, SARS obtained preservation orders targeting two former officials who had both resigned from the organisation — one in 2024, the other in 2025. Their departures, it turns out, did nothing to shield them from accountability.
The tax authority presented prima facie evidence of serious misconduct to the court, including corruption, money laundering, unauthorised work conducted outside of SARS, breaches of the organisation’s secrecy provisions, and the misuse of state property. These are not minor administrative infringements — this is the kind of conduct that hollows out public institutions from the inside.
The court found that SARS had met the statutory threshold required under the Tax Administration Act to justify the preservation orders. A curator bonis was subsequently appointed to take control of the assets and prevent them from being moved, hidden, or disposed of while tax assessments are being finalised.
What’s now frozen under curatorship is significant. Three immovable properties, six vehicles, and multiple bank and investment accounts held across major financial institutions have all been placed under the curator’s control. Together, these assets are estimated to be worth several million rand in total.
The curator has not only been tasked with preserving what’s already known — they’ve also been authorised by the High Court to locate additional assets that may have been concealed or deliberately placed out of SARS’s reach. That’s a broad and powerful mandate, and it reflects how seriously the court took the evidence presented.
SARS Corruption Crackdown Marks a New Era Under Commissioner-Designate Dr Johnstone Makhubu
SARS Commissioner-Designate Dr Johnstone Makhubu, who is set to replace outgoing Commissioner Edward Kieswetter on 1 May, was unambiguous in his response to the development. He described corruption by SARS employees — past or present — as “the worst form of betrayal,” and made clear that the institution will pursue wrongdoers regardless of whether they’ve already walked out the door.
“It undermines public trust, damages the integrity of our systems, and strikes at the heart of the state’s ability to serve its people,” Makhubu said. His words carry particular weight given the timing — he is stepping into the top job at a moment when SARS is visibly reshaping its internal culture around accountability.
“We are acting early, securing assets, and following the money,” the incoming commissioner added. “Where corruption intersects with tax and customs systems, SARS will intervene swiftly and lawfully.” It’s a stance that reads less like a press statement and more like a declaration of intent.
The action forms part of SARS’s Illicit Economy Strategy, which itself feeds into the broader national Illicit Economy Disruption Programme announced by President Cyril Ramaphosa during his State of the Nation Address. Tackling corruption within government structures is listed as a high-priority focus area under this framework.
SARS also acknowledged the role of whistleblowers in bringing these matters to light, confirming that employees and members of the public had come forward with information about criminal conduct. The organisation is urging South Africans to continue using its confidential reporting platform to flag tax fraud, corruption, and related criminal activities.
Further civil, administrative, and criminal proceedings remain on the table as investigations into the two former officials continue to develop. The message from Makhubu is unambiguous: resigning to escape consequences is no longer a viable exit strategy. “Those who think that this method will exculpate them from the consequences of their actions must know that they’ll be pursued and will be found wherever they are.” For anyone tempted to test that claim, the Gauteng High Court’s preservation orders offer a fairly convincing reason not to.