A company placed in liquidation three years ago remained on SA Civil Aviation Authority's approved list of service providers until this month
Image for illustrative purposes. Picture: iStock
A company which benefited from questionable contracts across the state-controlled transport sector was audited and approved by the SA Civil Aviation Authority (Sacaa) in 2025, despite having been liquidated two years earlier.
The authority said it only became aware of the liquidation this week after The Citizen sent it questions on the matter.
The revelation prompted Transport Minister Barbara Creecy to order independent forensic investigations into Sacaa, Airports Company South Africa (Acsa) and security contracts at the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa).
Documents seen by The Citizen show that Reshebile Aviation and Protection Services was placed into final liquidation three years ago.
Despite this, Sacaa’s January 2026 list of approved aviation security screening organisations continued to list the company as an approved provider authorised to conduct passenger, hold baggage, vehicle and cargo screening at several of South Africa’s major airports, with approval valid until 4 November this year.
Reshebile was also recently named in media reports alleging the company continued to benefit from other state security contracts.
It was reported that Prasa relied on an Acsa recommendation to appoint Reshebile after its liquidation and that work later continued through Reshebile Aviation Solutions, a separate company with a different registration number.
Sacaa spokesperson Sisa Majola said that the regulator audited Reshebile in 2025 and found it complied with the security requirements in Part 110 of the Civil Aviation Regulations, resulting in approval being issued.
However, he said Sacaa was only notified of its liquidation on 4 August, 2026, (the day The Citizen sent questions to it) and had since begun the required regulatory process.
A Sacaa employee who blew the whistle on the matter to The Citizen questioned how a company placed into final liquidation in 2023 could pass a Sacaa audit in 2025, remain on the regulator’s approved list in January 2026 and only come to the regulator’s attention when questions were asked.
Majola said Sacaa’s primary mandate is civil aviation safety, security and environmental compliance and does not extend to commercial matters unless they affect aviation safety and security.
He said operators are expected to notify the regulator of any change in status that could affect aviation safety and security and that, unless there is a final court outcome or a letter from the affected organisation confirming liquidation, it is not legally permitted to terminate an operating licence.
He added that Sacaa is empowered to act on operational misconduct and breaches of the Civil Aviation Regulations, rather than commercial or financial disputes.
Oversight ‘difficult to accept’
Aviation attorney and pilot Emile Myburgh said a properly managed organisation should have identified that one of its security providers was in liquidation, arguing that such a status should automatically have triggered closer scrutiny.
He said vetting at major organisations is typically rigorous, requiring businesses to prove they are legitimate, tax-compliant and properly registered.
Suppliers are required to submit a current COR15 document from the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, which would indicate whether a company is in liquidation or a going concern.
“It’s difficult to accept that something like that could simply have been overlooked,” he said, adding that either supplier management processes failed to detect the company’s liquidation status, or the information was available but no action was taken, neither of which reflected well on procurement or governance processes.
Wayne Duvenage of the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse said the situation was concerning.
“The approved contractors on the Sacaa list of suppliers provide security services to the aviation sector and the people of South Africa.
They can’t simply shrug this oversight off as immaterial,” he said.
“Sacaa is very remiss in that it does not take seriously its requirement to independently verify the legal status of approved aviation security organisations.
“It should be doing so at least annually and should not rely on operators disclosing changes to their corporate status.”
Myburgh also criticised Creecy’s decision to have the affected entities appoint their own forensic investigators, saying: “You can’t expect an organisation to appoint someone to investigate itself.”
However, Duvenage said Creecy’s intervention was at least a step in the right direction.
“For a number of years there have been concerns about poor oversight at institutions like the Civil Aviation Authority and the time for leadership change may be overdue.”
