In a recent parliamentary hearing this week, the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans (PCDMV) conducted a critical review of Project Thusano, a long-standing bilateral agreement between South Africa and Cuba.
The project, which was aimed at training military personnel, maintaining defence vehicles, and offering medical education, came under scrutiny due to allegations of financial mismanagement and irregular expenditure. In response to these concerns, the Department of Defence (DoD) presented Project Kgala, a new initiative designed to address the failures of its predecessor.
The Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) provided a damning assessment of Project Thusano, revealing that it resulted in R1.7 billion in irregular expenditure due to non-compliance with procurement regulations. The AGSA found that the agreements under the project had failed to adhere to South Africa’s Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and Treasury regulations. The procurement of services from Cuba bypassed standard competitive processes, and there was no cost-benefit analysis conducted to justify the expenses.
The financial implications of the project raised significant concerns. The AGSA’s findings indicated that the cost of using Cuban labour was up to 3.8 times higher than what would have been required if South African technicians had been employed.
Additionally, training costs in Cuba were found to be excessive, with medical students being 136% more expensive than if they had studied locally (the Department of Defence sent 108 medical students to Cuba between 2015 and 2024). The issue of skills transfers also came under question, as there was no verifiable evidence that the training provided led to long-term sustainability within the South African National Defence Force (SANDF).
A particular area of controversy was the procurement of Heberon, a Cuban-manufactured drug, which was purchased for R33.5 million without approval from South African regulatory bodies. The AGSA noted that this medicine was ultimately returned to Cuba, preventing a potential loss of R226 million. However, the lack of oversight in the procurement process highlighted broader governance failures.
Following the AGSA’s presentation, the Department of Defence defended its reliance on Cuban expertise, arguing that South Africa’s defence industry had proven unreliable in maintaining military vehicles and equipment.
According to Brigadier General BG Mtsweni, Chief of Staff of the SANDF, the decision to engage Cuba was driven by the exorbitant costs and lack of reliability in the local defence sector. He asserted that the agreement with Cuba allowed the SANDF to repair thousands of vehicles, many of which had been previously deemed irreparable by local contractors. The Department of Defence claimed 10 779 military vehicles were repaired over a seven year period.
Despite this defence, the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans expressed scepticism about whether Project Kgala would genuinely correct the financial and operational failures of Project Thusano.
The Department of Defence presented the new project as a more cost-effective and compliant alternative, stating that it would reduce expenditure by 82.3% over five years. Unlike its predecessor, Project Kgala will not include vocational training, which will instead be integrated into South Africa’s Foreign Learning Opportunities Framework.
One of the critical concerns raised by the committee was the lack of proper accreditation for Cuban-trained personnel. Many engineers and medical professionals trained under Project Thusano could not register with South African professional bodies, rendering their qualifications worthless. Committee members demanded assurance that Project Kgala would align with national accreditation standards, ensuring that trained personnel could be formally recognised in their respective fields.
The committee further called for greater transparency and accountability in the implementation of Project Kgala. Several members stressed that the DoD had consistently failed to follow the recommendations of the AGSA, leading to years of unchecked spending and weak oversight. In response, the DoD committed to closer collaboration with the Auditor-General’s office, promising regular reporting and stricter compliance with financial regulations.
To address the broader governance concerns, the committee proposed a national workshop on financial oversight for senior defence officials. This initiative would focus on ensuring adherence to financial regulations, improving procurement practices, and preventing a repeat of the failures seen in Project Thusano.
Chris Hattingh, a committee member for the Democratic Alliance (DA), strongly rejected Project Kgala, calling it a rebranded version of the “failed and wasteful Project Thusano.” He criticised the project for wasting South African taxpayer money by “channelling billions of rands to Cuba” without delivering tangible benefits to South Africa or its military personnel.
Hattingh pointed out that the cost of maintaining military vehicles through Cuban suppliers was more expensive than using local technicians, and he argued that South Africa’s own defence industry is more than capable of providing the same services at a fraction of the cost.
Hattingh dismissed the assertion that Cuba’s involvement in military training and skills transfer was essential, claiming it was politically motivated and aimed at repaying past political debts between the ANC and Cuba. He noted the lack of cost-benefit analysis or needs assessment before engaging in these deals and highlighted the inefficiency of the vocational training program, where medical training in Cuba was not only more expensive than local options, but also saw a 28% pass rate. Hattingh called for Project Kgala to be terminated immediately, urging the Department of Defence and SANDF to end any further dealings with Cuba.
