Constitutional Court rules new procurement act invalid
The judgment leaves public procurement law in limbo, and the state has been given time to fix the statute before it falls away.
The Constitutional Court has found the new procurement act unconstitutional, in a judgment that leaves the rules governing public tenders in question. Moneyweb reported the finding on 17 September 2026.
The ruling is a problem for every department, municipality and state-owned company that buys goods and services, and for the businesses that sell to them. Procurement law is the machinery behind the contracts that keep the state running, from school feeding schemes to road maintenance to hospital supplies.
What the judgment means for buyers and bidders
When the Constitutional Court finds an act unconstitutional, the act does not simply vanish. The court typically sets out what happens next, whether the finding takes effect immediately or is suspended for a period to let the legislature correct the defect. Moneyweb reported the finding. The practical effect on tenders already advertised, already awarded or already under way depends on the terms of the order, and those terms govern what happens from here.
For a business that has bid on a state contract, the question is whether the process it entered is still valid. For a department, the question is which rules it follows while the legislature works. Those are not abstract questions. A tender that is challenged later is a contract that can be set aside, and a project that stalls costs money and time.
Why the court was asked to look at it
Procurement is one of the most litigated areas of South African public life, because the amounts are large and the competition is fierce. The Constitution itself requires that procurement be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective. Any act that sets out to govern how the state buys must meet that standard, and the court’s finding is that this one does not.
The timing is awkward. Public procurement reform has been on the agenda for years, with the aim of consolidating a patchwork of rules, tightening the systems that allow corruption, and giving preference to designated groups in a way that survives legal challenge. A finding of unconstitutionality means that work is not finished.
What happens next
The legislature now has to correct the act within whatever period the court’s order allows. That is a dated step, not a promise. The judgment sets the clock, and the response of Parliament and the executive determines whether the state has workable procurement law when the suspension ends or a gap where the law should be.
For ordinary South Africans, the stakes are the services that procurement delivers. A municipality that cannot lawfully award a contract cannot fix the pipes, and a national department that cannot lawfully buy cannot run its programmes. The judgment is a legal event, and its consequence is measured in whether the state can still buy what it needs to serve people.
Source: Moneyweb, Die Konstitusionele Hof bevind die nuwe verkrygingswet ongrondwetlik
