The Tender Table: Who Really Eats in a Gendered System of Corruption
Written by: Koketso Sekhu – Gauteng Education Officer/Acting Deputy Director: Public Education and Information.
It begins quietly…A tender is advertised. A small business owner sees an opportunity. She has done everything right. She registered her company, attended compliance workshops, and patiently waited for a chance to grow. This tender could change everything… But before her documents are even fully reviewed, she is pulled aside. “You know how these things work,” someone tells her. In that moment, she learns what so many others already know: in South Africa’s procurement system, winning is not always about merit, it is about access, networks, and sometimes, something far more troubling.
The promise of procurement and its betrayal is revealed in the widening gap between policy commitments and lived realities. Public procurement remains one of the most powerful tools available to the state, designed to drive economic transformation and open opportunities for historically excluded groups, including women. Yet, despite this promise, the system often reproduces exclusion instead of dismantling it. The Commission for Gender Equality’s report, A Promise Without Commitment, highlights this contradiction clearly. Although President Cyril Ramaphosa committed government toallocating 40% of procurement to women-owned businesses, most departments spend far below this target, typically between 1% and 5%. This shortfall is not accidental. It reflects systemic weaknesses, inadequate legislation, limited accountability, and a paucity of policy guidance. What we are left with is a system that speaks the language of transformation butdoes not consistently deliver it.
Where corruption meets gender, the reality becomes more complex and more deeply unequal. Corruption in procurement has long been associated with bribery, collusion, and inflated contracts. However, its gendered dimension remains largely invisible in mainstream discourse. For women attempting to access procurement opportunities, the barriers are layered. Access is shaped not only by financial resources and political networks, but also by structural exclusion and, in some cases, exploitation. This exposes a critical truth, that corruption is not gender-neutral. The CGE findings reinforce this exclusion, showing that even in high-value sectors like infrastructure and construction, women-owned businesses remain significantly underrepresented. As a result, the system that should empower women instead reinforces inequality.
Supply chains without accountability expose the structural weaknesses embedded in procurement systems. Supply chain management systems are meant to uphold the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, and competitiveness. Yet, in practice, these systems are often undermined by weak oversight and inconsistent implementation. The CGE report reveals fluctuating and inconsistent procurement patterns across both national and provincial departments, with no sustained progress toward gender inclusion.
Even the few departments that show improvement fail to maintain it over time. This inconsistency reflects a deeper structural failure that procurement systems are simply not designed to enforce gender equality, particularlywithout strong legislative backing and monitoring mechanisms.
The cost of exclusion is felt not only in the economy, but in the lived experiences of those pushed out of the system. When women are excluded from procurement opportunities, the impact goes far beyond missed business prospects. It affects economic growth, community development, and social equity. The most immediate cost is personal, evident in the decision to stop applying for opportunities, the erosion of trust in public systems, and the quiet withdrawal of those who once believed they could participate.
Corruption not only diverts resources, but it also shapes who has access to opportunity and who does not. The role of the Commission for Gender Equality becomes critical in confronting both corruption and systemic exclusion. The CGE’s research demonstrates that gender mainstreaming cannot succeed in an environment where corruption persists. Without addressing corruption, efforts to promote women’s economic empowerment will remain fragmented and ineffective. This means gender-responsive procurement must go beyond targets. It must include strong accountability mechanisms that address corruption, bias, and exclusion.
In conclusion, the real question is not whether corruption exists, but rather who benefits from it. At its core, this issue forces us to confront a difficult truth, that systems shaped by corruption tend to benefit those who already hold power and influence. For those trying to enter the system, particularly women, the barriers remain significant. As such, corruption does not only steal public funds! It steals opportunity! Until procurement systems become truly transparent, accountable, and gender-responsive, the promise of equality will remain just that, a PROMISE!!!