For 27 years after democracy, South Africa had no law requiring political parties to disclose their funding sources. The Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act (1997) provided state funding based on electoral representation, but private funding — the majority of party income for larger parties — was completely unregulated and undisclosed. This was not an oversight: the ANC and other parties actively resisted transparency legislation for decades.
The most dramatic example was the Gupta family's funding of the ANC and its factions. The Zondo Commission heard evidence that the Guptas channelled an estimated R1 billion or more to the ANC and individual ANC leaders over the state capture period (2010-2017). This funding bought influence over Cabinet appointments, SOE board placements, and government procurement decisions.
The "Oilgate" scandal (2002) demonstrated the pattern earlier in the democratic era. PetroSA awarded a R15 billion oil-storage contract to Imvume Management, which channelled R11 million to the ANC ahead of the 2004 elections. This was the first proven link between SOE procurement and ANC campaign funding.
Chancellor House, the ANC's investment arm, held stakes in companies receiving government contracts, including a consortium awarded a R38 billion contract for Eskom's Medupi and Kusile boilers (through Hitachi Power Africa). The Public Protector found a conflict of interest but recommended no action.
The DA, EFF, and other parties were also opaque. The EFF faced allegations of receiving funding from the VBS Mutual Bank looting scheme, though this was denied.
The Political Party Funding Act, signed in 2018 and effective April 2021, finally required disclosure of donations exceeding R100,000. The IEC published its first disclosures in 2022. However, the 27-year dark money era left a legacy of corruption that transparency alone cannot undo. When corporations fund parties in secret, they buy policy influence. When wealthy individuals fund factions, they buy patronage appointments. The 27-year absence of transparency was not a gap in the law — it was the law working as intended by those who benefited from opacity.