The Spaza Grant Is Available. But How Accessible Is the Application Process?

When Johannesburg Mayor Dada Morero urged Soweto’s spaza shop owners to access government funding, the conversation centred on a disappointing number of businesses accessing the available support. According to TimesLIVE’s 9 October report, just over 150 spaza shops had been approved as compliant, while approximately 40 had accessed funding. The mayor’s appeal raises an important question: if funding is available, why are so few businesses accessing it? But there is another question worth asking. What does it actually take to apply?
I am currently assisting someone with an application through the SEDFA portal, and the experience has given me a practical view of the administrative demands involved.

The application is divided into multiple sections, each requiring information, while the supporting-document checklist includes financial statements, cash-flow projections, tax clearance documentation, bank statements, company registration records, proof of address, ownership disclosures and other paperwork. Some requirements are conditional, but several are marked compulsory. The question is not whether government should verify applicants or protect public funds. It should. The question is whether the application process is sufficiently accessible to the very businesses this funding programme is intended to support.

These are questions SEDFA should be able to answer. Which documents are mandatory for every applicant, and which depend on the funding amount, legal structure or circumstances of the business? Are applicants supported when they lack particular documents, or are they expected to resolve every administrative requirement independently? Is there a practical assistance process for traders who need help with registration, financial records and compliance? And does SEDFA track how many prospective applicants begin the process but fail to complete it, including the reasons they abandon their applications? Without that information, low uptake risks being discussed primarily as a problem of participation, when the accessibility of the application journey itself deserves examination.

Making funding available is an important first step. But a programme’s accessibility cannot be measured only by its existence, its budget or the number of people encouraged to apply. It must also be measured by whether eligible businesses can navigate the process, obtain the required documentation and receive meaningful assistance when they encounter barriers. TINAR is seeking clarification from SEDFA on the application requirements, the support available to informal traders and the steps being taken to improve access to funding. The objective is not to suggest that compliance should be abandoned. It is to establish whether the process is working for the businesses it is supposed to serve. Because telling a trader that funding is available and helping that trader access it are two different things.

This question sticks with me longer: If the programme is designed to accommodate the informality of the spaza sector, how is that commitment reflected in the actual application process?