• NSFAS says that since the new bank account system is working just fine, it will continue to use it despite enormous criticism.
• The scheme claims to have paid nearly R1 billion in stipends to over 400 000 students in its latest payment round.
• It echoes partner eZaga, stating that an organised smear campaign has been launched against the system, and says it will seek the help of law enforcement to deal with defamation.

The new bank accounts of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) are mired in controversy, but despite lengthy complaints from students and student representative councils at universities, NSFAS itself and its banking partners say that the new system is working as intended and will continue to be used.

Almost every aspect of the new bank accounts have seen some form of criticism. From the banking fees associated with the new accounts, to the tender process in which NSFAS chose its partners in creating the system, to the rollout of the new cards at universities, to the technology involved in the system itself.

The rollout of the accounts has entered political space and the project has even drawn a legal case from the likes of ActionSA.

On Thursday, NSFAS revealed that it had dispersed R992 million to student beneficiaries at universities and TVET colleges around the country directly through the new NSFAS bank accounts system. The payments were made in two tranches. This second tranche was split in two, with the first wave on 25th July when NSFAS paid over nearly R4 million to beneficiaries at TVET schools, and the second on 31st July with over R600 million paid to university students.

In total, 456 403 students were funded in the latest round.

“These allowances are to cover costs for meals, learning material and transport,” the scheme says via an announcement. “Both payments were made through the scheme’s new direct payment method to students whose registration data was uploaded successfully.”

NSFAS says it will continue to pay beneficiaries stipends, even those who submitted registration data after the 23rd July cutoff date. “All applications for the 2023 academic year have been processed and NSFAS will continue to add students unto the new payment system as and when registration information is received,” it adds.

In response to complaints, and even threats of violence from some SRCs towards the new system and agents of the scheme’s banking partners, namely CoinVest, eZaga, Narocco and Tenet Technologies, NSFAS says it regrets that the new system was hijacked by “thugs who previously benefited from systems which exposed students to criminality and fraudulent activities.”

This is a sentiment echoed by the CEO of eZaga, Saud Ally, who told Hypertext in July that most of the controversy and ill-will levied at the new system could be traced to “third parties” and entities at the universities themselves that previously enjoyed receiving kickbacks by being the middlemen in the entire student payment process.

“We confidently confirm that claims circulating across various digital media platforms stating that NSFAS paid wrong and large amounts of money to students are simply untrue and are being spread to deliberately discredit the system,” it says.

It seems NSFAS is happy with the new payment model, despite the enormous noise it generated weeks after officially rolling out and it confirms that it will continue using the new bank account system to pay students their stipends going forward.

“The scheme will continue to utilize the new system to adequately pay allowances to deserving students despite the ongoing deliberate media smear campaign to discredit the payment platform.” Ally made similar claims, that the entire controversy was nothing more than “a propaganda.”

Finally, NSFAS says it will begin enlisting “the support of law enforcement” to pursue individuals engaged in the perceived defamation of the scheme.

This latest announcement comes amid protests on the ground, with enraged students burning tyres and calling for the scheme to scrap the entire system and pay students it says it defunded due to “incorrect information” of those that registered.