Key Takeaways
- Minister Buti Manamela met with former NSFAS board members on 13 April; the meeting was informal, no minutes were taken, and participants’ cellphones were placed in white envelopes.
- Manamela stated that confiscating phones was a routine practice, having occurred in roughly 20 previous board meetings to preserve secrecy.
- The meeting was prompted by a warning from interim chair Mugwena Maluleke that the board intended to appoint a CEO before completing statutorily required processes.
- Manamela told the board not to rush the CEO appointment and had previously given them until the end of May to finalize the selection.
- On 4 May he placed NSFAS under administration after the board was dissolved for lacking the required number of members and experiencing multiple resignations.
- Former board members Siyanda Mngadi and Richard Ramashia dispute Manamela’s account, saying they had submitted comprehensive responses to earlier directives, were not all invited to the meeting, and that phone confiscation had not happened before.
- Ramashia alleges Manamela incorrectly introduced Karabo Mohale as deputy chairperson and attempted to halt the CEO appointment, while Manamela denies issuing such an instruction and admits only a mistaken reference to Mohale’s title.
- The administrator appointment is being challenged in court; Manamela insists the intervention was a lawful governance measure aimed at protecting NSFAS and students, not a political maneuver.
- The controversy highlights ongoing tensions over board composition, procedural compliance, and the minister’s authority to intervene in NSFAS affairs.
Meeting Details and Procedural Irregularities
On Friday, Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela confirmed that he convened a meeting with the former board of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) on 13 April. He emphasized that the gathering was not a statutory meeting; instead, it was arranged telephonically by a staff member in his office due to the perceived urgency of the matter. Because the meeting was ad‑hoc, no formal agenda was circulated, and consequently, no minutes were recorded. Manamela explained that, as a precaution to safeguard the confidentiality of discussions, all attendees were required to surrender their cellphones, which were then placed in white envelopes for the duration of the session.
Routine Phone Confiscation Practice
Manamela sought to downplay any suspicion surrounding the confiscation of phones by asserting that it was a standard procedure. He told the Higher Education Portfolio Committee that the practice had been followed in approximately twenty prior meetings with the NSFAS board. According to him, the measure was intended to prevent leaks or unauthorized recordings, and he maintained that there was nothing sinister or unusual about the action taken on 13 April.
Background: Interim Chair’s Warning
The minister explained that the meeting was triggered by a briefing he received from Mugwena Maluleke, who was serving as the interim chairperson of the board at the time. Maluleke informed Manamela that the board was preparing to move forward with the appointment of a chief executive officer (CEO) without having completed the internal processes required by the NSFAS Act. Manamela said he responded by requesting a report on the CEO appointment process and, after reviewing the board’s submission, advised them not to rush the conclusion of the procedure.
Minister’s Guidance on CEO Appointment Timeline
Manamela reiterated that he had previously communicated to the board that they had until the end of May to finalize the CEO selection. He characterized his intervention during the 13 April meeting as a reminder to adhere to the stipulated timeline and to ensure that all governance steps—such as stakeholder consultations, vetting, and compliance with the NSFAS Act—were observed before any appointment was made. He insisted that his comments were advisory rather than directive.
Decision to Place NSFAS Under Administration
On 4 May, Minister Manamela appointed an administrator to oversee NSFAS, effectively dissolving the existing board. He justified the step by noting that, at the time of dissolution, only seven of the eighteen members required by the NSFAS Act remained in office. Moreover, he highlighted a rapid series of resignations that had seen the chairperson, deputy chairperson, interim chair, and six other board members step down within six months, raising concerns about the board’s capacity to function effectively.
Governance Concerns Cited by GTAC Report
Manamela further pointed to a report produced by the Government Technical Advisory Centre (GTAC) that had documented an expansion of NSFAS’s operational scope alongside unresolved audit matters and other governance issues. He argued that the combination of incomplete board composition, frequent resignations, and outstanding audit findings necessitated decisive intervention to protect the integrity of the fund and the interests of the students who rely on it.
Former Board Members’ Counter‑Claims
Former board member Siyanda Mngadi challenged Manamela’s narrative, asserting that the board had not been idle. Mngadi said they had submitted a comprehensive plan addressing the issues raised in earlier directives and had approved several policies in response. He contended that the minister never acknowledged or engaged with their submission, which he viewed as a dismissal of the board’s efforts.
Allegations of Improper Conduct and Misrepresentation
Another former board member, Richard Ramashia, offered a more pointed critique. He claimed that during the 13 April meeting, Manamela introduced Karabo Mohale as the deputy chairperson, a title that only the board itself could confer through an election process. Ramashia also alleged that the meeting was convened under pretenses—described as “something that was designed as a meeting but looked different”—and that not all board members had been invited to participate. Regarding the phone confiscation, Ramashia insisted that this was the sole instance in which devices were taken away, contradicting Manamela’s claim of it being a routine practice.
Accusations of External Influence on CEO Selection
Ramashia further alleged that Manamela had been influenced by outside actors. He said he had received a call from SETA administrator Lehlogonolo Masoga, who informed him that the minister preferred a candidate with a “strong potential” background from the National School of Government for the CEO post. Ramashia emphasized that, under the NSFAS Act, the board holds the exclusive authority to appoint the CEO, and the minister’s role is limited to concurring with the conditions of service after the fact.
Minister’s Denial of Directive to Halt CEO Appointment
In response to these allegations, Manamela denied that he had ever instructed the board to cease or delay the CEO appointment process. He acknowledged, however, that he had erred in referring to Karabo Mohale as deputy chairperson during the meeting, describing it as a mistaken reference rather than an intentional appointment. Manamela maintained that he had never undermined the board’s fiduciary responsibilities and that any suggestion of him issuing a directive to halt the appointment was unfounded.
Legal Challenge and Political Implications
The administrator appointment effected on 4 May is presently being contested in court by the former board members, who argue that the minister exceeded his statutory authority and that the dissolution of the board was procedurally flawed. Manamela, appearing before the Higher Education Portfolio Committee, framed his intervention as a lawful and necessary governance step aimed at safeguarding NSFAS and the students it serves. He rejected notions of a political vendetta, insisting that his actions were motivated solely by legal and administrative considerations.
Conclusion: Ongoing Tensions in NSFAS Governance
The episode underscores the persistent tensions surrounding the governance of NSFAS, particularly regarding board composition, adherence to statutory procedures, and the extent of ministerial oversight. While Manamela portrays his actions as a protective measure against procedural lapses and potential mismanagement, former board members contend that they were sidelined, that proper processes were followed, and that the phone confiscation practice was anomalous. The outcome of the pending court challenge will likely have significant implications for how future interventions in NSFAS—and similar public entities—are conceived and executed.