Key Takeaways
- Thandi was hired by the Department of Social Development as a “food aide” for Minister Sisisi Tolashe, but she was required to work and live at the minister’s private residence in East London, not at an official government residence.
- Her employment letter promised a monthly salary of R8,000 plus a “Minister’s House Allocation” of R7,670, yet her payslips show a net government‑paid salary of roughly R15,800, of which she transferred about half (≈R7,000 – R8,100) each month to Kanyisa Tolashe, the minister’s daughter.
- The “Minister’s House Allocation” does not appear in any DPSA regulation, Ministerial Handbook, or Public Service Act; directing part of a government‑paid salary to a private individual for household expenses violates DPSA rules that prohibit salary deductions for staff.
- Thandi’s role essentially became that of a live‑in nanny for the minister’s grandchildren, a function not authorized for a food aide under public‑service regulations.
- Despite having a Persal number and being paid from the government payroll, Thandi does not appear as a current or former public servant on the DPSA verification system, raising questions about the proper recording and oversight of her appointment.
- The minister’s office and the Department of Social Development did not respond to requests for comment, leaving the allegations unverified by official sources.
Background of the Appointment
When Thandi* learned she had been selected by the Department of Social Development to serve Minister Sisisi Tolashe, she assumed the position would place her in one of the minister’s two official residences in Cape Town or Pretoria. The offer letter, however, listed only “Minister’s Residence” without clarifying whether it was public or private, and Thandi soon discovered she would be required to work and live at Tolashe’s private home in East London. This arrangement placed her far from any government‑owned kitchen or office setting, contradicting the typical understanding of a food aide’s role within a ministerial private office.
Regulatory Framework for Ministerial Staff
According to the Ministerial Handbook, each South African Cabinet Minister may employ one “food aide” at government expense, normally situated in the Private Office of the Minister. A separate provision allows for one “household aide” per official residence, but a private residence can be designated as an official residence only if it lies within the minister’s “seat of office.” DPSA spokesperson Sakhikhaya Dlala confirmed that a private house in East London could never qualify as an official residence, meaning Thandi’s placement there lacked any regulatory basis. The handbook also notes that exceptional circumstances may justify additional appointments only with explicit authorization from the Minister for Public Service and Administration—an authorization that, based on available evidence, does not appear to have been sought or granted.
Legal Basis Cited in the Offer Letter
Thandi’s appointment letter referenced “Section 9 of the Public Service Act” together with “Regulation 57 (2) of the Public Service Amendment Regulations 2023.” Section 9 grants an executive authority the power to appoint employees within his or her department, which the Act defines as national or provincial government components—not a private dwelling. Regulation 57 (2) addresses temporary operational staffing needs inside a department, whereas the correct regulation for ministerial support staff such as food aides is Regulation 66, as outlined in the Ministerial Handbook. The mismatch between the cited legal provisions and the actual placement suggests the appointment was not grounded in the proper statutory framework.
Salary Structure and the “Minister’s House Allocation”
The offer letter detailed a monthly remuneration of R8,000 plus an additional R7,670 labeled “Minister’s House Allocation,” described as being “utilized for household.” This terminology does not appear in any DPSA documentation, the Ministerial Handbook, the Public Service Regulations, or the Public Service Act, indicating it is an ad‑hoc construct. Thandi’s payslips, however, show a gross salary of R17,712.73 and a net take‑home of R15,814.47, consistent with the standard basic pay for a Ministerial Food Aide (R12,929) plus a 37 % service‑benefits top‑up for short‑term contract workers. Notably, the payslips contain no line item for a “Minister’s House Allocation,” raising doubts about whether the extra amount was ever officially processed through government payroll.
Actual Money Flow to the Minister’s Daughter
Banking records obtained by Daily Maverick reveal that, immediately after receiving her government‑paid salary, Thandi transferred roughly half of it to an account linked to the phone number “Makhanyu,” a term of endearment for Kanyisa Tolashe, the minister’s daughter. The transfers varied month to month—sometimes R8,100, typically around R7,000—confirmed by Thandi as contributions toward groceries and household expenses. The recipient’s verified account holder is listed as “Dr Tolashe,” and the cellphone number is registered under Kanyisa Tolashe’s name. Thus, despite the government paying Thandi a salary intended for her work as a food aide, a substantial portion was redirected to subsidize the minister’s private household.
Nature of Thandi’s Duties and Living Conditions
Thandi reported that her employment began three months before she received the formal appointment letter, during which time she was already living in the minister’s East London residence. She shared in the household groceries and, according to her account, her primary responsibility was caring for Minister Tolashe’s three young grandchildren—the children of Tolashe’s son, Nanilethu. Thandi described her working conditions as arduous: she claimed she had no days off beyond Christmas, frequently clashed with Kanyisa Tolashe, and was required to be on call continuously. When she attempted to raise concerns with the HR manager of the Department of Social Development, she alleged the call was terminated once she disclosed her place of work, a claim that Daily Maverick could not independently verify.
Employment Duration and Contractual Issues
Although the appointment letter specified a six‑month contract, Thandi stated she actually served in the residence for more than a year. The letter itself was unsigned and lacked a start date, and Thandi insists she never received any further contractual documentation beyond the initial offer. This lack of formal paperwork exacerbates concerns about the legitimacy of the appointment and the department’s adherence to standard hiring procedures.
Verification of Public‑Servant Status
A search of Thandi’s ID number on the DPSA online verification portal returns “Not a public servant.” The DPSA system reflects only current employees, and Thandi does not appear in the database of dismissed public servants either, despite having been assigned a Persal number that should have recorded her employment. This discrepancy suggests either a failure to properly register her appointment or an intentional omission, further clouding the legitimacy of the arrangement.
Broader Implications and Official Silence
The picture that emerges is one in which public funds were used to employ a live‑in nanny for the minister’s grandchildren at a private residence, with a significant share of the government‑paid salary funneled back to the minister’s family to cover household costs. Such conduct appears to contravene the Ministerial Handbook, which prohibits salary deductions for staff, and DPSA regulations that restrict the use of government funds for private household expenses. When approached for comment, DPSA spokesperson Sakhikhaya Dlala reiterated that the Guide for Members of the Executive does not permit deductions on employees’ salaries. Neither Minister Sisisi Tolashe nor her daughter Kanyisa Tolashe responded to requests for comment, and the Department of Social Development’s spokesperson acknowledged receipt of queries but failed to provide a reply before publication.
Conclusion
Thandi’s case highlights a potential breach of multiple public‑service safeguards: the misuse of a food‑aid appointment to staff a private household, the redirection of government‑paid wages to a private individual for household expenses, the absence of proper contractual documentation, and the lack of verifiable public‑servant records. Without official clarification or remedial action, the episode raises serious questions about oversight, accountability, and the integrity of ministerial staffing practices within the South African government.
