By Thapelo Molefe
Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela has been pressed by MPs to explain who authorised the remuneration of four advisers appointed to assist National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) administrator Professor Hlengani Mathebula after confirming that Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana had not approved their pay.
The issue arose during a briefing by the NSFAS to Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Higher Education on Wednesday on progress in stabilising the entity since it was placed under administration.
Committee member Sihle Lonzi repeatedly questioned Manamela about the appointment and remuneration of the four advisers supporting Mathebula.
Manamela confirmed that the advisers were appointed under Section 17B of the NSFAS Act.
However, when Lonzi asked whether the Finance Minister had approved their remuneration, Manamela replied: “No.”
The response raised questions about how the advisers’ remuneration had been authorised and whether the process complied with Section 17C of the NSFAS Act.
Lonzi pointed to Section 17C, which states that the Minister, with the approval of the Finance Minister, may determine the remuneration and allowances paid to the administrator and any other person appointed under Section 17B.
Lonzi then pressed Manamela to explain what he had approved when he concurred with the appointment of the four advisers.
Manamela said his approval related to the appointment of the advisers and the conditions attached to their appointments, but he did not have the detailed submission before him.
“I don’t have the letter request or the submission. It’s quite a detailed submission. But what I have is the letter that confirms that the advisers can be appointed, and the conditions which need to be followed in line with the appointment of those advisers,” Manamela said.
He said the department would provide the committee with the relevant information.
Lonzi had earlier challenged Manamela after the minister initially appeared unable to provide details of what had been approved for the advisers.
He told the minister that the committee was specifically asking about remuneration, rather than the minister’s authority to approve the appointments.
“I’m not talking about appointments, and I think I’ve stressed this point enough. I’m talking about the remuneration of the Advisers,” Lonzi said.
Manamela responded that information on how much the advisers had been paid and the process relating to their remuneration would be furnished to the committee.
The issue of who authorised the financial commitment was also raised by committee member Delmaine Christians.
Christians asked Manamela who had authorised the financial commitment for both the administrator and the advisers.
“For the administrator, we’re waiting for the Minister of Finance and for the advisers, as I said, I think we’ll just have to provide you with all of those information,” Manamela said.
Christians said the committee needed a full account of how the process unfolded, including the appointment of the administrator and advisers, their remuneration packages and the Treasury concurrence process.
“We need to have an understanding as a committee how that all transpired,” Christians said.
Committee member Karabo Khakhau questioned the chronology of the appointments, asking how the administrator could have been appointed and started working while his remuneration was still being finalised, before subsequently requesting four advisers whose combined cost was also under consideration.
Khakhau questioned whether the government should have established the financial implications of the appointments before proceeding with them.
Manamela rejected what he described as loaded insinuations but explained the sequence of events.
He said the administrator was appointed first, with the department seeking concurrence from the Finance Minister on the administrator’s costs. Mathebula then assumed office and recommended four additional advisers, whose appointments Manamela subsequently approved.
The department was still waiting for confirmation from the Finance Minister on the administrator’s remuneration.
Manamela maintained that his department’s interpretation of the legislation was that Treasury concurrence applied to the administrator’s remuneration rather than separately to the advisers.
He said the administrator was appointed on 4 May 2026, after which Mathebula recommended four people to assist him.
“Based on practise, the recommendation from the Administrator only requires concurrence from the Minister of Higher Education. And that we do not need any further concurrence outside of that,” Manamela said.
Committee chairperson Tebogo Letsie summarised the minister’s position as meaning that Manamela had not sought Treasury concurrence under Section 17C for the advisers because his interpretation was that such concurrence was required only for the remuneration or conditions of employment of the administrator.
The interpretation was challenged by committee members, who argued that Section 17C expressly refers not only to the administrator but also to “any other person appointed in terms of Section 17B”.
Manamela said the department had obtained legal advice on the interpretation of the provisions and would provide further information to the committee.
The minister also acknowledged that the process around the administrator’s remuneration had taken longer than it should have.
He said Mathebula’s appointment and the subsequent determination of his remuneration were separate processes, with the department still engaging Godongwana on the matter.
Manamela said Mathebula’s appointment had been gazetted with effect from 4 May 2026 under sections 17A to 17D of the NSFAS Act.
He stressed that the Finance Minister’s concurrence related to the remuneration payable following the appointment and did not determine whether Mathebula had lawfully been appointed as administrator.
Manamela also acknowledged the unusual position in which the administrator had been working without payment while the remuneration process remained unresolved.
He said the department was engaging Godongwana urgently to finalise the matter and that he would account to the committee and the public once the process had been concluded.
The minister said the situation had exposed gaps in the framework governing institutional administrations and highlighted the need for clearer guidelines covering appointments, remuneration, support arrangements, expenditure controls and exit arrangements.
He said similar delays had occurred in previous administrations and that the department would have to work on regulations to create a standard framework for future interventions.
“This is quite regrettable,” Manamela said, referring to the delay in finalising the administrator’s conditions of service, while thanking Mathebula for continuing to work without payment.
Letsie agreed that the experience had exposed gaps in the current legislative framework governing administrations.
He said the committee needed to consider how the legislation could be improved so that remuneration, conditions of service and other administrative arrangements were dealt with more clearly when an institution was placed under administration.
Manamela also said the department had requested a complete account of everyone appointed or contracted to support the administrator, including documentation on their remuneration and contracts.
“Everything that happens at the NSFAS has to happen within the law,” Manamela said, adding that the department would examine whether the processes followed in appointing the supporting team complied with the law.
The minister maintained that the department remained supportive of Mathebula and his administration, while stressing that support did not remove the need for proper oversight.
He said the department’s responsibility was to ensure that decisions taken at NSFAS complied with both the spirit and letter of the law.
The committee is expected to receive further information from the department on the appointment process and remuneration arrangements involving Mathebula and the four advisers.
INSIDE EDUCATION
