By Thapelo Molefe
The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) says its engagements with the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) over the appointment of accounting authority members at Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) are still ongoing and that no final audit conclusions have been reached.
The clarification comes after AGSA raised concerns about the appointment processes at 15 of the country’s 21 SETAs, including the vetting of candidates, qualification verification and the criteria used to select board members.
Among the findings were that candidates had been appointed without completing required vetting, while qualifications had not always been verified before appointments were made.
AGSA also found that criminal-record checks were outstanding, outdated, or conducted only after some members had already been appointed.
The findings further raised concerns about declarations of interest, with some missing or signed after the submission deadline. At 10 SETAs, there were reportedly no documented criteria explaining why qualifying candidates had been eliminated from the appointment process.
AGSA also found that records did not adequately show which candidates had been formally recommended for appointment. In one case, an appointed board member had a criminal record, but there was no documented evidence showing how this had been considered during the appointment process.
The audit findings also raised questions about the qualifications of accounting authority members at nine SETAs, with members reportedly holding qualifications below NQF Level 7.
DHET, however, says the audit process is not yet complete and that some of the matters raised need to be considered against the requirements contained in existing legislation.
The department said it had provided AGSA with explanations and clarifications on the matters raised and would continue cooperating with the audit process.
“The matters currently being reported should not be understood as the Auditor-General’s final audit conclusions,” DHET said in a statement on Wednesday.
The department said a key issue in the discussions was the legislative and policy framework governing SETA appointments.
It maintained that appointments had been made according to the Skills Development Act and the applicable policy framework, saying that the department could not be found to have failed to comply with a requirement that is not contained in existing legislation.
“The latter should not automatically be characterised as an irregularity in the implementation of the law as it currently exists,” the department said.
DHET also specifically addressed the qualification concerns raised during the audit.
“The Skills Development Act does not prescribe a specific qualification level, including NQF Level 7, as a statutory prerequisite for appointment to a SETA Accounting Authority,” it said.
The department said, however, that accounting authorities should collectively have the qualifications, knowledge, expertise and leadership experience required to provide effective oversight.
DHET nevertheless acknowledged that the legislative and policy framework could be strengthened and clarified and said it was undertaking a broader legislative review aimed at improving governance, accountability, transparency and oversight across the SETA system.
The department also addressed concerns about candidates who met eligibility requirements but were not appointed.
It said a competitive process could result in more eligible candidates than available positions and that not appointing every eligible candidate did not, by itself, mean they had been unfairly excluded.
“Candidates recommended for appointment were considered against the eligibility requirements applicable under the Skills Development Act, 1998 (Act 97 of 1998), and the relevant policy framework,” DHET said.
The department said it would address any weaknesses identified in record-keeping, procedural clarity and the documentation of decisions as part of its governance improvement programme.
It also acknowledged the importance of conducting proper verification and due diligence on candidates.
According to DHET, appointment letters issued to accounting authority members contained conditions requiring criminal-record checks and qualification verification to be completed.
The department said the conditional approach was intended as a risk-mitigation measure and allowed appointments to be revoked if subsequent verification produced an unfavourable result.
DHET said it would examine individual cases raised during the audit and take action if an actual breach of an applicable legal or governance requirement was established.
The department said the issues raised by AGSA were, in its assessment, primarily related to processes, documentation and opportunities for improvement rather than evidence of material failures in the functioning of the SETA governance system.
However, it said accountability would follow if the completed audit established wrongdoing.
“Should the completed audit process establish instances of non-compliance with applicable requirements, misconduct, negligence or other wrongdoing, the relevant circumstances and responsibilities will be assessed, and appropriate corrective measures will be pursued in accordance with legislation, policy and due process,” the department said.
The department said its legislative review would also consider proposals from AGSA aimed at improving the SETA governance framework.
DHET said it remained committed to ensuring that SETAs operate within a framework that promotes “integrity, transparency, accountability, compliance and effective stewardship of public resources”.
