Admin
15 Oct, 2020
Allegations of political interference by Minister Nzimande in CHIETA CEO appointment
Dear Mr President Allegations of political interference by Minister Nzimande in CHIETA CEO appointment 1. I have previously raised with you the alleged interference of the political head of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology, Dr Blade Nzimande, in that department’s administration and also in the management of the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs). 2. Yesterday, the Chemical Industries Education and Training Authority (CHIETA) announced the appointment of Mr Yershen Pillay as its Chief Executive Officer. 3. Mr Pillay is a former Young Communist League chairperson and, according to our source, is a personal confidant of Minister Nzimande. In fact, in the communication to staff, announcing Mr Pillay’s appointment, Ms Wezi Khoza (Chairperson of the CHIETA Accounting Authority) flaunted that he works in the Minister’s office as Director Stakeholder Management. 4. To provide further information and context, I remind you of my 10 September 2020-letter regarding the Minister’s reward scheme for party cronies, where his direct involvement is alleged in the creation of five DHET posts for which no logic or justification were provided in terms of the Public Service Regulations. Allegedly, these posts were not advertised; nor was there an appointment committee; nor were competency assessments conducted and no vetting or checking of qualifications were undertaken. 5. Mr Pillay was one of those lucky communists and received a whopping salary of just over R88,000 per month in the 2019/20 financial year. So, whilst business at the DHET is run like the Wild Wild West, Mr Pillay has been rewarded a second time, this time with a SETA CEO-ship. 6. Seen against the backdrop of the past allegations made around Dr Nzimande’s seeming empire building, Mr Pillay’s appointment is clearly another block in that structure, and one wonders at the goal. 7. Actions speak louder than words and no matter what Minister Nzimande says, he does not appear to be building a robust, merit-based higher education management system that works in service of South Africa for the long-term. 8. With due respect Sir, the lack of response from your office to the various matters I have raised relating to Minister Nzimande resembles ostrich politics. I therefore hope that you will break your silence on this topic with a definitive stance. 9. The United Democratic Movement will however in the meantime and in good faith persist in raising issues of national importance with you, in line with your cause to rid government of corruption. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
10 Sep, 2020
DHET: further allegations of Minister Nzimande’s political interference: appointment of SACP cronies
Dear President Ramaphosa DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING: FURTHER ALLEGATIONS OF MINISTER NZIMANDE’S POLITICAL INTERFERENCE: APPOINTMENT OF PARTY CRONIES 1. I refer to my letters of 24 and 31 August 2020 regarding allegations of interference of the political head of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology, Dr Blade Nzimande, in departmental processes and administration, as well as the undermining of the senior departmental accounting officers. 2. Minister Nzimande’s alleged direct interference in procurement processes, such as what apparently happened with the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) laptop tender, clearly has disastrous consequences. This much vaunted project has flopped; everyone sits with egg on their faces and our students are left right where they started, without learning devices. NSFAS’s feeble attempt to mitigate the damage, effectively blaming a total of 150 bidders for “getting it wrong”, is almost laughable. 3. It has now come to my attention that Minister Nzimande was allegedly directly involved in twelve DHET appointments in the 2019/20 financial year that were not made in line with Public Service Regulations (PSR) and/or the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) 1 of 1999. 4. The salaries of these twelve allegedly irregularly appointed individuals cost the taxpayer around R9,7 million a year, but once you consider the allegation that the majority of them are South African Communist Party comrades of the Minister, their appointments take another flavour and one can see why the regulations were seemingly so grossly flouted. 5. It is alleged that, in March 2020, five employees additional to the DHET establishment were appointed, but that there were no logic or justification for the creation of these posts in terms of Section 57(2) of the PSR. Apparently, the posts were not even advertised. I also understand that there was no appointment committee and no competency assessments were conducted as required by Section 67(1). Lastly, there were allegedly no vetting or checking of qualifications in terms of Section 57(3). These appointments are: 6. Another alleged appointment where the Minister had a hand in, is that of a 12-month contract of a Deputy Director-General Planning, Policy and Training, whilst this post already existed in the department establishment and it was vacant. The story with this appointment is the same as with the previous five; none of the PSR prescriptions were adhered to. 7. Two staff members were allegedly headhunted, whilst this is only allowed in terms of the DHET Recruitment and Selection Policy under certain circumstances as described in Section 2.1.6. For some reasons, apparently known only to the Minister, they were both headhunted after only one failed advertisement and the process was not conducted by a recruitment agency. Also, apparently, no verification of their qualifications has been done; they are: 8. The last four instances where the Minister apparently had a hand in are listed below, and as I understand it, there is no evidence on file, that indicates that their qualifications/studies and employment verifications were performed prior to their appointment as is required by Section 67(9a) of the PSR. 9. Much as the blustering rationalisations and irritable explanations come from the Minister, no amount of spin-doctoring can camouflage the dysfunction within the DHET, the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) and NSFAS. 10. Given the information that you have, I am interested to know what actions you have taken, or plan to take, to address these serious allegations against Minister Nzimande? Have you, at all, considered the United Democratic Movement’s call to suspend him? If not, why not? 11. Lastly, in the interest of setting the record straight, I also refer you to Minister Nzimande’s use of a ministerial briefing to strike at me and his use of a manipulative lie when he said I have an interest in doing business with his department. I wonder how he justifies conscientiously executing his oath of office if a lie is so easily told using a government platform. I wish to place on record that I am not the businessman he disparaged me to be, and that I have no interests, nor have I ever had, in any companies that do business with government and/or any of its entities. I have, in an effort to clear this up with the Honourable Minister, gone to the extent of offering to engage him on this topic on any live radio or television platform of his choice, but the response from his corner has, thus far, been mute. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
31 Aug, 2020
PSETA: Minister Nzimande’s alleged manipulation and political interference in the appointments of the board, chairperson and CEO
Dear Mr President PSETA: MINISTER NZIMANDE’S ALLEGED MANIPULATION AND POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN THE APPOINTMENTS OF THE BOARD, CHAIRPERSON AND CEO 1. I refer to my letter to you, dated 24 August 2020, regarding the alleged direct interference of the political head of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology, Dr Blade Nzimande, in that department’s administration. Although I have not received a formal acknowledgement of receipt, the Presidency’s automated stock-email response, indicates that you are in receipt thereof. 2. I would like to bring to your attention further information I received pertaining to the Minister’s conduct, in what appears to be interference and manipulation of the administrative process leading to the appointment of the board and chairperson of the Public Service Sector Education and Training Authority (PSETA) as well as the chief executive officer (CEO). 3. Appointment of PSETA board 3.1. The fact that Minister Nzimande twice advertised, at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020, the call for appointments to the Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) boards is a fact. His unexplained reasoning for doing so is, however, open to criticism for several reasons. 3.2. Regarding the 2019-round, I am told that the PSETA employed a selection process that considered merit, continuity, and the requirements of stakeholder representation. Its recommendations were forwarded to the DHET for approval. Yet, it is alleged that the Minister did not make appointments for reasons known only to him, but rather directed for the process to be re-opened. This came as a surprise to PSETA, as I suspect other SETAs, since they had already gone through their long-used process with which they are familiar. 3.3. It must be noted that PSETA apparently did not receive any new nominations during the second round of a request for nominations. This meant that recommendations made to the Minister in 2019 were relevant for appointment. It must be noted that a nomination of a certain Mr Thulani Tshefuta was apparently received during the initial nominations for board appointment but was rejected as he did not meet the requirements. The relevance of this specific allegation will become apparent later in this letter and the Minister must explain this phenomenon. 3.4. PSETA recommended a full roster of six names allocated to organised labour representatives, yet the Minister for some odd reason, appointed five, one of whom did not receive an appointment letter, thus leaving the two existing vacancies. The Minister, again without explaining himself, only made two of PSETA’s recommended reappointments. 3.5. There are two persons, namely Mr Lewis Nzimande (community organisations’ representative) and Ms Linda Dube (organised employers’ representative), who the Minister has seemingly unilaterally appointed. PSETA apparently has no records, such as curriculum vitae and the background check, ordinarily undertaken by Managed Integrity Evaluation (MIE), on file. These documents are crucial for audit purposes. 3.6. The directive by the Minister for re-advertisement without providing reasons and the subsequent appointment of board members who were not recommended nor nominated through PSETA processes is indicative of an abuse of power and manipulation of a regulated process by Minister Nzimande. 3.7. The critical question here is, was this entire exercise merely an attempt to satisfy compliance, whilst the Minister had his own agenda? 3.8. Furthermore, the Minister’s “double advertising” imposed time pressures, which resulted in the newly appointed board being unprepared and they allegedly fell prey to the CEO, Ms Bontle Lerumo, causing them to make decisions before they received a hand-over report and induction, and before they could familiarise themselves with the organisation and previous board resolutions. This is a dangerous set of circumstances, but when one considers the allegation that Ms Lerumo is a confederate of the Minister and Mr Mabuza Ngubane (the Director SETA Performance Management whom I referred to in my previous letter), matters take a shadier turn. 4. Appointment of PSETA chairperson 4.1. Regulation 14(2) of the “Standard Constitution of SETA regulations associated with the Skills Development Act 26 of 2011” was amended in 2017, ironically by Minister Nzimande himself, to allow for SETA board chairpersons to serve two terms of office. 4.2. The motivation had been to ensure continuity and organisational stability. I therefore suspect that all the SETAs were stunned when the Minister directed the advertising of the chairpersonships in late 2019. For reasons known only to the Minister this call was reopened in early 2020. 4.3. The Minister, in essence, unilaterally limited the former PSETA chairperson’s service to one term, this despite the spirit of the aforementioned amendment. I however found it extremely disturbing that the Minister, also for reasons known only to him, decided to appoint Mr Thulani Tshefuta (to whom I referred in Paragraph 3.3) as PSETA board chairperson. It is surprising that he emerged as the chairperson of the board when he did not meet the requirements for the board. 5. Appointment of PSETA CEO 5.1. As I understand it, the appointment of CEOs is in line with the SETAs’ five-year licencing period and that the SETAs’ executive committees and boards (assisted by corporate services) take responsibility for this process. Ms Lerumo’s contract ended on 31 March 2020 but, to ensure smooth transition, she must serve until 30 September. 5.2. This NQF Level 9 post was advertised in two Sunday newspapers and on PSETA’s website, but shortly thereafter the advert was recalled and re-placed (this time only on the website) with an erratum specifically lowering the level of academic qualifications. Why on earth was this done, if not to accommodate a certain applicant? 5.3. Shortlisting evidently took place and, Ms Lerumo, whom I hear does not possess an NQF Level 9 qualification, was amongst the top three performers recommended to the Minister possibly due to the new board’s inexperience and some irregular influence. 5.4. There is already an indication that the Minister refused the top candidate, because he did not know him/her. The initial list of recommended candidates is available, and should the appointment not be done according to this recommended list and Ms Lerumo is appointed, the Minister must be held accountable for flaunting the process in favour of his alleged collaborator. 5.5. It would also mean that the top candidate was discriminated against, because of the Minister’s personal preferences, and that the entire process is legally contestable in terms of our labour legislation. As a matter of fact, given the Minister’s reputation, there could be a wholesale legal action where these SETA CEO appointments are concerned. If the new PSETA board is confident that the process was fair and transparent, they should confidently supply you with all the relevant documentation. 6. Mr President, Minister Nzimande seems to be running DHET and the SETAs from his briefcase and in light of all the nauseating allegations against him that have risen of late, it is incumbent upon you and cabinet to intervene in the appointments of the SETA boards, chairpersons and CEO until the veracity of these allegations are established by your office. 7. This entire set of circumstances demonstrates Minister Nzimande’s seeming lack of duty of care as an executive authority in managing public resources and ensuring efficient public service. He appears to have demonstrated a high level of disregard for public service regulations, not acting in the interest of the public good and is not fit to be a minister and it is your responsibility to sort this out. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
01 Oct, 2016
UDM input at a meeting of the leaders of opposition parties and universities’ vice chancellors
Thank you for affording the United Democratic Movement (UDM) the opportunity to participate in this meeting and contribute to a discussion that will hopefully find lasting solutions to the current impasse at our higher education institutions. 1. Introduction During the first democratic elections in South Africa in 1994, I was privileged to be chosen as part of the Top 8 persons who campaigned for the African National Congress (ANC). We crossed the length and breadth of the Country and I personally addressed over a 105 rallies in our villages, towns and cities from January to April that year. At all of these electioneering events, the issue of free education took centre stage. Based on this election promise, amongst others, the ANC was voted into power and thus given a mandate to fulfil the election promises it made. When the ANC made its assurances in 1994, it did not qualify its promise of free education by saying it would only include a certain group of people. No, it was free education for all. Sadly, 22 years after the fact, young South Africans still do not have access to free education. Instead we see our youth violently protesting the state of affairs at a cost of around R600 million to the public purse thus far. Although the UDM condemns the damage to public and private property in no uncertain terms, we cannot help but have some sympathy with our students’ plight. The ANC has been in power for more than two decades and has yet to fulfil the mandate given to it by the people. To further confuse matters, the security cluster chooses to mislead the nation and hide behind conspiracy theories; alleging that a “third force” is at work. The UDM rejects these excuses outright. 2. The Fees Must Fall campaign and the work of the Fees Commission As a result of the ANC’s empty promises, we are now facing a very dangerous situation where our children have taken matters into their own hands. It is worthwhile to note that, during the past century, it has been students who affected change in their countries – the protest action of students in Egypt, in the past few years, is a good example. In response to the Fees Must Fall campaign, President Zuma instituted a commission of inquiry into the broader issues affecting the funding of higher education i.e. the Fees Commission. However, instead of waiting for the outcome of the Commission’s investigation, the Minister of Higher Education and Training, Mr Blade Nzimande, has now announced interim measures, effectively suggesting that university councils may increase tuition fees to a maximum of 8% for the 2017 academic season. This has been touted as the maximum that government can afford to cover poor students and the so-called “missing middle”. These interim measures could, however, be perceived as pre-emptive to the work of the Fees Commission and borders on undermining the process. In addition, such interim measures provide no lasting solution to the current crisis. It is unsustainable. The UDM suggests that fee increases should be halted pending the outcome of the work of the Fees Commission. If there is an urgent need to make funding available, let government take the funds being wasted on non-priority issues and divert those to higher education. 3. Turning higher education into a political football The genuine demand for free, and quality, higher education has unfortunately been turned into a political matter, which is effectively being abused by the contending factions of the ruling alliance. South Africa cannot afford a situation where education is used to settle political scores within the ANC. We desperately need strong higher education institutions that produce students with the relevant skills for our socio-economic development. 4. Higher education and its role in the economy We have one of the most unequal societies in the world and our economy is not growing. An educated and healthy citizenry is needed to grow and develop our economy so that we are capacitated to eradicate poverty and inequality, and to generate employment. Higher education is a social mobility mechanism, which both the poor and middle strata sees as a ladder into an affluent society. In other words, getting a degree is a passport to employment and a better life. The UDM has confidence in the Fees Commission’s process as spearheaded by leaders in academia and broader society. 5. The poor must have access to higher education The UDM believes that special attention should be paid to poor students who are unable, or is struggling, to pay their tuition fees. We agree that subsidies for the children of domestic workers, or worse, unemployed persons, cannot be the same as those for the children of advocates, doctors and investment bankers. The reality is that there are those deserving students who need to be totally subsidised by government. The lack of such support is the reason why, in part, students are still up in arms and toyi-toying, resulting in the closure of many campuses on the eve of final exams. 6. Finding a sustainable, lasting solution to the crisis Nobody wants to see an escalation of campus violence and vandalism, which destroys the assets invested to educate our future leaders. The UDM believes that it is possible to make higher education accessible to all and that this has to be done. In order to do so, we require ethical leadership from all stakeholders, including those dealing with law and order. The UDM therefore lauds the open and honest dialogue amongst all stakeholders to find a way forward. In addition, the UDM calls upon the private sector to look into other ways of increasing their financial support to students in order to make education affordable to the poor and the working class. Government, on the other hand, must stop splashing public money on wasteful and unproductive expenses. Just this past week, we heard that government departments have not yielded to Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan’s call to save money and cut costs. It was reported that R35,2 billion was spent on consultants, travel, catering and entertainment. The UDM has long held the view that the continuous outsourcing of government work, which ought to be done by civil servants, is expensive and perpetuates poor service delivery. As a crisis measure, the Finance Director General should convene an urgent meeting with all other Directors General to place a moratorium on wasteful expenditure. In so doing, government can start channelling saved funds into higher education, other needy areas, in order to rescue the current situation. The UDM also feels that the forthcoming meeting of stakeholders in higher education called by President Zuma is likely to be another talk-shop. The nation expects nothing less than the release of an interim report by the Fees Commission on the work that they have done thus far. We are fed-up with useless indabas that produce no real solutions to the nation’s problems. It is a sad fact that President Zuma has failed the country in a situation where we need his decisive leadership. We hope that the President realises that his Education Minister, with the announcement of the fees hike, is in essence undermining his decisions and pre-empting the recommendations of his Fees Commission.
