Admin
19 Oct, 2020
Minister Nzimande’s high-handed interference in appointment of Unisa vice-chancellor
Dear Mr President MINISTER NZIMANDE’S HIGH-HANDED INTERFERENCE IN APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA 1. Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology Dr Blade Nzimande’s interference in the departmental processes and administration of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), and that of the Sector Education and Training Authorities, have been reported to your office several times. 2. Seemingly Minister Nzimande’s ambitions do not stop there as he has set his sights on South Africa’s largest university, the University of South Africa (Unisa), in that he is directly interfering with the appointment of its vice-chancellor. 3. Sources indicate that Minister Nzimande had met with the Unisa council where he raised concern about three main issues: 3.1. The high number of students who yearly, directly enrol from high school at Unisa, a distance-learning institution, and the attending problems when these students agitate for National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) sponsorship and they expect the same kind of support as students at contact-learning institutions. 3.2. High failure rate. 3.3. Implication of the cost of new technologies on the operations of the university. 4. At this meeting, the Minister indicated that there was a need to review Unisa considering the aforementioned challenges. He also indicated that it would be the right time for the review as the term of office of the vice-chancellor would be coming to an end. The common understanding was that the process of appointing a new vice-chancellor would be delayed until the review was completed. 5. At a later stage, the Minister specifically stated that it was the council’s prerogative to appoint the vice-chancellor and that his interactions with the university’s governing bodies should not be misconstrued as interference on his part. What an odd thing to be pointing out, if that was not in fact exactly what he was doing. 6. The Ministerial Task Team that had been made responsible for the Unisa review, started in mid-July 2020 and it would be logical, that the outcome of the review would dictate who should be appointed to implement the review recommendations i.e. in terms of the needed qualifications, experience, skills, etc. This echoes the initial expectation that the vice-chancellor would be only appointed after the review, yet the process of the appointment is being forged ahead with, with the interference of the Minister. 7. Apparently out of the five candidates that had been shortlisted earlier this year, two had withdrawn and there were those in the university establishment that thought the net should be cast wider. However, on 13 October 2020, the council chairperson and a ministerial advisor had apparently announced that they had identified a preferred candidate and that there would be no need to identify more candidates. I understand that interviews were conducted on the 14th, and the earmarked candidate was in fact recommended. 8. It is said that the preferred candidate has raised concern amongst the Unisa management and staff as there is doubt about this person’s experience and qualifications and, also, that there are many South Africans who should be considered for appointment. 9. Unisa’s council is to convene on 21 October 2020 and is expected to rubberstamp the palace decree. It is also clear that a selection committee had only been put in place to satisfy the policy requirements and it served no actual purpose as the decision on who was to be appointed as Unisa’s vice-chancellor was a fait de accompli. 10. However, Unisa’s council will be tested on Wednesday, to see whether they will endorse a woefully dysfunctional process that was spearheaded by a person who is not even a civil servant. The involvement of the Minister’s ‘industrial envoy’, Mr Nqaba Nqandela, who is masquerading as a DHET representative, definitively compromises Minister Nzimande’s promise that he would not interfere in the vice-chancellor’s appointment. Who mandated Mr Nqandela to poke his nose into Unisa’s affairs? 11. We recommend that you ask Unisa’s council, the outgoing vice-chancellor, as well as the Ministerial Task Team to brief you on the need for the review, its progress, as well as the entire process around appointment of the vice-chancellor. 12. By implication, one would expect that Unisa’s council would postpone the consideration of this item on its agenda, on Wednesday, and that it would not endorse appointment of the parachuted-in candidate, until they have satisfied themselves that the minister’s involvement has not compromised prescribed processes and appointment policies. 13. Mr President, although we have written to your office many times, Minister Nzimande continues to use his briefcase lackeys to intimidate all and sundry in the higher education establishment and this must stop. 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
17 Oct, 2013
Minister Nzimande’s failure to address problems at the Walter Sisulu University
Member’s Statement by Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP and UDM Deputy Secretary General, in the National Assembly regarding Minister Nzimande’s failure to address problems at the Walter Sisulu University is jeopardising futures of Eastern Cape youth The United Democratic Movement (UDM) is very concerned about the manner in which Government and the Minister of Higher Education are handling the crises at Walter Sisulu University (WSU). If not for the intervention of civil society, under the leadership of the South African Council of Churches, the current crisis would have escalated beyond the point of no return. It is an indictment of Minister Nzimande that our President had to dispatch Minister Chabane to clean up his colleague’s backyard. However, after an agreement was reached to end the seven-week long strike, we hear that classes are disrupted yet again. The allegations are that Government is negotiating in bad faith and has reneged on its promises. The UDM is of the view that the Minister Nzimande has failed to attend to the WSU challenges, which include, but are not limited to: Not intervening in the labour dispute timeously; Not reporting on his Departments’ turn-around strategy for the university; Whether its budget allocation is adequate; Whether the salaries of academics and workers are competitive; Allegations are that local companies are overlooked for university business; Whether the merger of various institutions has delivered the desired results. The UDM calls on Government to urgently resolve the crises at WSU, because a day lost in a student’s learning, is a day too many.
