Taking a broader view of DHET Minister’s position at Parliamentary Committee Meeting – a personal reflection

5 June 2025 Update on this post.

At a further meeting on Wednesday 4 June, 2025 the Parliamentary Committee on Higher Education members agreed to send a letter to DHET Minister Nkabane requesting the names of the panel members, who were responsible for conducting the review of over 500 applications for Chairpersons of the 21 SETAs, in order to present a shortlist of appointments to the Minister.

The Meeting Agenda 

Drama to rival the best of South African “soapies” – lasting almost 7 hours. The Parliamentary Committee on Higher Education (PC) requested the Minister for Higher Education and Training (DHET) Dr Nobuhle Nkabane to attend a meeting to explain her withdrawal of the appointments of Chairpersons to the 21 Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs). The DHET Minister attended with senior officials of her department, including the Director General (DG) Dr Nkosinathi Sishi, and the officials responsible for SETA coordination.

Honourable Members Questions 

The members of the PC represent a range of political parties, and in succession asked the Minister why – if as she claimed the process for selecting the Chairpersons was perfect - above reproach or beyond reproach, why then did she withdraw the appointments? The Minister’s view was that section 11 of the Skills Development Act (SDA) states that she “must” appoint Chairpersons, therefore she has the discretion to appoint, and does not have to reveal the details of her decision-making process. The PC does have oversight over all Ministers, as one of the members explained: we appoint the President, and the President appoints you – we are the ones to whom you account.

 Gradually, after repeated questioning from the various members, all with different techniques, Honourable Sauls (I have no idea of his party affiliation) got the Minister to accept that there were things that could have been done differently – the closest to the Minister inherently acknowledging that the process was not entirely beyond reproach. In answer to the PC Chairperson, the Minister agreed that although the notice re-requesting nominations had gone out, it was possible to further amend the notice, requesting that all the groups – using the apartheid definitions of race, and including young people, and people with disabilities should be encouraged to apply. 

For the PC members, the issue centred on the process – how did the Minister decide? Her response was that she had appointed a panel of highly qualified, reputable people to deal with the over 500 applications received. The Honourable members wanted to know – who are they? The Minister gradually admitted that the panel members are not paid and so she cannot disclose their names without their permission. So she will ask them and come back to the PC. The Minister did clarify that she had been advised by the Auditor General (AG) that the previous process was not adequate, and so the Minister had developed her own process to take account of the AG’s recommendations. 

It appeared that there was a double process of the initial identification of Chairpersons by the panel, and then a vetting process. That I understand to mean financial and criminal checks. However, the members - between them – collectively pointed out a number of persons that in their view should have been highlighted by such a process. For example, a person they mentioned who had left a SETA under a cloud, another who apparently they stated had been charged but not found guilty, and currently in high public office. 

The PC members were also concerned with the appointments having been withdrawn and the consequences in terms of legal action against the department. The Advocate for the DHET, who was present appeared dismissive of the question, and replied if we received a notice of legal action we will defend. The Advocate made a remark off microphone that members picked up, and appeared to have been disrespectful. The PC Chairperson Tebogo Letsie was not impressed that there did not seem to be a proactive assessment and evaluation prior to receiving any legal action. 

The Minister is required to consult with the National Skills Authority (NSA), and the Chairperson was present. She was asked about process of the NSA considering the appointments. It transpired that it was in one meeting, appeared to be allied with an induction process, and was done in a hurry as there was a time constraint because the process was late and there were no SETA Chairpersons. (Although the Minister clarified that temporary appointments had been made.) 

Finally, when the PC Chairperson pushed for clarity on the exact process adopted – essentially, trying to tie down the members’ questions, the Minister simply refused to answer, claiming it was her prerogative to decide and she was not required to supply details. 

Disclosure 

Apart from the sheer drama – personally, I abandoned all responsibilities and sat through 7 hours, certain points became very clear for me. First, a disclosure: I have no idea which PC members are from which party – other than the Honourable Sihle Lonzi from the Economic Freedom Fighters I do recognise, and Honourable van der Walt who announced she was from the Democratic Alliance. 

My assessment and observations 

The meeting had an adversarial atmosphere from the beginning, and the Minister came across as arrogant and dismissive of the members, actually personally attacking one of the members. The DG frequently tried to provide advice to the Minister and was cautioned by the PC Chairperson to not do that while members are asking questions. He persisted, however, and the PC Chairperson criticised his behaviour in the summing up. The disrespectful incident with the Advocate characterised the meeting. 

One of the members asked directly: did the President tell you to withdraw? Her answer contained words, and did admit that there was a call, but answered that she responded to the public outcry, and that’s why she withdrew. I don’t know what the members thought, but I was left with the assessment that the President had told her to withdraw. I was reminded of my school days, when I learnt the English expression: perambulating on the outskirts of veracity – literally walking around the truth – meaning not telling the truth. It occurred to me that it is an expression our parliamentarians could adopt, as it so frequently happens. 

As an ex-HR person, had I been advising the Minister, I would have proposed she adopt an approach of: this is the first time I have done this recruitment, I accepted the AG’s advice, and tried to improve on the previous process. I accept that there were additional features that I could have improved upon, and I welcome your advice; then I believe that would have been an entirely different meeting. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, there are two points that become clear: firstly, when South Africans forget which party the person represents, and simply listen to what they have to contribute, collectively, we make a better contribution and will achieve more. 

Secondly, on reviewing the SDA, there is a pattern from the effective implementation in 2000, of amendments to the statutes in order to improve control. In a sense, the early days of skills development were described to me – following the comment of the late South African Qualifications Authority Chairperson Sam Isaacs, I believe – that we make the road as we walk. That has been true of how the legislation has developed. For example, initially, there were enormous problems with financial mismanagement of the SETAs, and the SDA was amended to allow for placing SETAs under administration. Minister Nzimande introduced a standard constitution for the SETAs because they had previously all been doing their own constitutions. Changes were made to the requirements for SETA Board members. Changes too, in the number of SETAs, and the makeup of SETAs - with amalgamations of SETAs. 

Proposals 

Firstly, the section 11 of the SDA, does have sections 11A and 11B, included by the Amendment Act 26 of 2011. These set out requirements. (One of the members mentioned an amendment in 2016 – I am not aware, nor could find anything.) It becomes apparent, following these events, that more is required to cover the process of post-nomination, recruitment, selection, and vetting of SETA Chairpersons. As one of the members pointed out, the combined value of what goes through the SETAs makes this a key issue. 

Consequently, it is clear that further amendments are required to prevent the takeover of SETAs for nefarious purposes, and it is a great pity, that the AG having identified shortfalls in the existing process, did not push for amendments at that stage – to prevent this Minister potentially damaging her career. If nothing else, these events served to give the Honourable members of the PC for Higher Education a combined purpose and voice. 

Secondly, the NSA, newly appointed, having just sat through an induction process, were placed in the invidious position of approving 21 SETA appointments of SETA Chairpersons. That alone, is unacceptable. Having spent a few decades in human resource management, with multiple recruitment exercises, it is simply not possible to effectively read 21 CVs (one assumes that is what they were given), to: read, consider all the details, do a few online searches to check details and backgrounds – irrespective of whether there had been selection and vetting. All the NSA did was to accept that the process was acceptable. The SDA provides the NSA with investigative powers – had they had time, they could have applied them. 

A cautionary comment

Finally, probably of much greater concern: the SETAs are extended until 2030, these Chairpersons will be appointed until 2030, the NSA is appointed until 2030, the National Skills Development Plan 2030 – clearly expires 2030. If we have an election in 2029, with new Ministers appointed, to deal with 2030, and all the simultaneously expiring terms – effectively requiring an entirely new post-school education and training landscape, it would appear that this little debacle will be a long-forgotten speck against the tsunami of chaos that will ensue in 2030.

The minutes of the meeting are not yet available, however, it is possible to download a media statement by the Committee and also the presentation of the DHET to the Committee presented by the Director responsible for SETA coordination - available on this link:  https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/40835/

It is also possible to access the video on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2j1pwt5fTo