The Free State government is facing growing pressure to account for millions of rands earmarked for this year’s Macufe Festival, with events industry bosses demanding a legislative probe into the festival’s budget, procurement, artist fees and alleged failure to benefit local businesses.
The festival kicked off on Thursday in Bloemfontein despite questions being raised about how all the processes, including procurement and booking of artists, were conducted.
Provincial government accused of hijacking Macufe
Last week, the Free State Events Forum (FSEF), under the leadership of Tebogo Kotsi and Tshepo Sebidi, wrote to the MEC of sports, arts, culture and recreation, Zanele Sifuba, accusing the provincial government of hijacking the Macufe festival and shutting all industry players out of its organisation.
At the centre of the dispute is what the complainants have called a blanket procurement system allegedly practised by the department, claiming that the government was hijacking Macufe and treating the festival as its own fiefdom.
Events forum crosses swords with Sefuba
After Sifuba had failed to respond to the FSEF, the forum escalated its fight with the provincial department to the Free State legislature, accusing Sefuba and her officials of ignoring industry concerns while making decisions involving millions of rands in public money.
In a strongly worded letter to the Speaker of the provincial legislature, Mxolisi Dukwana, the forum said Macufe could not continue to be managed without meaningful input from the very industry practitioners whose businesses and livelihoods depend on the festival.
Question over R20m purse
The forum claims more than R20-million is being allocated to Macufe this year, with about R10-million reportedly earmarked for artists.
FSEF demands the legislature to establish how much of the festival budget will actually remain in the Free State economy and how many local businesses, artists, DJs, technical companies, accommodation establishments, transport operators, caterers and young people will benefit.
“If these figures are accurate, we believe the legislature has a duty to interrogate whether the expenditure structure is achieving the intended economic-development objectives of the festival,” said Kotsi.
The allegations and figures have not been independently verified.
Local businesses ‘must reap the benefits’
The forum says it is not opposed to bringing big-name artists to the festival but is questioning a model in which substantial amounts of public money could leave the province while local businesses remain economically marginalised.
Kotsi argued that Macufe should function as an economic engine for Mangaung and the broader Free State rather than simply as a series of headline concerts.
The forum wants government to disclose how much of the festival’s budget is being spent on Free State suppliers and whether local businesses are receiving meaningful opportunities.
FSEF also proposed spreading festival activity across Mangaung by creating opportunities for local artists, DJs, restaurants, clubs, hotels, community venues, production companies and township businesses.
“The Free State should not merely host Macufe. The Free State should economically benefit from Macufe,” said Sebidi.
Salif Keita’s cancellation
Another pertinent issue raised by forum was based on the Sunday World story, where we reported that legendary Malian superstar Salif Keita had cancelled his performance at Macufe, after he protested over xenophobic attacks on African migrants in South Africa,
“The FSEF wants the legislature to establish how much money was committed or paid, what contractual arrangements were entered into and whether cancellation or non-performance provisions were included. We also demand to know who approved the booking, whether professional advice was obtained and whether taxpayers could suffer a financial loss as a result. We cannot simply accept that public money can be lost and that nobody must account for it,” said Sebidi.
‘Outlandish splurge’ on some artists
The forum has further questioned reported fees for artists including Zonke and Lira, alleging that they were booked for two days at substantial daily rates.
FSEF claimed in its letter to Dukwana that if reports of fees exceeding R200 000 per artist per day are accurate, government should establish whether booking the artists for multiple days represents the best value for taxpayers, citing that the money spent on additional performances could instead be channelled into local artists, emerging DJs, community stages, township activations, youth employment and local technical and production companies.
BOM Talent Search paid R4m
The Macufe controversy comes against the backdrop of concerns raised by the forum about a reported R4-million payment to a service provider, BOM Talent Search, linked to the Free State Choral, Clap and Tap competition.
The forum stressed that it was not making a finding of wrongdoing against anyone, however, it wants the legislature to scrutinise the procurement, value for money, deliverables, oversight and local economic benefit associated with the expenditure.
It questioned why a provincial department tasked with developing the Free State’s arts and cultural economy would allegedly spend millions on projects involving companies outside the province while local practitioners struggle to access opportunities.
Poor consultation with stakeholders
The forum also accused the department of adopting a “closed-door approach” to decision-making and failing to meaningfully engage industry practitioners.
Kotsi and Sebidi said that they had approached Sifuba on August 17 with what they described as constructive proposals and industry expertise, but claimed their concerns had not received a meaningful response, citing that the forum was not seeking political appointments or contracts.
“We are asking government to listen to the people who understand the industry,” said Kotsi.
Based on its letter, FSEF stated that it had decided to reach to Dukwana as the Speaker to ask him to facilitate an urgent engagement involving the legislature’s relevant portfolio committee, the MEC and senior departmental officials, events practitioners, creative industry representatives and tourism and economic-development stakeholders.
“As the forum, we wants a detailed briefing on the Macufe 2026 budget, procurement, artist expenditure, local supplier participation, provincial economic impact and overall festival strategy,” said Kotsi as he added that FSEF was doing so as a deliberate final attempt to resolve the matter internally.
FSEF also warned that if the legislature fails to intervene, it will consider all lawful avenues available to it, including obtaining independent legal advice and approaching judicial or oversight institutions where there are lawful grounds to challenge aspects of the festival.
“This is not a threat. It is notice that the industry is prepared to exhaust every lawful avenue available to it. Macufe belongs to the people of the Free State. It does not belong to an individual MEC, a political office, a department or a selected group of beneficiaries,” said Sebidi.
The spokesperson of the legislature, Maroele Seruoe had not responded to the questions sent to him at the time of going to print. The story will be updated once the legislature send its response.
- The Free State Events Forum (FSEF) is demanding a legislative probe into the Macufe Festival's budget, procurement, artist fees, and alleged lack of benefit to local businesses.
- The FSEF alleges the Free State government practices a "blanket procurement system," shutting out industry players and treating the festival as its own fiefdom.
- Over R20 million is reportedly allocated to Macufe 2026, including about R10 million for artists, with concerns about how much remains in the local economy.
- The FSEF criticized the reported high fees for artists like Zonke and Lira, questioning if booking them for multiple days is good value for taxpayers.
- The forum called for an urgent engagement involving the legislature to scrutinize Macufe’s budget, procurement, and local economic impact, warning of legal action if concerns remain unaddressed.
