The applicants in the High Court review application challenging Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela’s decision to place National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) under administration have fingered him for taking the decision without evidence proving that administrator Professor Hlengani Mathebula is fit for office.
Consequently, the former NSFAS board members have told the court in their final reply papers that they believe Manamela decided without a legitimate vetting report on Mathebula.
These chilling details are now the final submission to the Pretoria High Court ahead of oral hearings early next month.
The submission further claims that Manamela unilaterally appointed Mathebula without an assessment or recommendation by the department.
Mathebula’s checkered professional past
Mathebula’s fitness to hold office is the bone of contention in the legal wrangle owing to his past at South African Revenue Service (SARS) after the Nugent Commission made damning findings against him on his role at the tax collector.
Challenged about this in the founding papers, Manamela had responded by saying he had taken the Nugent Commission report into consideration before giving the nod to Mathebula.
The applicants, however, shot down this argument too, telling the court that the minister cannot rely on the explanation of the questioned character to determine their fitness for office.
“In the founding affidavit, I pointed out that the impugned decision was reviewable because the minister could not properly have applied his mind to the appropriateness of appointing Prof Mathebula as NSFAS’s administrator since he is plainly unfit. His integrity, independence, and judgment have been seriously impugned by the findings of the Nugent Commission,” reads the final reply affidavit of the applicants who are collectively represented by Tlou Ramashia.
“In answer, the minister claims that he ‘considered the adverse Nugent Commission comments, which had been brought to [his] attention by Professor Mathebula before [he] made the impugned decision’ and that Prof. Mathebula ‘explained why, in his view, they did not affect his suitability for appointment. He provided [the minister] with sufficient context, which enabled me to rationally make the decision to appoint him’.
“That claim is, however, not borne out by the evidence [because] the internal memorandum prepared by the department recommending the appointment of an administrator does not provide this context or assessment. Indeed, it does not even identify or assess Prof Mathebula as the relevant candidate. It suggests that he was not vetted or recommended by the department and was appointed solely at the instance of the minister,” the affidavit goes on.
Irrelevant documents
According to the applicants, when their lawyers demanded that Manamela produce the “context” purportedly provided to him by Mathebula, as well as the results of the criminal record check, the credit check, and the reference check that the minister claimed had been undertaken, the documents he produced were mostly irrelevant.
The only relevant document produced, the applicants argue, in relation to their requests is the Nugent Commission extracts attached to Mathebula’s supporting affidavit.
Therefore, they conclude that Manamela could have only gotten the document from Mathebula and could not have had the same at his disposal at the time of making the decision to appoint him administrator.
“The minister’s response demonstrates, beyond question, that no documents were placed before him relating to Prof. Mathebula’s fitness, or the Nugent Commission findings, or his vetting and police checks, at the time that the minister took the impugned decision.
“In fact, the first time that Prof Mathebula’s detailed account and explanation is set out is in his supporting affidavit dated 3 June 2026 (but filed on 4 June 2026). That affidavit was filed more than 3 weeks after the application was launched and 8 court days after the minister’s affidavit was served,” the applicants go on.
“The evidence therefore suggests that the minister was not provided with the Nugent Commission findings or the context in which they were made—and certainly not in the kind of detail that would have allowed the minister to properly assess and satisfy himself as to Prof Mathebula’s fitness for office.”
Concerns over Manamela’s ‘proof’
The applicants further believe that Manamela’s “proof” of what they requested from him as credit, police, and reference checks he relied upon to appoint Mathebula leaves much to be desired.
They say the purported evidence in this regard was a “personal credential verification report” prepared by the University of Tshwane in July 2024, approximately two years before Mathebula’s contested appointment.
“It suggested that contrary to the minister’s claims, the department did not procure its own police, credit, and reference checks. No documents evidencing those processes have been provided, and no one from the department has filed an affidavit confirming that appropriate police, credit, and reference checks took place.
“The minister simply did not have the information and documentation necessary to satisfy himself that Prof. Mathebula was a fit and appropriate person for appointment as administrator. No proper steps were undertaken to enable him objectively, reasonably and rationally to satisfy himself on that score.”
ALSO READ: Controversial ex-Daybreak chair finds soft landing at NSFAS
- Applicants challenge Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela's decision to place NSFAS under administration, arguing he appointed Professor Hlengani Mathebula without proper evidence of fitness for office.
- Former NSFAS board members claim Manamela acted without a legitimate vetting report or departmental assessment, making Mathebula's appointment unilateral and unsupported.
- The fitness of Mathebula is disputed due to adverse findings from the Nugent Commission regarding his past role at SARS, which the minister allegedly insufficiently considered.
- Applicants assert that Manamela failed to provide relevant supporting documents such as police, credit, and reference checks, and that the minister lacked adequate information to justify his decision.
- Evidence suggests that critical documents, including Mathebula's detailed explanation of the Nugent findings, were only submitted after the appointment, indicating improper vetting prior to the decision.
