Public Protector steps into feud over Manamela’s alleged overreach

‘Minister does not have powers to appoint NSF CEO’

Public Protector South Africa (PPSA) has stepped into the fray of the delayed appointment of the National Skills Fund CEO, with advocate Kholeka Gcaleka assessing the failure to fill the position more than a year after it became vacant.

At the centre of the complaint before the chapter nine institution are allegations of abuse of power and maladministration directed at higher education and training minister Buti Manamela. The dispute stems from the minister’s decision to re-advertise the post even though Dr Innocent Sirovha was recommended for the position.

The complainant, Magalies Training Institute, wants Gcaleka to declare Manamela’s decision overreach, insisting that the power to appoint a chief executive at NSF rests solely in the hands of the director general, Dr Nkosinathi Sishi and, at worst, with concurrence from the cabinet.

Gcaleka’s office has confirmed having received the complaint.

“The complaint … is at the assessment phase. Should the assessment reveal that there is sufficient information to proceed with an investigation and it is determined that the public protector has jurisdiction to investigate the matter, the complaint will be allocated to a PPSA investigator who then commences the investigation process,” PPSA spokesperson Ndili Msoki said.

Magalies is adamant that the minister’s decision to call for the NSF CEO post to be re-advertised contravened certain provisions of the Public Service Act, chiefly that Manamela arrogated to himself “executive authority that he is not entitled to according to relevant statutes”.

The complaint insists that even if cabinet concurrence is a legal prerequisite, the alternative argument would be that it was not applied correctly in this case. “Even assuming a Cabinet concurrence policy or practice exists and is lawfully permissible, the manner in which it has been applied in this case is irrational, unlawful and constitutionally impermissible.”

Magalies says that even if there is a cabinet concurrence, “its purpose is not to give cabinet decision-making power over an appointment that the statute vests exclusively in the DG nor to enable a portfolio minister”.

The complainant is also adamant that Sirovha was recommended for appointment after a rigorous recruitment process.

Magalies says a decision to re-advertise while nothing has been flagged with a recommended candidate “should be done for good reasons and in exceptional circumstances only”.

It says Sirovha was appointed by the DG in October last year, an appointment decision that became final when communicated personally by Sishi as well as by acting DDG corporate services in February 2026, and confirmed through the taking of fingerprints in March.

They argue that the events created a “legitimate expectation of appointment” on the part of Sirovha, which cannot be taken away by a minister usurping the powers of the DG.

“Furthermore … minister Manamela relies on his status as ‘executive authority’ under the Public Service Act, a misconstruction of his statutory role since the PSA framework does not apply to the NSF CEO. The directive is invalid on this independent ground.”

Manamela’s troubles, it says, are further compounded by the fact that Sirovha was given no notice that the minister intended to issue a directive reversing the decision.

Manamela’s spokesperson Matshepo Seedat did not respond to our request for comment.

Mawande AmaShabalala