A report from the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) has found that Minister of Planning, Monito-ring and Evaluation in the Presidency Maropene Ramokgopa is unlawfully poking her nose in the department’s affairs that had zilch to do with her.
The report said Ramokgopa tried to wield authority unlawfully within the department at the expense of director-general Dr Robert Nkuna.
The report, written by Yoliswa Makhasi, the director-general of the Department of Public Service and Administration, mentions Ramokgopa’s decisions to lift the suspension of Ntabozuko Nomlala, the then chief director of corporate services, without due process and swiftly promoted him to an acting deputy director-general (DDG), as conduct outside the minister’s powers. The report states that such powers reside in Nkuna’s office.
The DPSA advised the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) to seek legal advice on the implications of the decisions Nomlala had taken in office since his reinstatement on December 5 last year, followed by his promotion on December 24.
“The [minister] has no legal authority to appoint an employee to act as a DDG in the DPME. Such an appointment by the DPME will be in non-compliance with the Public Service Act.”
The report advises that Ramokgopa improperly assumed powers clearly reserved for Nkuna as the head of department. “The authority to discipline employees and appoint acting employees, other than the head of department, is inherently vested in the head of department,” the report stated.
The report further argued, “The provisions of the Public Service Act do not permit the … [minister]to assume the powers so conferred on the director-general of DPME.”
The report further clarifies that the legal framework governing public sector appointments is explicit in its delineation of roles and responsibilities. “Section 32(2) of the Public Service Act provides that an employee may be directed in writing to act in a post subject to such conditions as may be prescribed,” noted the report.
It stressed that the “head of department is responsible for the efficient management and administration of his or her department,” thereby invalidating any unilateral decisions taken by Ramokgopa.
The office of the chief state law adviser, stated the report, had been consulted and provided a detailed opinion. The opinion, stated the report, echoes the DPSA’s sentiments.
The report also cited the landmark case of Affordable Medicines Trust vs Minister of Health, which held that “the exercise of public power must comply with the constitution, which is the supreme law.”
It also stated: “The doctrine of legality entails that both the legislature and the executive ‘are constrained by the principle that they may exercise no power or perform no function beyond that conferred upon them by law’.”
The report advised that Ramokgopa be “guided to correct the decision to avoid non-compliance with the Public Service Act and the consequences thereof”.
Ramokgopa has come under fire from unions in the public sector for this apparent overreach, with calls for corrective action to be taken. Union leaders contend that her decisions contravened multiple Public Service Commission (PSC) reports and court rulings that had called for disciplinary measures against Nomlala.
The report came after Nkuna and the human resources management director Sibongile Mbeleki wrote two letters, both dated February 4, 2025, seeking advice from the DPSA on interpreting the Public Service Act. The letters highlighted the confusion and the need for clarity in governance roles.
In a letter dated January 3, 2025, Ramokgopa informed Nkuna of Nomlala’s new position, creating ripples of discontent within the department.
Nkuna, attempting to navigate the complex situation, had sought guidance from the DPSA on managing the appointment process. He highlighted the necessity to address appointment irregularities.
He explored the possibility of reassigning Nomlala to a different role pending resolution of the issues.
Ramokgopaw, defending her decision, cited that she had carefully considered and adhered to legal stipulations, including an arbitration ruling and the 60-day suspension limit for employees.
