Troubled minister of higher education Buti Manamela has blamed “advice from the department” for his contravention of provisions of the NSFAS Act relating to the remuneration of advisors to NSFAS administrator Professor Hlengani Mathebula.
The ball is now in director-general Dr Nkosinathi Sishi’s court, to take the fall or rebuff Manamela on the flouting of the rules with respect to remuneration of Mathebula’s four advisors. She was absent from the appearance due to work outside the country.
The drama unfolded during a marathon meeting of parliament’s portfolio committee on higher education on Wednesday afternoon, which continued into the wee hours of Thursday, where Manamela and NSFAS leadership were grilled on happenings at the state-owned student funding entity.
What became the central bone of contention was Section 17 of the NSFAS Act which governs the appointment of the administrator and their advisors and the compensation thereof.
Read: NSFAS costs skyrocket under controversial administrator
Lack of Treasury approval
The Sunday World lifted the lid several weeks ago on the lack of approval for the remuneration of Mathebula and his advisors by finance minister Enoch Godongwana, a requirement stipulated in the NSFAS Act section 17B and C.
Members of parliament hammered away on this point in their questioning of Manamela, who argued that his interpretation was that only the remuneration of the administrator needed Godongwana’s approval despite the explicit stipulation to the contrary in the Act.
Payment of Mathebula’s advisors could be declared irregular
Mathebula’s advisors have been invoicing NSFAS despite Godongwana’s non-approval, meaning their invoices now fall to be classified as irregular should the finance minister insist on not approving a request he seemingly does not have if Manamela’s explanation is anything to go by.
“The concurrence that we require from the minister of finance (Godongwana) only relates to the administrator (Mathebula) which is the discussion we are having with the minister of finance now,” said Manamela.
“The interpretation of section 17B and 17C (of the NSFAS Act) as it relates to the administrator and the advisory team of the administrator was that we should seek concurrence from the minister of finance as it relates to the administrator and that we should approve the teams (advisors) that come in with the administrator based on certain conditions. That is the situation as it stands now.”
Manamela blames department
Pressed by MKP’s Mnqobi Msezane on who advised the minister on his “clearly” wrong interpretation of the relevant section in the NSFAS Act, Manamela retorted :”It was on the basis of documentation from the department.”
This opened a can of worms for Manamela during the heated exchange with the members of the committee.
It was EFF’s Sihle Lonzi who would lead to Manamela being confused about the difference between the appointment of advisors and their remuneration, which left most of the committee members baffled.
Lonzi comes down hard on minister
Lonzi, like the other committee members before him, read for the minister section 17C of the NSFAS Act which reads: “The Minister (Manamela), with the approval of the Minister of Finance (Godongwana), may determine the remuneration and allowances to be paid to the administrator (Mathebula) and to any other person appointed in terms of section 17B (the four advisors to Mathebula).”
After the minister’s merry-go-round, Lonzi fired: “Clearly the minister does not want to tell us whether or not he has approved remuneration of the advisors. Where the four advisors appointed in terms of section 17B?” to which Manemela responded “as far as I am concerned, yes they were”
Lonzi was not done.
“Did minister of finance (Godongwana) approve the remuneration of any other person appointed in terms of 17B (advisors)?
Manamela could only say “no!” before Lonzi dropped the mic and allowed fellow committee members to continue the grilling.
ANC’s David Kgabo also grilled the minister on the irregular expenditure that have been incurred through the invoices of the advisors.
Manamela refused to say who would have to take responsibility for this but Kgabo was unrelenting.
“Within three months, the actions of the administrator have financial implications. On which authority was he (Mathebula acting) acting? If minister (Godongwana) does not approve, who will take responsibility of the financial implications?”
The saga over placing NSFAS under administration is a subject of several probes, with a high court review application having been heard early this month and judgement expected next week.
The public protector Adv Kholeka Gcaleka has also been called upon to investigate possible abuse of power in the decision to place the entity under administration.
- Minister of Higher Education Buti Manamela blamed "advice from the department" for his contravention of the NSFAS Act regarding remuneration of NSFAS administrator's advisors.
- Parliament's portfolio committee on higher education grilled Manamela and NSFAS leadership over lack of Treasury approval for remuneration of administrator Professor Hlengani Mathebula and his four advisors.
- Section 17C of the NSFAS Act requires the Minister of Finance Enoch Godongwana's approval for remuneration of both the NSFAS administrator and their appointed advisors, which was not obtained.
- Manamela admitted that the advisors were appointed but their remuneration was not approved by Minister Godongwana, making their payments potentially irregular.
- The saga includes multiple investigations including a high court review and a Public Protector inquiry into the placing of NSFAS under administration.
Troubled minister of higher education Buti Manamela has blamed "advice from the department" for his contravention of provisions of the NSFAS Act relating to the remuneration of advisors to NSFAS administrator Professor
What became the central bone of contention was Section 17 of the NSFAS Act which governs the appointment of the administrator and their advisors and the compensation thereof.
Read: NSFAS costs skyrocket under controversial administrator
"
"
Pressed by MKP's Mnqobi Msezane on who advised the minister on his "clearly" wrong interpretation of the relevant section in the NSFAS Act, Manamela retorted :"It was on the basis of documentation from the department."
It was EFF's
Lonzi, like the other committee members before him, read for the minister section 17C of the NSFAS Act which reads: "
After the minister's merry-go-round, Lonzi fired: "Clearly the minister does not want to tell us whether or not he has approved remuneration of the advisors. Where the four advisors appointed in terms of section 17B?" to which Manemela responded "as far as I am concerned, yes they were"
Lonzi was not done.
"Did minister of finance (
Manamela could only say "no!" before Lonzi dropped the mic and allowed fellow committee members to continue the grilling.
ANC's David Kgabo also grilled the minister on the irregular expenditure that have been incurred through the invoices of the advisors.
Manamela refused to say who would have to take responsibility for this but Kgabo was unrelenting.
"
Within three months, the actions of the administrator have financial implications. On which authority was he (acting) acting? If minister ( Mathebula ) does not approve, who will take responsibility of the financial implications?" Godongwana
