Multiple government departments have shockingly employed foreign nationals in “strategic and sensitive positions” – some linked to state security and governance.
The bombshell, which exposes glaring gaps in South Africa’s national security oversight, is contained in a memo penned by the Department of Public Service and Administration’s (DPSA) acting director-general, Willie Vukela, to various government departments on April 22.
In the memo, which Sunday World has seen, Vukela is demanding “immediate submission” of the data of all foreign nationals employed by the state after provincial and national departments, as well as state-owned entities, missed an initial April 11 deadline.
The directive, extended until April 30, follows warnings from the South African National Security Secretariat (SANSS) that foreigners hired in sensitive roles could pose “public security risks”.
“A recurring area of concern is the employment of foreign nationals within the public service,” Vukela wrote.
He quoted SANSS’s alarm over appointments made “without appropriately evaluating potential security implications.
The SANSS, which consists of the presidency’s director-general and counterparts from national departments in the security cluster, among others, has ordered non-compliant departments to be formally reported to it and other relevant oversight bodies.
The SANSS has raised fears of foreign espionage or governance sabotage with such an appointment.
In his ultimatum, Vukela also said the DPSA required departments to disclose the number of foreign nationals on their payrolls, their job roles, residency status and permit details. The move aims to curb the risk of foreign interference in critical sectors, but insiders say the delayed compliance suggests systemic dysfunction – or deliberate obfuscation.
“The requested information is critical to ensuring accurate reporting to the National Assembly […] and upholding the integrity and governance of human resource management,” Vukela stressed in the memo.
Although SANSS, which reports directly to the president at the National Security Council, has increasingly scrutinised foreign nationals’ access to sensitive roles amid global tensions and South Africa’s history of state capture, the memo does not name specific departments or roles under suspicion; it only warns of “strategic and sensitive positions”– a term often applied to intelligence, defence, IT and financial roles.
This is not the first time departments have ignored DPSA’s data submission calls. The memo references “earlier engagements” that failed to secure compliance, highlighting a culture of impunity.
SANSS is expected to identify and expose non-compliant departments now that the April 30 deadline has passed.
Last year the DPSA data showed that the government employed 5 779 foreign nationals in 2023, comprising 3 557 men and 2 222 women. More than 60% of these employees fell within the 44–59 age bracket, reflecting a predominantly mid-career demographic.
By nationality, Zimbabweans formed the largest cohort at 2 172, followed by Congolese (755) and Nigerians (367). India (383) and Cuba (265) are ranked highest among non-African nations represented in the public sector.
The overwhelming majority of foreign government workers were concentrated in healthcare and education. Healthcare roles accounted for 2,511 employees, while 2,660 worked across basic and higher education departments.
Beyond these sectors, only justice and constitutional development employed a significant foreign workforce, with all other departments hosting fewer than 100 non-South African staff.
Following the deadline extension, Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture Gayton McKenzie was among the first to demand compliance from his department, particularly after the parliamentary portfolio committee tasked him with investigating the employment of foreigners at the Robben Island Museum (RIM).
In a directive issued on April 28, McKenzie mandated all public entities under his department to disclose detailed employment records of foreign nationals within three working days, escalating the probe into a sector-wide audit.
He has demanded the names, nationalities and residency duration of foreign employees; work permit details, including expiry dates for non-permanent residents; critical skills justification, aligned with the Department of Home Affairs’ critical skills list; and contract expiry dates, as well as the names of officials who approved hires.
During the sports, arts, and culture portfolio committee meeting on April 25, members criticised Robben Island Museum’s previous appointment of a Zimbabwean national as the chief heritage officer, expressing concerns that inadequate oversight could harm institutional integrity and public trust.
The museum’s then acting CEO, Dr Jonty Tshipa, acknowledged the concerns but deferred providing the exact number of foreign employees, promising follow-up data. McKenzie then intervened, vowing to address foreign employment personally.
However, records showed that three days earlier, the Robben Island Museum had appointed foreign nationals Kennedy Matemba as chief financial officer, Major Muchingami and Tinashe Gondo as accountants, and Tendai Nyhwema as senior manager of finance for a period of six months.
An insider at the RIM said a company contracted to assist the entity with its financial statements made the appointments, which were a temporary measure after a sudden exodus of key staff in the finance department.
Sunday World understands that the appointments have since been reversed following McKenzie’s intervention.
Chairperson of the RIM council, Pro Seth Cooper, said the entity only had three foreign nationals in its structure, appointed more than 13 years ago, and they all have permanent residence status with SA IDs.
“At the time of presenting to the portfolio committee, this information was not readily known by the presenters; hence, a request was made to submit information in due course, which information was provided. The portfolio committee agreed, and the information was duly submitted.”
DPSA spokesperson Dudley Moloi declined to comment, saying the information requested pertained to “internal discussions and is subject to confidentiality under the Protection of Personal Information Act.”
“Our primary concern is to safeguard sensitive internal affairs from unauthorised disclosure, particularly given the ongoing confidential discussions with SANSS.”
