Allegations of irregularities in DBE appointment processes; with Minister

The Portfolio Committee met to investigate the allegations of political interference in appointments at the Department of Basic Education (DBE). The Committee was aghast that the requested documents were not provided to it. The Minister and Department apologised and promised to provide those that were not confidential. Some Members were of the opinion that it was a deliberate tactic to hamper the Committee’s investigation. The Committee was concerned about ministerial interference in the recruitment process for the DDG: Curriculum post. In May 2025 the panel responsible for this could not come to agreement on the two finalists. The Minister opted to break this deadlock by recommending the second highest scorer since the panel could not agree. This raised the ire of the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), whose authority is needed to sign off on new DDG positions. The DBE and DPSA have since been deadlocked for the better part of a year over this. The Chief Director: Communications post was also not free from controversy. It had come to light that the previous Chief of Staff to the Minister and the current Advisor to the Minister, had rerouted two additional CVs outside the normal HR channels directly into the inbox of the HR Director. The reason this caused alarm is the Minister had already had time to view the shortlist of those who qualified versus those who did not as this was sent to her desk. This undermined the statement of the Minister that her office followed all HR protocols. However, it remains unclear if the Advisor or previous Chief of Staff were acting in their own interests or if they had received instruction from the Minister, who denied such instruction taking place. The Committee resolved to secure the attendance of the previous Chief of Staff to clarify this. The extent of executive authority conveyed onto the Minister by the Public Service Act and its Regulations was also discussed in detail. After an exhaustive deliberation across four and a half hours, the Chair recommended that that a forensic investigation would be appropriate. Legal advice would be sought by the Committee on how best to proceed. The documents in the Committee’s letter of request had to be provided by the Department. Should any item not be provided, there needed to be an accompanying letter explaining why that document could not be handed over.