SIU PSET investigations; DHET and DEL on universities' compliance regarding foreign-national appointments; DHA on PSET work/study visas and Critical Skills List progress

Video The Committee met in Parliament to receive briefings from the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) on the employment of foreign nationals in the Post-School Education and Training (PSET) sector, the issuing of study and work visas, and the implementation of the internationalisation policy framework. The meeting was convened amid concerns that, while the Committee supported internationalisation and recognised the value of South African universities participating in the global academic community, the framework could not be applied in a manner that disregarded domestic employment, immigration and transformation legislation. The Committee therefore sought clarity on whether universities were complying with the Employment Services Act, 2014, the Employment Equity Act and the Immigration Act when appointing foreign academics, whether suitably qualified South Africans were being given preference, and how DHET, DEL and DHA coordinated their respective responsibilities concerning scarce and critical skills. In his opening remarks, the Chairperson emphasised that the Committee's concern was not with internationalisation itself, but with how the policy was being implemented. He acknowledged that universities could legitimately recruit academics from abroad where specialised expertise or experience was required but stressed that internationalisation was not an exemption from South African law. In particular, he referred to section 8 of the Employment Services Act, which requires an employer to establish that no suitably qualified South African is available before employing a foreign national. The Committee was concerned that this requirement was not being consistently observed and that some institutions could be invoking internationalisation to justify appointments without adequately demonstrating the need for foreign skills. The SIU provided the broader investigative context, reporting on 14 proclamations involving entities in the higher education portfolio between 2017 and 2025, of which eight had been finalised and six remained ongoing, as well as a DHA-related investigation into fraudulent study and work visas. Of particular relevance was evidence of coordinated study-visa fraud involving fraudulent university acceptance letters, medical and radiology certificates and medical-aid documentation, allegedly facilitated by corrupt officials in exchange for payment. The SIU also reported cases involving manipulation of DNA results to secure permanent residence, abuse of the retirement visa category and the use of asylum permits as a route towards citizenship. The investigation had resulted in 278 referrals to the National Prosecuting Authority and 205 administrative referrals for visa revocation and deportation, but only seven internal disciplinary referrals. Members questioned whether the cases identified represented only a portion of a wider syndicate and raised concerns about the effectiveness of consequence management once SIU investigations were concluded. Mr Ngubane argued that referrals for prosecution, disciplinary action and blacklisting could effectively lapse when institutional leadership changed, and called for stronger monitoring to ensure that recommendations were acted upon. The SIU indicated that a monitoring unit had been established and that institutions and the NPA were expected to report within 90 days on action taken following referrals. The DEL presentation provided the clearest evidence of the concentration of foreign nationals within the university system. Foreign nationals constituted 2.1% of the wider education workforce, but 7.1% of staff at public universities, which accounted for 77.7% of all foreign nationals employed across the education sector. The concentration was higher at more senior levels: foreign nationals represented 12.8% of professionally qualified university staff and 16.0% of senior management, compared with 4.4% and 5.2%, respectively, across the broader education sector. DEL warned that this could create a longer-term transformation risk if foreign nationals increasingly progressed from professional positions into senior and top management. DEL further reported significant levels of non-compliance with the Employment Equity Act. Of 3,324 institutions targeted for inspection during the fourth quarter, 1,948, or 59%, had been inspected, and 91% of those inspected were found to be non-compliant. Gauteng recorded 99.6% non-compliance among inspected institutions. Members questioned whether the existing inspection regime was sufficiently effective and whether the Department had been too focused on advisory interventions. DEL indicated that inspections would move towards active enforcement after 1 October 2026. The institution-level figures further concerned Members. Sol Plaatje University had the highest proportional concentration of foreign nationals at the professionally qualified level, at 39.2%, or 31 of 79 staff, against a reduction target of 32.9%. Wits University and the University of Cape Town had the largest absolute reduction targets at their respective highest-exposure levels, while Stellenbosch University's submitted plan reflected limited change in foreign-national representation at senior management level. Members argued that these figures warranted closer examination, particularly where foreign nationals occupied positions from which they could progress into institutional leadership. DHET, meanwhile, acknowledged that it did not yet have a sufficiently reliable national picture of foreign-national recruitment. The Department had visited only 14 of the 26 public universities, and only five had provided usable figures on the proportion of foreign national staff. Institutions also used terms such as "foreign national", "international academic" and "international staff" inconsistently, making comparisons difficult and weakening the national dataset. Members consequently questioned how DHET could effectively monitor compliance or assess the impact of international recruitment when it did not have complete recruitment information. This concern extended to DHET's proposed reliance on the Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS). The Department acknowledged that HEMIS was not a live dataset and did not contain the recruitment information necessary to establish how foreign academics were being appointed. The Chairperson questioned why HEMIS was nevertheless being presented as part of the solution and criticised DHET for what he regarded as an overly lenient approach towards universities, given its statutory powers to hold institutions accountable. He argued that institutions should not be permitted to withhold information required for proper oversight. Members also questioned the absence of measurable evidence of skills transfer arising from the appointment of foreign academics. DHET confirmed that it did not currently measure skills transfer and that this was not required under existing reporting regulations. Although it referred to programmes including the South African Research Chairs Initiative, the University Staff Doctoral Programme, the New Generation of Academics Programme, NESP and the Future Professors Programme as mechanisms for developing South African academic capacity, the Department did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate their impact on the development of a sustainable academic pipeline. The discussion on Sol Plaatje University illustrated Members' broader concern about this pipeline. Members questioned how an institution in a province with substantial black and coloured populations could have such a high concentration of foreign academics, particularly in ICT and the sciences, without a corresponding pipeline of South African graduates into academic positions. DHET attributed the challenge partly to limited postgraduate funding and the financial pressures that lead students to enter employment before completing doctoral studies, as well as the lengthy and costly path towards academic qualifications. Members nevertheless maintained that the transformation pipeline required greater attention and called for stronger postgraduate funding and measures to increase the number of South Africans entering and progressing through the academic profession. The DHA briefing clarified the immigration framework governing foreign workers and academics. The Department explained that an October 2024 Ministerial Blanket Waiver removed the requirement for a DEL recommendation or certificate for General Work Visa applications and introduced a Points-Based System (PBS). Applicants are required to obtain at least 100 points based on factors including occupation, qualifications, salary, experience, language proficiency and Trusted Employer status, with occupations appearing on the Critical Skills List receiving significant weighting. DHA stated that the system was intended to attract highly skilled individuals whose expertise was not readily available in the domestic labour market. Only 280 applications had been received since its introduction, with approximately half approved. The Critical Skills List emerged as a major unresolved concern. DHA confirmed that the list had last been updated in 2023 and that preparatory work with DHET towards its review was still underway, without a committed completion date. Members questioned the appropriateness of relying on a three-year-old list in a rapidly changing labour market, particularly in fields such as information technology. They were concerned that, because the PBS had removed the previous labour-market-letter requirement, an outdated list could allow foreign nationals to qualify for visas in occupations where suitably qualified South Africans might be available. Members therefore called for the list to be reviewed more regularly and for the process of identifying critical skills to be closely aligned with domestic skills development and university enrolment planning. The Committee also questioned the use of postdoctoral and research visas by individuals allegedly performing substantive teaching functions. The Chairperson referred to cases where foreign nationals were reportedly lecturing while remaining in South Africa on postdoctoral research visas. DHA's own framework indicated that postdoctoral researchers should hold a research-endorsed Visitor's Visa or an appropriately endorsed Critical Skills Visa linked to the relevant research project. Members stressed that institutions should verify that the duties actually performed by foreign nationals corresponded with the conditions of their visas, as employment outside those conditions could constitute a contravention of section 38 of the Immigration Act. In the discussion that followed, Members repeatedly challenged the departments on coordination, enforcement and accountability. The Chairperson maintained that the Committee was not seeking to restrict internationalisation, but expected universities to demonstrate a genuine need for foreign expertise, comply with employment and immigration legislation, and ensure that foreign recruitment supported rather than displaced the development of South African academic capacity. He proposed that the SIU review advertisements and terms of reference relating to foreign-national appointments from 1 January 2019 and suggested that the Committee consider seeking a special proclamation to investigate the employment of foreign nationals in the PSET system over the period from 2019 to August 2026. Members also raised broader concerns about the implementation of SIU findings and the need for consequences where institutions or officials failed to comply with legal requirements. The discussion reflected a concern that weaknesses in data collection, inconsistent reporting, limited monitoring of skills transfer, an outdated Critical Skills List and insufficient enforcement could collectively undermine employment equity and transformation objectives, while making it difficult for government to determine whether international recruitment was genuinely addressing scarce skills. The Committee therefore called for stronger coordination between DHET, DEL and DHA, improved data on foreign-national appointments, more effective verification of qualifications, employment functions and visa conditions, and stronger institutional accountability. It emphasised that the Critical Skills List, immigration policy, employment-equity requirements, university enrolment planning and domestic skills-development initiatives should operate as part of a coherent national framework rather than in isolation. The meeting ultimately highlighted a significant gap between the principle of internationalisation and the mechanisms available to ensure that it is implemented fairly, lawfully and in support of South Africa's transformation objectives. While the departments maintained that internationalisation was intended to attract scarce expertise and strengthen the PSET system, Members stressed that this could not come at the expense of suitably qualified South Africans or the country's broader skills-development objectives. Further work was therefore required on enforcement, data collection, recruitment practices, skills transfer, the review of the Critical Skills List and, potentially, a broader investigation into the appointment of foreign nationals across the PSET sector.