NSFAS boss and Minister Manamela grilled over unapproved payments to two advisers

This story has significance for readers across Africa and beyond.

Officials from the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) â including the administrator, Professor Hlengani Mathebula, and Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela â faced intense heat from MPs on Wednesday, 12 August, over the appointment of Mathebulaâs four advisers.

The questioning focused on two advisers who were paid without approval from the National Treasury. Under section 17B of the NSFAS Act, an administrator may hire qualified experts with the ministerâs approval. However, section 17C requires the minister of higher education to secure concurrence from the minister of finance before setting remuneration and allowances for the administrator and support staff.

But recently Daily Maverick reported that two top advisers to Mathebula billed nearly R500,000 a month through private firms.

On Wednesday, MPs zeroed in on Chapter 2A of the NSFAS Act, which governs ministerial interventions and administrator appointments during operational or governance failures. MP Gaolatlhe Kgabo pressed Manamela on whether he had secured approval from Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana regarding Mathebulaâs salary, as required by Section 17C.

Manamela admitted he had not yet received Treasury approval, but expressed confidence that an agreement would be reached. When Kgabo further asked whether Godongwana had approved the pay for Mathebulaâs two advisers, Manamela responded that he believed Treasury authorisation was unnecessary.

Another MP, Mnqobi Msezane, asked Manamela where he got the advice to pay the advisers of Mathebula. âFrom the department,â replied Manamela.

MPs pressed for clarity on how the compensation was determined. After MP Sihle Lonzi (EFF) cited the NSFAS Act to outline what the advisers should have been paid, a struggling Manamela said he wished to submit his response at a later stage.

âYouâre telling me you donât remember whether or not you approved how much advisers must be paid. You donât remember? And thereâs no record in any of your devices that your PAs donât know, your PLOs donât know, your advisers donât know whether or not you approved whether advisers must be paid?â asked Lonzi.

âNo,â responded Manamela.

Lonzi pushed further, asking if the advisers had already been paid. âWell, as far as I know, they are,â Manamela replied, though he admitted he did not have documentation on hand to confirm the approved amounts. Pressed again by Lonzi on whether the finance minister had authorised their pay, Manamela conceded: âNo.â

Following the struggles to provide clear answers to the questions raised by MPs to Manamela, Ashley Sauls of the Patriotic Alliance concluded, âThe administrator, together with yourself, has done something illegal: paying advisers without the approval of the minister of finance.â

In a statement dated 14 July 2026, the ministry had said that the combined annual remuneration of the four advisers amounted to about R9.9-million.

Mathebula under fire

MPs pressed Mathebula on whether proper internal procedures were followed in paying his four advisers. Under questioning from Lonzi, Mathebula confirmed that all four had received payment.

Explaining the payment methods, Mathebula said, âTwo went through the payroll system, the other two through their companies.â NSFAS processes payments through two distinct channels: the Human Resources payroll for direct employees and statutory office-bearers, and the Supply Chain Management procurement channel for external corporate service providers. Under the Public Finance Management Act, contracts routed through the SCM must undergo competitive bidding.

Lonzi questioned whether private companies could simply be paid by NSFAS without following due process.

âIt appears like you could, right,â said Mathebula. âIn the instance where this has been wrong, we then have to fix that. I actually called in the senior manager responsible for SCM about what happened in this instance.

âHe did flag to me that the mistake that happened there is that these companies were not submitted to [undergo] spot checks... Alternatively, what should have happened is that ... in the contracting, we should have then contracted the company so that we pay through that particular company.â

Letsie also pressed Mathebula on whether he understood that section 17C of the NSFAS Act required Treasury concurrence. Struggling to answer, Mathebula responded: âIâm saying section 17C is what it is... Where Iâm sitting, I sit with the Government Gazette that says I must appoint technical experts to assist me with the concurrence of the minister of higher education, and that has been done.â DM

Reporting originally appeared via Daily Maverick. Read the full source for additional context.