DSAC on the stability, governance, criminal cases, investigations and governance matters at all entities; with Minister and Deputy Minister

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson formally opened the meeting, and said the discussions would focus on critical issues related to stability and governance. He referred to recent oversight observations, and stressed the Committee’s need for updates on criminal cases and forensic investigations. Governance stability within the Department of Sports, Arts and Culture (DSAC) was a key concern, and the Committee would also address appointments within governance structures to ensure the smooth operation of the entities within the Department.

He said the Department would provide updates on all criminal cases, including case numbers and the entities involved, specifically mentioning Boxing South Africa. He referred to a recent article in the Sunday Times about the Chairperson of Boxing South Africa, expressing interest in how governance was being handled. He also suggested that Members should monitor reports on the Creative and Cultural Industries Federation of South Africa (CCIFSA) closely.

The Chairperson stressed the importance of oversight, stating that the Committee must ensure accountability and uphold integrity within the Department’s entities. He referred to a concerning message shared by Mr G Kgabo (ANC) in the Committee’s WhatsApp group on the poor state of infrastructure and commented that similar issues were often encountered during oversight visits. He emphasised the need for a clear system to track if problems were being resolved. He cited the recent oversight visit to the North West province, particularly at Impala, as an example.

Minister's opening remarks

 The Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture, Gayton McKenzie, began by commending the Committee for its efforts in travelling across the country to identify problems. He reassured the Members that their findings should not be seen as an attack on the Department, but rather as a valuable contribution, as some issues might not have been previously known. He acknowledged that government was often criticised for being uncaring, including by himself when he was in the opposition. However, since joining government, he had realised that funds had been allocated for infrastructure. Despite this, the condition of stadiums and other facilities remained poor, leading him to revise his earlier criticism. He concluded that the real problem lay with government officials who failed to ensure that funds were used properly.

He emphasised that a new era of accountability had begun. Infrastructure grants given to municipalities were not being used for their intended purposes. He also criticised sports federations, saying they existed mainly to receive government funding while failing in their duty to raise money and ensure proper management. He mentioned recent issues involving Boxing South Africa, where a promoter had been stopped from hosting an event. Upon inquiry, he had been told that new rules had been put in place. He assured the Committee that accountability would now be enforced, and encouraged them to continue their oversight work.

Minister McKenzie expressed concern over the poor state of sports facilities in South Africa, commenting that it was a miracle the country had produced successful Olympic athletes, Springboks, and soccer players despite these conditions. He and Deputy Minister Peace Mabe were committed to rebuilding infrastructure, and this priority would be reflected in the budget. The focus would be on areas that had previously been overlooked when it came to sports development.

He also raised concerns about social cohesion, which he described as critically important. He referred to the Social Cohesion Advocate Programme, which had been running in the Department for years and had done excellent work by engaging with communities. Initially, this programme had been based on voluntary participation. However, upon investigation, he discovered that individuals had been receiving payments without any proper documentation to justify the expenditure. This led to the suspension of officials responsible for the programme. Those officials had since returned, and their disciplinary hearings were about to begin at the Deputy Director General level. He clarified that the programme had been stopped solely due to financial mismanagement, and said this was the first time he was sharing these details with the Committee.

Status of DSAC and its entities

 Dr Cynthia Khumalo, Acting Director-General (ADG), DSAC, presented on the 28 entities in the Department, which were grouped according to their functions. She acknowledged that the Committee had been provided with a detailed list of the councils of these entities, including their members, as requested. However, the names were not included in the PowerPoint presentation, but could be found in the circulated spreadsheet.

Dr Khumalo then provided an overview of the heritage institutions in the Department, stating that most of their councils were duly constituted, except for those whose terms were ending in July, like the Ditsong and Iziko museums. She said that recruitment processes for the new councils would begin soon, with public selection and appointment taking about three to four months. Several heritage institutions, including Ditsong Museums and Freedom Park, were dealing with internal issues such as chief executive officer (CEO) recruitment and investigations into allegations against their CEOs.

She then moved on to discuss the performing arts institutions and highlighted issues such as the end of the term for the Market Theatre Council in March and the Mandela Bay Theatre Complex Council in June. She also mentioned ongoing allegations against staff members at the Performing Arts Centre of the Free State (PACOFS). She indicated that the new Council, which took office in December, was working to address these. PACOFS was facing challenges related to the lease of its building and the sharing of municipal services, and the Department had engaged with the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) on these issues.

The presentation also covered development agencies, such as the National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF), which was undergoing an investigation into its affairs. She noted that no significant matters had been reported for the other development agencies. She said the National Library of South Africa had been investigated due to issues involving the CEO and staff. The investigation had been concluded and handed over to the new board, which would later report to the Committee. The South African Library for the Blind was facing financial challenges.

Dr Khumalo then addressed the sporting entities, such as Boxing SA and the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport. She said Boxing SA had a new board dealing with financial and investigation-related issues. The South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport had faced challenges due to a suspended laboratory, which had led to financial difficulties. Lastly, she briefly touched on constitutional institutions, mentioning the Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB) and its recent appointments.

Concluding, she provided an update on the executive positions of some entities, noting that interviews had been held for CEO positions at Iziko Museums, Ditsong Museums, and the National Film and Video Foundation, while others, like the National Arts Council and Boxing SA, were in the process of appointing new CEOs and chief financial officers (CFOs).

See attached documents for further details

Criminal and forensic investigations into sporting bodies

 Dr Khumalo provided an update on the sports federations and their involvement in criminal and forensic investigations from January 2023 to 2025. She said that the Department had shared a document with the Committee, which contained a breakdown of the reports received from several federations. These reports highlighted ongoing criminal cases or investigations within organisations such as Cycling SA, Basketball SA, the Sports Trust, and Triathlon South Africa. The South African Gymnastics Federation was excluded from the list of federations under investigation, as there were no direct investigations related to the Federation. However, it had indicated that a parent had independently filed a complaint with the South African Revenue Service (SARS), and this was included in the report.

Dr Khumalo pointed out that 52 federations had reported no ongoing investigations or criminal cases. However, six federations -- Netball SA, South African Ice Hockey, Masters Sports South Africa, Snow Sports South Africa, and the South African Taekwondo Federation -- had failed to respond to the DSAC's request for information, and the Department was following up with them.

She said the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) submitted a report confirming no forensic investigations were underway. However, they had reported two pending criminal cases related to the previous CEO and CFO. SASCOC had provided a case number for these criminal investigations, but had not supplied further documentation, as the matter was still pending.

Dr Khumalo concluded by noting that Motorsport South Africa had submitted a detailed list of cases, which was included in the PDF document sent to the Committee.

See attached documents for further details

CCIFSA progress

Ms Sunita Ramanand, Director: Internal Audits, DSAC, provided an update on the investigation into the Cultural and Creative Industries Federation of SA (CCIFSA). The matter was referred to her Department in December, and they conducted a preliminary assessment to evaluate the validity of the allegations and the Department's capability to handle the investigation. Realising the need for external expertise, they initiated a procurement process to appoint a service provider. The terms of reference for this had been submitted, and the process was currently being advertised, with the closing date set for Friday. The Department aimed to appoint a service provider by early next week, and the investigation was expected to take around 60 days.

Dr Khumalo confirmed that the Chief Audit Executive was managing the investigation into the CCIFSA, and that further questions could be answered later. She noted that the presentations shared with the Committee had been sent three weeks ago, and there had been updates since then.

Mr Sibusiso Tsanyane, Director: Entity Oversight, DSAC, clarified a matter on the appointment of councils whose terms had recently expired. He explained that the councils’ terms had ended because they had been extended by the previous Minister for one year as part of an amalgamation project, not due to any changes by the new Minister. While the PanSALB board was in place, they were still without a chairperson and deputy chairperson, as these positions were to be elected by the members. A meeting had been scheduled for 24 March to elect these positions.

Mr Tsanyane said that adverts for the positions at Ditsong and Iziko museums had been published, and other adverts, including those for Robben Island and the South African Heritage Resources Agency, would be published soon. For the National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF), the position of CEO had already been advertised, and interviews had taken place.

See attached documents for further details

Discussion

The Chairperson began by addressing the Minister and the Department, emphasising the high number of complaints and letters received by the Committee. As mentioned in a previous meeting, there was a need to establish a proper system to manage and address these issues effectively. He expressed frustration over the lack of response to concerns raised about Powerboat South Africa and Boxing South Africa, despite having forwarded complaints to the relevant parties, including the Committee secretary and SASCOC.

He also pointed out that there had been no updates on the South African Heritage Council and the NFVF, even though problems had been reported. He expressed concern over a case involving an individual who had been transferred to another entity, rather than facing direct consequences, describing this as problematic.

They thanked the Minister for intervening in the PanSALB issue, and acknowledged the ongoing work needed to ensure that elections took place. However, he stressed that the Committee’s primary responsibility was to ensure good governance and that unresolved cases created challenges in achieving this goal. He questioned how the Department intended to handle cases where federations had failed to submit necessary information, and if punitive measures would be implemented. He also criticised the Department’s approach, arguing that it was unacceptable for federations to simply ignore requests without consequences.

The Chairperson concluded by stating that stability within the Department was essential, and that a collective effort was needed to uphold competency and integrity. He expressed the need for further information beyond the meeting, and then invited Committee Members to contribute to the discussion.

Ms M Mmolotsane (ANC) responded to the Minister’s comments by challenging his statement that government officials did not care about how the DSAC's funds were used. She pointed out that many government buildings were left incomplete, turning into useless structures that required additional funds to either rebuild or complete. She stressed that this mismanagement needed urgent attention.

She also raised concerns about the high number of acting positions within the Department. She described the situation as resembling "Hollywood," because so many officials were in temporary roles. She said that this created accountability issues, as each acting official could simply shift blame to their predecessor. She questioned when the Department planned to fill these positions permanently, warning that extended acting appointments could lead to legal challenges from those who had occupied those roles for a long time. She also questioned if the Department was appointing the right people to the right positions, noting that placing individuals with technical skills in financial roles could create serious problems. She made it clear that the current approach was unsustainable.

Ms Mmolotsane then referred to Freedom Park, reminding the Committee that in the previous Committee meeting, allegations of mismanagement had been raised. She had expected a clear response at that time, but had not received one. This lack of answers suggested that Freedom Park was one of those entities where concerns were raised but never addressed. She asked if the Department had launched an investigation and, if so, how far it had progressed. She pointed out that these allegations had existed before the seventh administration, and questioned why nothing had been done earlier. She warned that if the Department continued to ignore these issues, it would be seen as enabling corruption.

She also raised serious concerns about PACOFS, stating that it would deteriorate completely if action was not taken immediately. She spoke about corruption allegations involving the company responsible for occupational health and safety at PACOFS, claiming that there was evidence of financial exchanges between officials and a businesswoman from the MMM3 Wellness Group, who had provided proof, including WhatsApp conversations and bank transactions. Despite this, nothing had been done. She questioned if the Department was waiting for PACOFS to collapse before stepping in, criticising a reactive approach that responded only to crises instead of preventing them. She had personally visited PACOFS to investigate, but had found that officials were too afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs. She expressed frustration that the Committee was acting as if everything was fine when, in reality, it was not.

Mr G Kgabo (ANC) expressed dissatisfaction with the report, stating that it did not provide enough detail to allow the Committee to assess if good governance was in place. He asserted that governance issues required a clear reflection on internal controls, particularly financial management. He noted that according to the Auditor-General’s (AG's) report, most of the Department’s entities were in a poor state. He questioned if the Department’s failure to provide the necessary information was deliberate, and warned that if this was the case, the Committee would take action.

He pointed out that despite the Department’s repeated engagements with the Committee, there seemed to be little effort to resolve ongoing issues. He argued that the report failed to give a proper overview of the state of the entities, and suggested that the Department could not effectively oversee and monitor them when it was struggling with its own core responsibilities.

Mr Kgabo criticised the prolonged use of acting officials, particularly the Acting Director-General, who had held the position for over a year. He questioned why the position had not been permanently filled and why many Deputy Directors-General (DDGs) were also acting. He asked the Minister and Deputy Minister to clarify the policy on acting appointments and explain the reasoning behind frequent reshuffling. He warned that this affected the Department’s ability to fulfil its responsibilities, particularly in ensuring that entities complied with the law.

He also raised concerns about the Department’s approach to advertising job vacancies. He expected the Minister to address public concerns about the way recruitment adverts were structured. He asked whether the Department’s approach was in line with legislation, particularly given claims that it was biased towards minority groups in the country. He insisted that legal frameworks, not political preferences, should guide recruitment processes.

He then turned to the CCIFSA progress report, stating that it provided no real information. He questioned the Department’s reference to "terms of reference," arguing that an investigation was only meaningful if it focused on the right issues. He likened the situation to crying at the wrong funeral, suggesting that the Department might be addressing problems in the wrong way.

Moving on to the National Arts Council (NAC), Mr Kgabo said it would be difficult to thoroughly assess all 28 entities at once. He proposed a more structured approach for future evaluations.

He then raised specific concerns based on the AG’s report, highlighting that 20 to 25 entities were slow in implementing measures to prevent irregular expenditure. He also noted widespread non-compliance with policies, laws, and supply chain management (SCM) regulations. Using the NAC and Robben Island as examples, he asked the Department what steps it had taken to address these governance failures.

He also sought clarification from the AG on their findings. He wanted to confirm if entities were being allocated funds but spending them without following their approved annual performance plans. He asked the AG to explain exactly what was meant by a "lack of management in reviewing adherence to treasury regulations." He emphasised that the Department needed to provide clear answers on how it planned to address these issues.

The Chairperson clarified that the Director-General position had been vacant for more than three years, not just one year.

Mr L Jacobs (DA) focused on concerns about public entities, particularly Freedom Park. He recalled that when Freedom Park had presented its budget to the Committee in late November or December of the previous year, he had been shocked by its financial structure. The entity had spent 26 times more on staff salaries than it had earned from goods and services. He pointed out that Freedom Park had generated only R2.7 million from rentals and ticket sales, yet had spent R60 million on staff salaries. He questioned if entities existed merely to pay the salaries of board and council members, or if they were making a real difference to the lives of South Africans.

He also highlighted that Freedom Park had claimed to have spent R16 million on strategic programmes, but had failed to explain the outcomes of these initiatives. He stressed the importance of assessing the role and effectiveness of public entities, questioning if a process of rationalising entities was underway. He asked if the Department was evaluating which entities were fulfilling their mandates and which ones existed only to pay salaries. He warned against maintaining entities that merely drained public funds, and insisted on a more streamlined approach that ensured entities served a meaningful purpose.

Mr Jacobs asked a direct question about the investigation into CCIFSA, wanting to know the exact amount it would cost taxpayers.

Mr B Luthuli (IFP) expressed concern about the Department’s impact on rural areas. He recalled that over the past five years, the Committee had sought to improve conditions for rural communities, yet he had not seen any meaningful changes. He questioned if the Department had anything to report on this issue, as he had not observed any progress.

Mr E Mthethwa (EFF) expressed frustration with the report, arguing that it was not a proper report but merely a list of entities. He criticised the vague statement that there were "no significant matters," questioning if this assessment was based on the Department’s opinion or the Committee’s. He emphasised that such wording made it difficult for Members to evaluate the situation properly.

He raised concerns about the process of appointing new councils, stating that there should be a system in place to alert the Department when a board's term was nearing its end. He observed that last-minute appointments had become a recurring issue, leading to rushed decisions and challenges with handovers and investigations. He also pointed out that unresolved issues related to many CEOs remained outstanding, yet no feedback had been provided on progress.

On CCIFSA, he recalled that he had alerted the SIU about issues in 2019, and had written to the Public Protector in 2022. The Public Protector had confirmed an investigation into CCIFSA, yet in 2025, the matter was still unresolved, with discussions about appointing yet another investigator. He supported Mr Kgabo’s concerns about the terms of reference for the investigation, warning that the Department might be repeating an investigation that had already been conducted. He suspected that the Department was deliberately delaying the investigation, rather than finalising it.

He specifically questioned how the Department intended to investigate the R12 million payment CCIFSA had given to Zanele Mbokazi for organising the USIBA Awards without an open procurement process. He said that a Committee Member had revealed that the money had been transferred out of the Department’s account the day after it was received. Since Mbokazi had since passed away, he asked who would now be held accountable for those funds. He also raised concerns that an official within the Department might have been receiving kickbacks from CCIFSA, given the lack of transparency around its financial reports.

Mr Mthethwa said that when the Committee visited Mpumalanga, there were no financial reports available from the CCIFSA. However, reports from 2016 suddenly surfaced, despite the fact that there had been no annual general meetings (AGMs) at which those reports could have been adopted. He accused the CCIFSA of appointing a friend at the last minute to endorse financial reports that had not been properly reviewed. He challenged the Department to explain where they had obtained the auditing letters, as no audits had been conducted between 2016 and 2020. He said that the only known auditor had been appointed in 2020, raising doubts about the credibility of previous financial statements.

He also pointed out the contradiction in the Department’s stance on CCIFSA. At one point, the Department distanced itself from CCIFSA, stating that it could not investigate it, and the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) also said it lacked jurisdiction. However, the Department was now claiming that the SIU would be conducting an investigation. He questioned why the Department had taken responsibility for running CCIFSA’s AGM in Mpumalanga when it had previously insisted that the CCIFSA was not its entity.

He sought clarity on the ownership of DownTown Music Hub, a Johannesburg recording studio, stating that although it was not included in the report, the Department had purchased it. He found it inconsistent that the Department had shown significant interest in other federations, but had not pursued any charges against CCIFSA, despite numerous allegations and formal complaints. He concluded by reiterating that the document presented was not a real report, but merely a list of entities, offering little meaningful information.

Mr G Kobane (MK) expressed frustration over the overwhelming number of investigations and cases that government officials had to deal with. He remarked that he had once aspired to be a minister, but no longer wished to, as ministers were expected to act as investigators, police officers, and problem-solvers instead of focusing on service delivery. He argued that the sheer volume of cases in South Africa made it impossible to resolve everything, and spending too much time on problems only hindered progress while people continued to suffer. He warned that if the Minister focused solely on problems, he would leave office without achieving anything meaningful.

He pointed out that corruption-related investigations consumed large sums of money, citing an example where R243 million had been allocated to a project that was still incomplete. He questioned how much was being spent on the CCIFSA investigation, estimating that additional millions would be lost in the process. He doubted whether cases handled by the SIU resulted in meaningful convictions, and urged for a different approach to addressing corruption while ensuring service delivery continued.

Drawing from his 14 years of experience as a local councillor, he claimed that corruption was deeply embedded in the system. He said that ward councillors were constantly exposed to corruption, making it easy to recognise it without needing to read reports. He argued that corruption could not be eradicated unless the entire system was changed. He said that the ongoing fights over corruption only caused further divisions, and questioned why the discussion was only among black leaders while white individuals were absent from these conversations. He suggested that a new system was needed to protect public structures and promote social cohesion.

Reflecting on his time with the CCIFSA, he acknowledged that many respected figures, including Yvonne Chaka Chaka and other members of the interim committee, had been part of the organisation. He insisted that the issues surrounding the CCIFSA did not arise on their own, but were linked to broader challenges in structuring the organisation to serve different creative sectors in South Africa. He admitted that mistakes had been made in how things were handled.

He argued that too much attention was placed on problems rather than solutions, resulting in wasted time. He warned that if this continued, the Minister would be perceived as ineffective. He concluded by stating that corruption had become a constant topic of discussion, overshadowing the real purpose of governance, which was service delivery.

Adv S Salie (Al Jama-ah) expressed deep disappointment with the report presented, stating that it lacked crucial information and left many questions unanswered. She was frustrated by the limited details of civil cases despite forensic investigations often involving civil matters. She was particularly concerned about the cases against Swimming South Africa, which were well-documented in the public sphere but appeared to be inadequately monitored. She questioned if the DSAC had a proper monitoring and evaluation team tracking these matters, and wanted clarification on how data on these cases was collected and submitted.

She also raised concerns about the absence of information on pending cases involving the South African Football Association (SAFA) and the South African Rugby Union (SARU), despite criminal cases against both organisations being publicly known. She questioned why no details had been provided on these matters. On Motorsport South Africa, she noted that a case report referred to unnamed individuals, and argued that their identities should be clearly stated. She asked if the Department had received invoices for legal costs related to Motorsport South Africa, and asked for the total amount spent by the Department on legal matters over the past decade. She pointed out discrepancies between the cases presented to the Portfolio Committee and those listed on Motorsport South Africa’s website, which indicated a far greater number of cases before the courts. She urged the Department to review the website and verify the actual number of cases over the past ten years.

Turning to Boxing South Africa, she reminded the Minister that he had agreed on 27 August to initiate an investigation and provide a report within 21 days. However, six months had passed, and no report had been submitted. Although the board had since been dissolved and replaced, she insisted that the investigation had been the Minister’s responsibility, and demanded an update on its status. She also asked what new deadlines had been set to ensure the investigation was concluded.

She expressed concern over several entities that had failed to provide information about their cases, despite the existence of legal matters against them. She highlighted Netball South Africa as an example, questioning why no response had been received and what measures would be taken against entities that did not comply with reporting requirements.

On infrastructure challenges, she acknowledged the Minister’s statement that municipalities were partly responsible. However, she argued that corruption was not limited to municipalities but extended from the highest levels of government downwards. She believed that various entities had been unlawfully securing funds meant for public projects, and expressed serious concerns about the lack of accountability and transparency. She criticised the government for failing to take action against these entities, particularly given the excessive amounts of money spent on court cases. She insisted it was shocking how much money had been lost due to corruption and mismanagement, and called for immediate efforts to recover these funds.

Ms E Nkosi (ANC) began by expressing appreciation for the Minister and Deputy Minister's commitment to rebuilding infrastructure. She acknowledged their efforts and welcomed their dedication to improving the sector.

She then addressed concerns about the criminal cases mentioned in the presentation. She commented that the Committee had only received a list of cases, without enough details to understand what was happening. This lack of clarity was a serious concern. She agreed with her colleagues that more information was needed to determine if progress was being made in addressing these cases.

On governance and vacancies, she asked about the number of vacant executive positions in DSAC entities. She also wanted to understand the reasons behind the forensic investigation into the CCIFSA. She questioned what had triggered the investigation, what its scope was, and what outcomes were expected. She expressed doubt about if any meaningful progress was being made, aligning herself with other Members who felt that the presentation had not provided convincing evidence of tangible action.

She raised concerns about cases involving the CEOs of DSAC entities such as Freedom Park, Robben Island Museum, and the National Library of South Africa. She pointed out that there was evidence of cases against these executives, yet the Committee had not been informed of their outcomes. She stressed the importance of having clarity on these issues.

On policy and strategic alignment, she asked how DSAC entities aligned themselves with national policies and strategic objectives. She also inquired about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the arts and culture sector, particularly on income loss and the transition to digital platforms.

Regarding funding allocation, she asked how DSAC entities received funding and if there were disparities or inefficiencies in the distribution of resources. She wanted to understand if all entities were being fairly supported.

She then made several recommendations. She suggested that the Department establish clear financial assistance programmes for entities facing operational challenges to ensure their continued functioning. She also emphasised the need for efficient recruitment processes to fill executive vacancies as quickly as possible. She strongly opposed the continued use of acting appointments, describing it as an unacceptable practice. She urged the Department to put an end to this issue and ensure that leadership positions were filled permanently.

Ms N Bilankulu (ANC) began by expressing her appreciation for the Minister’s statement about the start of accountability, but emphasised that he needed to follow through with action. While a lot had been said in the ADG’s presentation, it did not align with the report that had been received. She also said that the ADG had indicated the report was sent three weeks ago, but since other issues needed to be included, an annexure should have been provided to help clarify what had been communicated. She felt that not everything in the presentation had been captured correctly.

She then raised questions on governance and vacancies, asking how vacancies were impacting the operations of the entities and what steps were being taken to fill these positions. She emphasised that it was not enough to just receive answers, and action needed to be taken. She pointed out that the issue of vacancies had been ongoing for a long time and needed to be addressed.

On the forensic investigation into the CCIFSA, Ms Bilankulu asked how the findings would affect SIFSA’s operations and future outcomes. She acknowledged the financial challenges mentioned, and sought to understand the causes behind these issues and how they were being addressed. She asked how these financial challenges were affecting the entities' ability to fulfil their mandates and what solutions were being proposed to resolve them.

She also questioned how ongoing investigations were impacting the involved entities and what measures were being taken to prevent similar issues in the future. On policy and strategic alignment, she asked what role the CCIFSA played in promoting the cultural and creative industries and how effective it had been. She also asked if there were plans to strengthen or realign CCIFSA’s position in the sector.

She inquired about the support measures implemented to mitigate COVID-19's impact. On funding and resource allocations, she asked about the role of external grants and funding in supporting these entities and if there were plans to increase or diversify funding sources for the sector.

Finally, she made two recommendations. The first was to ensure that investigations into allegations were conducted transparently, and that the findings were acted upon to maintain public trust. The second recommendation was to develop strategies to enhance diversity and representation within councils or boards, reflecting the broader South African society.

The Chairperson expressed concern about the numerous cases and investigations being launched with little or no consequences. He highlighted the ongoing crisis at the NFVF, which the Department had not addressed, and referred to the leadership instability at the entity which had started in 2023. The former CEO had resigned in March 2023 after working there since 2019. In April 2023, the Council appointed Ms Thobela Mayinje, the Head of Human Resources, as Acting CFO. However, she had been placed on administrative leave in July 2024 due to multiple allegations. As a result, the NFVF Council was dissolved in July 2024, as per the Cultural Laws Amendment Act. Since then, officials from the Department have been leading the entity. Ms Mandisa Tshikwatamba, Deputy Director-General of Corporate Services, has been seconded, and currently, Mr Lebogang Mogoera, the Chief Director of Infrastructure from the Department, is acting as the CEO.

The CEO position had been advertised twice, first in August 2024 and then in September. The Minister had invited public nominations for the Council, which were also re-advertised in October 2024. Interviews for the Council members took place at the end of October, though the process had faced criticism from various stakeholders. On 11 November, the Minister announced the new Council members who would serve from November 2024 to 2027. Despite all these efforts, the CEO vacancy remained unresolved until January, when the position was re-advertised. In February 2025, Ms Abigail Thulare, the CEO of the Robben Island Museum (RIM), had been redeployed to NFVF as the acting CEO.

The Chairperson emphasised that despite the ongoing issues, the Department had not commented on this crisis. The Committee had received numerous calls on the matter, but no updates had been provided in the meeting.

DSAC's response

 Minister McKenzie addressed Ms Mmoletsane’s concerns, particularly on the Acting DG position. He said the position had been vacant for three years, but steps had been taken to fill it since his appointment. The post had been advertised, and a panel had been established to oversee the shortlisting process. The same applied to the Deputy Director-General (DDG) post. He dismissed claims that all positions in the Department were in an acting capacity, clarifying that only two were vacant. He also emphasised that the shortlisting process had been delayed due to the ANC’s National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting in the Free State, but efforts were being made to finalise it on 24 March. He assured Members that the Acting DG, Dr Khumalo, had never sought to keep the position permanently, and had been reluctant to take on the role from the beginning.

Referring to PACOFS, the Minister acknowledged that there were problems within the Department’s entities, particularly its oldest institutions. The approach he and the Deputy Minister had taken was to ensure that boards and councils were properly constituted, as these bodies held fiduciary responsibilities. He said 19 boards had already been formed, with the mandate to investigate and address wrongdoing. He noted that corruption within the Department was sometimes so blatant that he could see it even without being an investigator. However, he explained that legal constraints prevented him from directly intervening in cases where funds had been misused.

On officials failing in their responsibilities, the Minister said that Treasury allocated funds to provinces for specific purposes, such as infrastructure development, but in some cases, the money was not used as intended. He criticised officials who failed to report or prevent the mismanagement of funds, stating that the law made it clear they should not comply with illegal instructions. He gave an example, saying that if he asked an official to transfer money unlawfully and they complied, they would be held accountable. He said that the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and the Hawks were responsible for addressing these issues. To mitigate such problems, he had instructed the CFO to request Treasury’s permission to withhold funds from entities that failed to use them correctly. The CFO had confirmed that there was a legal provision for this, and the Department was now moving forward with the plan to review grants allocated to various municipalities and other recipients.

The Minister addressed Mr Kgabo’s concerns about acting positions, dismissing claims that the Department had many vacant posts as mere social media gossip. He insisted that most positions had already been filled, while a few remained unoccupied because the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) had not yet approved their filling. He explained that the Department had to request permission from the DPSA before filling certain posts, and sometimes these requests were denied, which was beyond his control.

He then responded to the controversy surrounding a recent job advertisement, which specified that only coloured and Indian males could apply. He pointed out that similar adverts in the past had been issued for black males without causing any public outcry. He expressed frustration that when such adverts were aimed at minority groups, they suddenly became controversial. To support his argument, he provided statistics on the Department’s racial demographics, noting that the majority of employees were African, while coloured, Indian, and white employees made up a much smaller percentage.

He said that his political career had been built on addressing the exclusion of minority groups, and that he could not ignore this issue now that he was a minister. He emphasised that his stance was not about race but about ensuring fairness. If the situation had been reversed and there had been only four black males in the Department, he would have raised the alarm in the same way. He argued that addressing the imbalance required making difficult decisions, even if they were unpopular.

He also said that his commitment to fairness was not limited to coloured and Indian people. He recalled that he had previously fought for white people to be included in the PanSALB Board, and had opposed the lack of diversity in his own party’s deployment processes. When he had noticed only coloured people being deployed as parliamentarians, he insisted on changes and successfully had some appointments withdrawn. He reiterated that his actions were not motivated by race, but by a desire to do what was right.

Before he could move on, Ms Bilankulu interrupted to ask for the number of female employees in the Department, suggesting that having this information would provide a clearer picture of the overall employment demographics.

Minister McKenzie assured the Committee that he had detailed employment statistics, including a breakdown of different racial and gender groups, which he would provide to the Chairperson.

On the CCIFSA investigation, he admitted that he did not know how much would be spent on it, and believed that the SIU and the Hawks were better equipped to determine such matters. He acknowledged concerns about whether councils were serving their purpose, and said that although some had failed due to poor leadership, others were performing well and showing progress. He believed the original intention behind creating these councils had been good, and while some had failed, others were proving their worth.

He strongly criticised the CCIFSA, calling it a centre of corruption. He revealed that the organisation received funding every year but never properly accounted for it. He suspected that the CCIFSA had enjoyed political protection, which had allowed it to operate without oversight, and suggested that officials had been pressured to ignore the organisation’s financial irregularities. He was eager to see the findings of the investigation, as he believed many people would be implicated. He recalled how CCIFSA members had approached him at a boxing event, seeking a settlement to stop the investigation, but he had refused and insisted that the process must continue. He argued that they had no reason to fear an investigation if they had done nothing wrong.

He stated that he had no knowledge of R12 million being paid to Zanele Mbokazi. He only knew she had been involved with the Crown Gospel Awards, which had received less than R2 million from the Department. He promised to look into the R12 million claim.

He then spoke about financial mismanagement within the Department, describing how he had introduced a new system to review all payments. He had been shocked to discover that some officials had authorised payments worth millions without knowing what they were for. The Department was still in the process of reviewing these expenditures, and he was determined to put an end to wasteful spending.

Turning to the Sarah Baartman project, he expressed deep frustration with the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure. He had made more than 14 requests to resolve the matter, and had even suggested that his Department take over the project, but his efforts had been ignored. He felt powerless, as legislation prevented him from intervening directly. His only remaining option was to escalate the issue to the President, which he was considering. He agreed with the concerns raised, and acknowledged that corruption had played a role in delaying the project.

On the topic of legacy, he assured the Committee that he would leave behind a meaningful impact. He refused to let past wrongdoing prevent him from achieving his goals, and was confident that before any Cabinet reshuffle, he would be able to point to significant accomplishments. He shared a light-hearted moment about receiving a call from the President, who mentioned an upcoming reshuffle. For a brief moment, he thought he was about to be removed, but the President clarified that the reshuffle involved other ministers. He jokingly encouraged the President to proceed with those changes, relieved he still had time to implement his plans.

Minister McKenzie addressed several issues raised by Adv Salie. He acknowledged the complaints about Swimming South Africa, and confirmed that his Department had also received them. He said that R18 million had been allocated by the Lottery for the Franschhoek swimming pool and sports field, but he was not satisfied with the answers provided by Swimming SA. He personally visited the site with them to inspect the progress and later contacted the Lottery for clarity. The Lottery indicated that they were still verifying if the R18 million had been used properly before deciding to release another R18 million. His Department had also raised governance concerns with Swimming SA, particularly on changes to their constitution. He criticised their performance, stating that they had failed to produce an Olympic medallist in 30 years. A follow-up meeting was scheduled to address these matters further.

He clarified that there was no case against SAFA itself, but rather against some of its leaders. He acknowledged the risks involved in interfering with FIFA-related matters, as FIFA’s rules prohibited government intervention in federations. He was cautious not to take any action that could lead to South Africa’s expulsion from FIFA. However, he had taken action when he learned that players, including women footballers, had not been paid in December. He had also been informed that another country was interested in hiring Hugo Broos due to his delayed salary payments. To address this, his Department had advanced R5 million to SAFA to ensure that salaries were paid. Another R5 million that was originally due in April would not be given, as the previous amount had been an advance. The SAFA board was now responsible for deciding how to handle the matter.

On SARU, Minister McKenzie said he was aware only of an internal investigation initiated by the organisation’s CEO into a company. He did not have further details.

He also addressed Motorsport South Africa, criticising its board for lacking diversity. He described it as "Snow White," and stressed that it was not good for social cohesion. When he called them to present a plan for transformation, they had produced an impressive proposal, but he noted that it did not reflect in actual practice. He had been invited to attend a major race to observe the situation firsthand.

Regarding Boxing South Africa, he confirmed that he had initially committed to addressing certain issues but later delegated the responsibility to the new board. He expressed deep concern about the dire state of boxing in the country, revealing shocking details about the treatment of boxers. He explained that when a boxer won a match and received a championship belt on live television, the belt was taken away as soon as the broadcast ended because there were not enough belts. Some referees wore torn shirts, as the organisation had failed to provide them with proper uniforms. Others had to fix their shirts themselves. Boxers were paid R1 000 per round, meaning they received nothing if they were knocked out in the first round. Some had not been paid at all.

To address these problems, the Department had ordered new belts for past winners, which would be officially handed over at an event on 30 March in Gauteng. They had also purchased 300 new shirts and trousers for referees. He promised to publicly expose promoters who exploited boxers by paying them unreasonably low amounts.

He said the recovery of misused funds fell outside his jurisdiction, and was a matter for the SIU and the Hawks. However, he regularly monitored reports on how much money was recovered through the sale of assets acquired with illicit funds.

Minister McKenzie then spoke about the CCIFSA, acknowledging that it had been problematic for a long time. He highlighted that despite years of investigations, CCIFSA had continued receiving funding. However, under his leadership, this was no longer the case. For the first time, CCIFSA had not received any money while it was still under investigation. He made it clear that from his perspective, CCIFSA no longer existed, and his Department was now working on establishing new sector representatives.

He commended the Department for the support it had provided to artists during the COVID-19 period, despite ongoing investigations into the management of those funds. He also assured the Committee that full transparency would be ensured going forward.

Addressing concerns about the NFVF, he admitted that the organisation had been in a poor state. However, he argued that it was now on the right track, with a new board in place. He explained that as soon as the board was appointed, it had taken immediate steps to rectify issues, including ensuring that interview processes followed proper legal procedures. Just the previous week, they conducted interviews for a new CFO in compliance with the law.

He then spoke about complaints regarding board member appointments, pointing out that some people who criticised the process on social media were not being entirely truthful. He revealed that independent producers who had publicly complained about fairness had later sent him letters asking him to appoint specific individuals to the board. He had refused, stating that such actions amounted to corruption. Similarly, individuals who had raised concerns about boxing governance had also attempted to influence appointments by submitting names for selection. He made it clear that this was unacceptable, and that such practices would no longer be tolerated.

He acknowledged that the Department was large, and that both he and the Deputy Minister had not yet managed to oversee everything. However, they were making progress, and he appreciated the role of the Committee in holding them accountable. He said that the Committee’s efforts sometimes reduced the need for them to conduct separate oversight visits, as its Members had already assessed certain matters.

The Chairperson pointed out that one question remained unanswered, and asked the Minister a direct question about why no case had been opened on the situation in Sarah Baartman. He acknowledged that the Minister was new in his role, but emphasised that he was now responsible for addressing past issues. He also said that if the Minister did not have an answer, he could pass the question to the Director-General.

Minister McKenzie responded by stating that he would answer directly, and shared his personal opinion on the matter. He said that one of the challenges in governance was that it was difficult for a party to investigate itself. Wrongdoers often acted in the name of their political parties, but their actions did not necessarily reflect the party itself. He believed that this applied to all political parties, including the PA, ANC, DA, and EFF.

He said that the Government of National Unity (GNU) had created a system where there was no longer a single dominant party, which made it harder to cover up wrongdoing. He argued that in the past, political considerations influenced decisions on whether to investigate and prosecute individuals, as parties feared how such actions would affect their reputations. However, the GNU had brought more scrutiny, making it more difficult to hide corruption and misconduct.

He gave an example of how political dynamics influenced accountability. He said that if members of his party had been in the Committee, they might not have questioned him as rigorously as others did. He commented that people often acted as if they were completely objective, but in reality, party loyalty influenced their behaviour. He admitted that when he faced tough questioning, it was because there were no members of his party protecting him, which he saw as a positive aspect of the GNU.

He concluded by saying that this new political environment exposed issues that had previously been concealed. He suggested that the lack of action in the Sarah Baartman case was an example of how political factors had previously prevented certain matters from being addressed. However, he expressed hope that the increased oversight within the GNU would lead to greater accountability.

The Chairperson pointed out that a question had not yet been answered, and asked who owned DownTown Music Hub.

Dr Khumalo responded that the building where DownTown Music Hub was located had been acquired in 2010 during Minister Pallo Jordan’s tenure. The acquisition had been based on the recognition that the building was an asset that could be used. She had personally visited the studio and had seen a significant amount of recording equipment there. She clarified that the building was listed as an asset in the National Arts Council's asset register, but it had originally been acquired by the Department of Arts and Culture in 2010. She also said that Mr Mthethwa had submitted a question about the matter on 7 March, and the Department was in the process of providing a detailed response. They had received the question the previous Friday, and were working on addressing it.

Further discussion

Ms Mmolotsane raised concerns about a forensic report that was reportedly on the Minister's desk, reminding him that some Deputy Directors-General (DDGs) in the Department had been suspended. When she had previously asked Dr Khumalo about the report, she had been told to direct her question to the Minister. She asked for clarity on the matter.

She also raised the point on acting positions within the Department, listing several officials who had held temporary roles, including Mr Lebogang Mogoera, who had been the acting CEO of the NFVF, and was now acting in human resources. She questioned if this was making him redundant. She highlighted other individuals, such as Mr Ivan Langeveld and Dr Khumalo, who were also in acting positions, and asked when these positions would be permanently filled.

She criticised a job advertisement that stated preference would be given to Indians, whites, and coloureds. She argued that this instruction was illegal and inconsistent with the Employment Equity Act and asked how this preference aligned with the requirements of fair and justifiable affirmative action measures under Section 15 of the Act.

Mr Kgabo said that South Africa was a democratic country with laws and processes that had to be followed. He asked for clarification from the Minister on what the Employment Equity Act said about such instructions. He also asked if the Department had its own employment equity plan, and what its targets were on equity. He questioned where the Minister’s instruction fitted within the legislative framework for appointments and staff movements. He suggested that if the Minister was unable to respond immediately, another session should be arranged. He also cautioned the Minister against assuming that Members were attacking him when they raised issues, stating that they had prepared for the meeting and that their concerns about acting positions reflected the reality of the situation.

Mr Jacobs raised a separate issue regarding the Havana International Book Fair in Cuba. He asked for the criteria used to select the attendees, as some authors had criticised the selections. He requested details on the names of those who were sent, their backgrounds, and their relevance to the field of authorship.

The Chairperson then made a ruling, stating that the meeting should stick to the agenda, but left it to the Minister’s discretion whether he wanted to respond to the questions raised.

Minister McKenzie responded to Ms Mmolotsane and Mr Kgabo’s concerns about the Employment Equity Act and the job advertisement. He agreed with Mr Kgabo that the matter required further discussion, and committed to returning at a later date to address it in detail. He said that his actions had been in line with the law and that the advert aligned with the requirements of the Employment Equity Act. He clarified that he had not written the advert himself, but had seen it on the Department’s social media page and fully agreed with it. He suggested that a follow-up meeting should be arranged to properly discuss the matter, where both parties could refer directly to the law instead of engaging in back-and-forth arguments.

In response to Mr Jacobs’ question about the Havana International Book Fair, the Minister explained that he had wanted to break the pattern of sending the same individuals on overseas trips. He had instructed his staff to select people who had published books and had not been frequent travellers with the Department. This was the main criterion for selecting attendees for the book fair.

The Chairperson asked the DG about the NFVF, and why the CEO, who was under investigation, had been moved to the Robben Island Museum.

Dr Khumalo explained that the CEO had been appointed to the Robben Island Museum, and that the board had taken action based on allegations brought forward. After discussions between the board, the Minister, and the CEO, it was agreed that she should be moved from her position at the museum to allow the investigation to proceed without interference. The board would continue its inquiry and depending on the outcome, the CEO could either be charged or cleared of any wrongdoing.

The Chairperson invited the SIU and the AG's office to raise any urgent issues where the Committee could assist in fulfilling its oversight role.

Dr Khumalo said specific questions still needed responses, even though the Minister had already addressed several points. She acknowledged Mr Kgabo’s concerns about the AG’s details and suggested that the Department's interpretation of the Portfolio Committee's Secretariat request might have been incorrect. The request specifically highlighted aspects such as board appointments and governance, which had shaped the Department’s presentation. However, she assured the Committee that they had compiled a full report on the AG’s findings from the 2023/24 audit for each entity. The Department also worked with the entities to develop audit action plans to address each of the issues raised in the AG’s report. A recent report had already been submitted to the Minister, detailing the turnaround strategies and responses to the audit findings.

On the CCIFSA, Dr Khumalo said that the Minister had commissioned an investigation covering the period from 2015 or 2016 to the present. The Department intended to share the terms of reference with the Members who had requested them.

Dr Khumalo also responded to other questions raised by Members. She noted that Adv Salie had raised concerns about motorsport, and while the Minister had touched on some aspects, the Department wanted to provide further details.

She requested an opportunity to submit a report on the impact of COVID-19 on the arts and culture sector. This report had been compiled as part of the Economic Recovery and Reconstruction Plan (ERRP), with support from the South African Cultural Observatory. The analysis in the report identified four key interventions to address the effects of the pandemic, and the Department wanted to share these findings in detail.

She also addressed Mr Luthuli’s question on programmes in rural areas. She said that providing a full response during the meeting would not do justice to the question, as it required an in-depth review of each intervention. Instead, she requested permission to submit a detailed report on the Department’s work in rural areas.

Ms Ramanand provided further details on the terms of reference for the CCIFSA investigation. The focus was on how the Federation had used its funding over the past decade across all nine provinces. The investigation aimed to assess if the financial statements had been audited annually, if they fairly represented the Federation’s financial position, and if its reporting complied with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). A forensic accounting review would be conducted to examine the financial management of short-term commitments. The investigation would also determine if any Department officials had been involved in the process, assess oversight mechanisms on funding allocations, and quantify any irregular expenditure in compliance with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).

Mr Tsanyane discussed the AG's findings, stating that 11 entities had received unqualified reports with findings, while six had received qualified reports. The Department had written to these entities through a Ministerial letter, requesting them to address the issues raised by the AG. The Department was in the process of consolidating the responses from the public entities, and planned to provide a full report to the Minister. The team responsible for oversight also engaged with the entities, including during site visits, to ensure the issues were being dealt with. He said many of the findings related to supply chain management issues, which were further complicated by a lack of capacity at the entity level. This was, in turn, linked to funding shortages in public entities. The Department was assisting these entities in addressing the findings and preventing them from recurring.

Mr Tsanyane also said that the Department had received complaints about some public entities, specifically PACOFS, as raised by Ms Mmolotsane. He confirmed that the complaints had been referred to the entity, and the newly appointed Council had been made aware of them. The board was looking into the matter, and would conduct an investigation. He also referred to issues at Freedom Park, particularly around vacancies at the executive level, which had been addressed in the presentation.

He explained that while the Department followed up on vacancies, it was not responsible for placing job advertisements within public entities. However, the Department worked with the councils to ensure they provided time frames for filling the positions. He said that some entities, like the NFVF and National Library of SA (NLSA), had to re-advertise positions due to a low number of applicants.

Mr Israel Mokgwamme, CFO, DSAC, responded to a question from Ms Nkosi about the impact of budget cuts. He said that the sector had lost approximately R1.2 billion over the past year and the current year, which had severely impacted their plans. The budget cuts amounted to R300 million in the previous financial year, R426 million in the current year, and R406 million in the upcoming financial year. This significant reduction had a direct effect on the Department’s operations. It had encouraged the 28 entities it oversees to seek ways to become self-sustainable and move away from relying solely on government funding. They had expressed their support for entities with plans to generate their own revenue. Mr Mokgwamme also explained that government funding for entities followed a baseline method, which was based on historical data, and noted that this approach was in line with Treasury regulations. He suggested that if the government could change its approach to budgeting, it might apply a zero-budgeting method, which focuses on the specific needs and goals of the Department. However, for now, the Department had to operate under the baseline budgeting system.

Dr Khumalo addressed the question about the rationalisation of entities, stating that the process had started but faced challenges. She said that once the Minister joined, there had been concerns about conducting thorough due diligence before amalgamating entities. Several clusters of entities had been identified for potential rationalisation, which would reduce the number of entities from about 28 to 11. However, it had been decided that more analysis and further due diligence were needed. As a result, the rationalisation process had been paused for further consideration, with the intention to proceed in the medium to long term when the dynamics were clearer.

Mr Mfundo Mncina, Director: Sport Support, DSAC, responded to questions about federations failing to submit their responses on time. He acknowledged that the Department often struggled with federations missing deadlines, and this caused delays. He said that the service level agreements with federations specified the need for timely responses, and failure to meet these deadlines could result in withheld funds. He observed that this issue affected athletes, who were the ones to suffer when funds were withheld. The Department was looking at ways to address this challenge and ensure federations complied more consistently, particularly when it came to submitting quarterly reports and other necessary documents.

Ms Mbali Tsotetsi, Deputy Business Executive, AGSA, responded to questions about non-compliance with legislation and spending. She confirmed that the lack of adequate reviews had been a key factor in non-compliance, particularly on entities with regular expenditure. However, she clarified that while there was irregular expenditure, the money was still used in line with the entities’ performance plans. There was no evidence to suggest the funds were misused.

Ms Tsotetsi also addressed a question on the CCIFSA, explaining that the AG audited various transfers and highlighted risks of the misuse of funds. While she could not confirm if the CCIFSA was included in their audit sample, she said the AG had enhanced its audit procedures over the years to ensure that funds were being used appropriately. She recommended that the Committee regularly request reports from the Department on how internal controls were being improved to prevent misuse of transfers.

Ms Thobeka Mazwi, Head of Investigations, SIU, addressed the question about investigations at the CCIFSA and said that the SIU is not currently investigating the organisation. However, she provided an update on other ongoing investigations. One was focused on the Gauteng Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, specifically looking into the appointment of service providers for the Heritage National Council event held in 2019 and the installation of CCTV cameras. This investigation was expected to be completed by December 2025. Another investigation was being conducted by the KZN office, which was nearing completion.

Ms Mazwi also emphasised that the SIU's work went beyond investigations. The organisation was also involved in proactive efforts to prevent corruption and promote a culture of integrity in state institutions. She encouraged state departments to reach out to the SIU for proactive prevention, awareness campaigns, and advisory support, all aimed at fostering transparency and accountability.

Ms Bilankulu raised concerns about the remuneration of Council or board members, asking how it was managed and if they were allowed to sit on multiple boards. She questioned what measures were taken if members served on more than one board.

Adv Salie expressed dissatisfaction with the responses given, and requested more detailed information, particularly about ongoing civil and criminal cases. She also pressed for a clear answer on the completion timeline for the investigation into Boxing South Africa, which had not been provided.

Mr Mthethwa questioned the effectiveness of the Department's monitoring and evaluation division, expressing frustration that the Department seemed unaware of key issues. He asked for access to the business plans that justified the CCIFSA receiving R5 million annually. He also highlighted concerns about the CCIFSA, noting that the President had failed to explain the organisation's members in 2019 and had misrepresented the structure of the organisation. He also raised doubts about the legitimacy of Athletics South Africa's CEO, questioning why the acting CEO was still in place despite an agreement with the SIU and accusations of financial misconduct. He offered evidence of the CEO's inappropriate actions, and sought clarification on why the individual was still in office.

Mr Mthethwa also expressed frustration with the SIU's handling of the CCIFSA matter, questioning who should be notified about potential corruption if the Department and the Public Protector were not willing to investigate. He pointed out the lack of accountability within federations and boards, drawing a comparison to how members of other boards, like South African Airways (SAA), could be declared delinquent, while those in federations were not held accountable for their actions. He emphasised the need for effective governance and the enforcement of laws to prevent corruption and mismanagement.

Mr Jacobs agreed with Mr Mthethwa's point, expressing frustration over the practice of reusing and recycling individuals involved in wrongdoing within various entities. He argued that instead of addressing the issue and reducing the number of people involved in misconduct, these individuals were moved to other entities and boards, continuing their improper behaviour. He believed this practice was a serious problem and should not be allowed to continue, highlighting the need for greater accountability and a more serious approach to the sector.

Mr Jacobs then asked a simple but pointed question directed at the SIU. He acknowledged that no investigation was currently taking place at the CCIFSA, but said that there would be an investigation in the future, with a service provider being appointed for it. His concern was the cost of this investigation to taxpayers. He welcomed and supported the investigation, but asked how much it would cost and what the expected outcome would be.

Mr Kgabo raised several concerns during the meeting. He questioned why a new investigation was being considered when there had already been previous recommendations on the same matter. He wanted clarity on the differences between the terms of reference in the new investigation and the previous one, as well as the financial implications of both. He expressed frustration with the Department’s leadership, particularly the political and administrative heads, who he felt did not understand their responsibilities. He criticised them for not implementing recommendations from the Portfolio Committee, and for making decisions based on personal feelings rather than proper governance.

He also raised concerns about the Department's inability to follow legislation, specifically with regard to the movement of officials between entities and the lack of precautionary suspensions for board members who acted against the law. He argued that the top management of the Department should be declared delinquent for not understanding their roles, which he believed had caused the Department to be in disarray.

He emphasised the need for the Minister and the DG to take the Portfolio Committee seriously and be held accountable. He was critical of their responses, which he saw as avoiding responsibility and undermining the Committee. He suggested that moving forward, the Committee should receive detailed reports on all the boards, and be given answers to the questions that the Minister and the DG had not addressed. He proposed that written questions be submitted to ensure that the Committee received the necessary information and that the Minister and DG should stop treating the Committee as if it were a secondary concern. He added that the DG and Minister should be considered constitutional delinquents due to their failure to fulfil their duties.

Ms Mmolotsane expressed frustration about the ongoing delay in receiving the forensic audit report, about which she had previously raised concerns. She emphasised the Committee's efforts to obtain the necessary information, and said that if they could not be given the report, there seemed to be little reason for them to continue with their work. She agreed with Mr Kgabo, stressing that the Minister, Deputy Minister, and officials from the DSAC should be accountable to the Portfolio Committee, not the other way around.

She then raised the point on the Sarah Baartman project, asking who the responsible official had been when the project began and why the problems had not been reported earlier, before the Committee had to conduct oversight. She asked what action was being taken against that official, expressing concern that the situation was being treated as normal when it clearly was not.

Ms Mmolotsane also questioned the Minister's mention of an investigation into the South African Rugby Union (SARU) and its equity deal, dismissing it as a waste of time. She expressed scepticism about obtaining meaningful answers from SARU, accusing it of being poorly managed. She criticised the Department's silence on many issues and its failure to prevent the misuse of taxpayers' money. She concluded by reiterating her demand for the forensic report, stressing that it was essential for the Portfolio Committee to receive it in order to continue their work seriously.

Mr Mokgwamme addressed concerns about the DSAC's funding practices, particularly when entities failed to comply with regulations. He clarified that the Department had stopped funding entities that were non-compliant, citing specific instances where irregular expenditure occurred, particularly in 2023/24. He noted improvements in audit outcomes, including a slight increase in clean audits and the progress of one entity from a disclaimer to a qualification. He emphasised that the Department follows the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and ensures oversight governance, with monthly and quarterly reports submitted by entities. He stressed that entities that did not comply would not receive funding.

On the Sarah Baartman project, he explained that irregular expenditure had occurred due to the involvement of the DPWI, which had handled the procurement processes for the project. Despite efforts from both the previous and current ministers to request the project from the DPWI, they were unable to gain control of it due to legal limitations. The Department was restricted by legislation from taking over the project, which had also exceeded its initial budget. He urged the Committee’s assistance in addressing the situation and pointed to a previous project where Public Works had agreed to hand over control, allowing the Department to complete it promptly.

Mr Mogoera further clarified that the Sarah Baartman project had been initiated by the DPWI, and that there had been a team of officials involved, including a designated project manager. However, he admitted that he could not provide the name of the official responsible, as he was not involved in the project when it began in 2014. He explained that the Department had engaged with Public Works about the delays, but the Committee’s focus had been mainly on the current status of the project. He recommended that the Committee review the audit report from the AG, which contained details about the project’s issues, including delays caused by administrative failures, such as the mishandling of contractor requests. He suggested that once the Committee reviewed the report, further engagement would help identify the root causes of the project’s problems.

Mr Mthethwa raised concerns about identifying the person responsible for the Sarah Baartman project from the DSAC. He believed that the DSAC, as the funding Department, should have had someone involved in the meetings alongside the DPWI, who acted as the implementing agent. He expressed frustration that the Department was not providing a clear answer about who from the DSAC was involved in the project.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Mthethwa, emphasising that the DSAC was the funding agent and should have had oversight over the project. He encouraged Mr Mogoera to clarify who from the DSAC was designated to participate in the relevant meetings, as there had been significant collaboration between the DSAC, Public Works, and other role players.

Deputy Minister Peace Mabe acknowledged that the Sarah Baartman project had become a contentious issue, and suggested that it was important for the Department to confront the challenges it presented. She said the current team had not been involved during the initial phases of the project, and proposed that they conduct an investigation and report back to the Committee with their findings.

The Chairperson welcomed this approach and asked if the responses to the questions could be provided in writing, to which Ms Mmolotsane agreed.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson addressed several key issues that had been raised during the meeting. He acknowledged the importance of the Committee’s work, and reiterated that the DSAC needed to be held accountable, particularly on funding for entities like the CCIFSA. He expressed frustration that the Department had not been complying with the necessary requirements and emphasised that if they did not meet the standards, they should not receive funding. A specific concern was the misuse of public funds and the need for stricter oversight.

A message had been shared about a project in the North West province, where the contractor had halted work due to unpaid bills, highlighting issues of mismanagement and the lack of transparency in funding. The Chairperson also agreed with Mr Mthethwa’s point about the need for better monitoring and evaluation of the Department’s projects, and suggested the Committee might invite the SIU to provide a clearer understanding of how they were working on these matters.

There had been a call for the Department to stop recycling officials in positions where there had been issues, suggesting that sending individuals on paid leave while investigations were ongoing sent the wrong message. The problem of temporary acting positions in the Department had also been raised, with a request for clarity on who was actually responsible for making decisions.

The Chairperson concluded by urging the Committee to request a list of entities whose funding had been stopped, so that athletes and the public could be informed about where the money had gone and how it was being utilised.

He took a moment to acknowledge the passing of renowned playwright Athol Fugard, and offered condolences on behalf of the Committee.

Ms Mmolotsane then brought up a concern about board members who were sitting on multiple boards -- often more than four -- which raised questions about their ability to do their jobs properly. She expressed doubt that these individuals could manage their responsibilities effectively, as it seemed they were more focused on collecting payments than fulfilling their roles.

The Chairperson agreed that it was important to investigate how the public funds were being spent, and said that while some board members might not be receiving stipends, there needed to be a more serious approach to their roles, ensuring they represented their entities properly.

Deputy Minister Mabe said she believed the meeting had been productive, but acknowledged that it had not been easy to address all the concerns raised. She agreed with Mr Kobane's suggestion to close the books and move on, though she felt it was not that simple. Based on her calculations, almost R4 million had been spent on the issue being discussed, and she felt that amount could have been used to make a meaningful difference, like building swimming pools in rural areas. She emphasised the importance of continuing the investigations, but noted the need to speed up the process and resolve the allegations dating back to 2002 so that they could move forward.

She also proposed that financial oversight be made a regular part of the Committee's agenda, perhaps once a quarter, to reflect on how money was spent and who had received it. She pointed out that Members wanted more detailed information, not just a list of entities, and suggested focusing on one or two entities at a time for in-depth engagement. She highlighted the priority of fighting corruption in the seventh Parliament, and promised that efforts would be made to ensure that funds were used appropriately, particularly for grassroots development in sports and the arts, rather than on investigations.

She reiterated a previous proposal that if board members or entities took each other to court, they should use their own money, not the Department’s finances. She warned that the Department's financial situation could be negatively impacted if they continued to face these issues, especially with an upcoming budget meeting. She feared that the media might portray the Department as wasteful, which could result in significant budget cuts. She lamented that discussing such sensitive matters so close to the budget meeting could harm their chances of securing more funding, making it likely that they would face the first round of cuts.

The Chairperson thanked the SIU, the AG, the Deputy Minister, the Minister, and the Members for their contributions to the meeting. He appreciated the input and echoed Mr Kgabo's sentiment that while the Committee Members could maintain friendly relations outside of the meetings, they would not hesitate to raise serious issues when it came to the community.

He mentioned a WhatsApp message he had received, asking about a stadium or tennis court project which Mr Mogoera had visited the week before. The message revealed that the contractor was owed over R5 million and was set to leave the site on Friday, leaving the project incomplete. The grant from the Department was insufficient to fund the final phase, and the municipality could not provide the extra funding. The Chairperson suspected that the budget for the project had been exhausted and forwarded the issue to the DG for further action.

The meeting was adjourned.