Half-truths, questionable claims and evasion as Minister Tolashe appears before parliamentary committee

Social Development Minister Sisisi Tolashe told Parliament’s portfolio committee on Wednesday that she had “no knowledge” of the fact that a household employee on her department’s payroll had been made to pay half her monthly salary to Tolashe’s daughter, Kanyisa.

This was in relation to the story broken by Daily Maverick exposing how a “food aide” employed through the Department of Social Development ended up working at Tolashe’s private residence in East London and was made to transfer R7,000 monthly to Kanyisa Tolashe’s account to help subsidise “household expenses”.

During an appearance at which she was backed to the hilt by ANC MPs, Tolashe grew emotional at one stage, saying: “My children, my family, are being haunted by journalists: English, Afrikaans … it’s becoming harassment.”

But while Tolashe has repeatedly denied misleading Parliament, what she told the committee on Wednesday was once again characterised by half-truths, unlikely claims, and in some cases inaccuracies.

Appointment of 22-year-old chief of staff

The Public Service Commission (PSC) chair, Somadoda Fikeni, was present at the meeting to report on the PSC’s “own-accord” investigation into Daily Maverick’s report that an unqualified 22-year-old, Lesedi Mabiletja, had been appointed as Tolashe’s chief of staff.

The PSC’s provisional report — which Fikeni told MPs was “effectively completed” — confirmed Daily Maverick’s reporting, finding that Mabiletja committed fraud by misrepresenting her work experience and qualifications on her CV.

It also advised disciplinary action against Tolashe’s special adviser, Ngwako Kgatla, Mabiletja’s uncle, who the investigation found was responsible for falsely adding on to Mabiletja’s CV that she had worked for years for the late Deputy Minister Hlengiwe Mkhize.

Daily Maverick has since reported that Kgatla appears to have committed the same fraud on his own CV, but this was not the subject of the PSC investigation.

Tolashe’s response: Tolashe told the committee that “disciplinary processes” would be finalised after the final submissions, due by 14 May, are made. “We will act where we have been advised to,” she said.

DM’s verdict: Remains to be seen. Tolashe has failed to pursue previous disciplinary charges against Kgatla, whom she brought with her from her previous department, and with whom she seems to either have, or have had, a special relationship.

The donation of Chinese SUVs

Daily Maverick has reported that Tolashe accepted donations of two luxury Chinese SUVs in late 2023, ostensibly intended for the ANC Women’s League, and did not disclose this to Parliament.

Tolashe’s response: “I made it very clear that the cars were meant for the ANC Women’s League and not me, and this is why I did not declare them,” Tolashe said on Wednesday. “I guess there is a perception that I misled Parliament. However, I want to restate that I did not mislead Parliament.”

Tolashe said that as the matter was now before Parliament’s ethics committee, “I will request that we leave it there” — despite the objections of MPs from the DA, ActionSA and MK.

DM’s verdict: The ANC Women’s League secretary-general and treasurer have said to 702 and Daily Maverick, respectively, that they had no knowledge of the cars until Daily Maverick’s reporting, and the fact remains that Tolashe registered the cars in her two children’s names. If the cars were donated to the ANC Women’s League, the Electoral Commission of SA has confirmed to Daily Maverick that this should have been disclosed in the ANC’s funding declaration for that period, but was not.

The nanny funded with public money

Daily Maverick reported that a woman, whom we named Thandi to protect her identity, had been employed by the Department of Social Development on the understanding that she would work as a “food aide” in Tolashe’s official residence in either Cape Town or Pretoria, but ended up working in Tolashe’s private residence in East London looking after Tolashe’s grandchildren while paying half her monthly salary to Tolashe’s daughter, Kanyisa, towards household expenses.

Tolashe’s response: Tolashe repeatedly gave the woman in question’s full name to Parliament on Wednesday. Tolashe claimed: “She was employed as a temporary food service aid under regulation 57.2 of the Public Service Amendment Regulations. I can categorically state that [Thandi] was employed by the department at the official residence in Cape Town.”

She claimed that Thandi was unable to stay in Cape Town because of her “state of health” — which she later said was due to Thandi pursuing her calling as a sangoma — and feeling “overwhelmed”.

As a result, said Tolashe, Thandi went to the Eastern Cape and “stayed with” Kanyisa.

“It was then between the two of them that they had their own arrangement, which I was not aware of. I am still not aware of. When I asked Kanyisa, my daughter, she had no knowledge of that, except for them having to stay together [and] share things between the two of them, which I have no knowledge of,” said Tolashe.

In the end, according to the minister, Thandi “requested nicely to be released, and she was released”.

When MPs asked why Thandi had been given an appointment letter on a Department of Social Development letterhead that formalised the fact that she would pay over half her salary as a “Minister’s House Allocation”, Tolashe responded: “I refute the authenticity of the contract”.

DM’s verdict: Regulation 57.2 of the Public Service Amendment Regulations, cited by Tolashe, indicates in its wording that this provision is designed to temporarily fulfil the operational requirements of a department, not the minister’s home.

Tolashe did not deny that Thandi had been appointed on the government payroll, despite refuting the authenticity of her appointment letter. She seemed to imply that Thandi had been transferred to her Eastern Cape personal residence out of goodwill, but such a transfer would seemingly not be permissible in terms of public service regulations or the Ministerial Handbook.

Tolashe said that Kanyisa “had no knowledge” of the financial arrangement, but bank statements show that she was receiving Thandi’s half-salary monthly.

In Tolashe’s telling, Kanyisa simultaneously had no knowledge of the arrangement, but also acknowledged herself and Thandi “having to stay together [and] share things”. There was no explanation as to why Kanyisa Tolashe and Thandi had to stay together.

If Thandi requested to be let go, why is she currently considering legal action to contest her dismissal and claim back pay, as lawyer Thembelani Mpakati told 702 on Tuesday?

One silver lining: Fikeni indicated at the meeting that the PSC was willing to investigate this matter.

The former DG’s contract term

On 16 September 2025, Daily Maverick exposed the fact that Social Development Director-General Peter Netshipale, who retired at the end of March, had been given a five-year contract despite the Cabinet only approving him for a one-year term. This issue subsequently became the subject of a forensic investigation.

Tolashe’s response: Tolashe claimed that an MP had asked the department “three times” what Netshipale’s contract term was, and “We responded to say the DG’s contract is one year.”

When the question came for a third time, she says she went to check the contract. The “biggest surprise” was that it turned out to be for five years, and the “biggest anomaly” was that it had her signature on it.

Then Tolashe blamed the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA).

“It’s the DPSA that has a responsibility to craft the contracts of DGs and load it into the system,” she said.

“I wrote formally to [DPSA] Minister [Mzamo] Buthelezi asking him about this. He said: ‘It’s an error.’ I then said, ‘Because it’s your error, take responsibility.’ Indeed, Minister Buthelezi took responsibility. He wrote a letter to ourselves; he also wrote to the ethics committee.”

DM’s verdict: Tolashe was asked twice, not three times, by DA MP Alexandra Abrahams what the DG’s contract term was. On both occasions, the response given to this parliamentary question was that the term was five years, in direct contradiction to Tolashe’s claim. This is easily verified through parliamentary records.

The idea that Buthelezi “took responsibility” is directly contradicted by the forensic report into the matter, seen by Daily Maverick.

That report, compiled by lawyers Mketu & Associates, states that Buthelezi denied signing Netshipale’s letter confirming a five-year term. The DPSA had not responded to Daily Maverick’s request for comment at the time of writing.

The forensic report concluded that the five-year term was likely the result of “collusion between unidentified persons at DPSA and DSD”.

The same report also notes Tolashe’s seeming refusal to cooperate with the investigation, and suggests that Tolashe herself may have been involved.

It terms it “highly unlikely that Minister Tolashe was unaware of the duration of Mr Netshipale’s employment contract”, and “highly unlikely that the minister’s signature stamp was used without her knowledge and approval”.

The forensic report concludes: “The letter from DPSA, which contained what the Minister characterised as ‘a clerical error’, created an opportunity for Mr Netshipale, and possibly Minister Tolashe, to intentionally perpetuate an irregularity in the appointment of Mr Netshipale.”

Tolashe’s action against Netshipale

Daily Maverick has reported on a letter sent to Tolashe on 12 March 2026 by President Cyril Ramaphosa in which he rebuked Tolashe for instituting disciplinary processes against Netshipale and advertising his position, without the necessary authority to do so from the President.

Tolashe’s version: Tolashe told Parliament that she did not, in fact, institute disciplinary proceedings against Netshipale.

“I don’t have powers to take DG for a disciplinary process. However, I had to write to the DG to ask why I shouldn’t take him into a disciplinary process,” Tolashe claimed.

“The unfortunate thing: The DG’s letter was leaked. His letter was leaked, and the impression that was created at the time was that I’m taking DG for a disciplinary process, which was not the case.”

Tolashe claimed that she then “went to consult with the President” and was “advised properly”.

She then “got to be informed by DPSA that we could proceed” with advertising Netshipale’s role in January 2026. Tolashe says this was a “misunderstanding”.

Shortly thereafter, “we got to be informed we needed a presidential minute [authority] so we stopped the process”.

DM’s verdict: Tolashe’s claim that she did not institute a disciplinary process against Netshipale rests on sheer semantics. In the letter she sent to Netshipale, seen by Daily Maverick, she lays out the charges against him and gives the option of “owning up or pleading guilty” as well as arguing his case.

A statement issued by the DSD itself on 14 October 2025 reads: “The Minister has taken a decision in the best interests of the department to institute formal processes” [against Netshipale].

President Ramaphosa clearly interpreted this as a disciplinary process, since his letter of 12 March read: “I have also noted that you have already sent disciplinary charges to the Director-General without delegation from me to initiate disciplinary steps against the Director-General”.

This also strongly suggests that Tolashe had not “consulted with the President” on the matter, as she claimed to Parliament.

Tolashe’s claim that she was given the go-ahead from the DPSA to proceed with advertising Netshipale’s post in January also appears to be bogus.

Daily Maverick has reported that the DPSA appears to have emailed Tolashe that she could not advertise the post, and in response, Tolashe doubled down in a letter to Buthelezi on 6 February, insisting that she did have the authority to advertise it.

Tolashe’s repeated attempts before Parliament on Wednesday to shift blame to the DPSA and Buthelezi are not being taken lightly, Daily Maverick understands, and may put the two ministers on a collision course. DM