Gayton McKenzie’s abuse of power is not an aberration, it is a pattern

Daily Maverick sent McKenzie's office questions based on the claims in this piece, his response is published at the end.

*******

It was not the first time that Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture Gayton McKenzie had abused his authority, acted irrationally and undermined basic principles of administrative justice.

What makes the most recent episode — his unilateral cancellation of Gabrielle Goliath’s 2026 Venice Biennale selection by an independent panel — particularly alarming is not merely the decision itself, but McKenzie’s reckless disregard for freedoms, law, expertise and due process.

His dissolution of the board of the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (Saids) in mid-2025 was a similar abuse of power, disregard for law, good governance and parliamentary oversight, which was sadly under-reported by the media.

On 2 September 2025, reporting to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee (PPC) on Sport, Arts and Recreation, I stated — in the minister’s presence — that his decision to dissolve the Saids board was irrational, unfair and unlawful.

That assessment was not rhetorical or defensive, but was grounded squarely in administrative law, specifically the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, which requires that public power be exercised lawfully, reasonably and procedurally fairly. McKenzie met none of those standards.

Saids is a statutory public entity constituted under the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport Act 14 of 1997. Although the minister has the authority to appoint the board, that authority must be exercised rationally, on sound grounds and through meaningful consultation with sporting stakeholders, with the board ultimately accountable to Parliament.

My association with Saids spans almost its entire 30-year existence: nearly two decades as a board member, 10 years as chair, and extensive service on doping tribunals and the appeals board.

A well-run institution

Over this period, Saids came to exemplify a well-run public institution: it achieved unqualified audits year after year, built strong and credible relationships with Parliament, the ministry, the Auditor-General and sporting federations, and secured international standing and respect that exceeded what South Africa’s size or resources might suggest.

Saids members serve or have served on many international committees and are regularly called upon to officiate at international events, including the Olympics and Paralympics.

Under ministers Steve Tshwete, Ngconde Balfour and Makhenkesi Stofile — all of whom were deeply committed to the integrity of sport, with Tshwete the founding minister, and the latter two active in the leadership structures of the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) — Saids emerged as a global leader. South Africa played a formative role in international anti-doping cooperation, including the establishment of the Association of National Anti-Doping Organisations, on whose executive I served.

That legacy of political heft has steadily been hollowed out, not through any institutional failure within Saids, but as a result of relentless ministerial churn, the steady decline in quality of ministers, the erosion of expertise and a Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC) that has repeatedly failed to meet its legislative obligations, reflecting sustained and systemic incompetence.

In 2022, Wada found that South Africa was one of only two signatories worldwide, alongside Bermuda, whose legislation did not comply with the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code.

All signatories are required to give effect to the code, which is updated every four years, into their domestic law. Although South Africa’s 1997 Act had been amended from time to time, the pace of change in anti-doping science, investigative methods, and enforcement had far outstripped a nearly 30-year-old legislation.

Put simply, the law had fallen behind the modern realities of anti-doping.

Unheeded warnings

For many years, Saids warned the DSAC, successive ministers, and the PPC that the legislation was lagging dangerously behind international standards. Those warnings went unheeded, and the outcome was entirely predictable.

When Wada audited South Africa, it issued a formal notice of non-compliance and set a deadline of 13 October 2023 for SA to fix the problem or face serious consequences, including suspension from hosting international events, exclusion from global competitions and the indignity of South African athletes being forced to compete without their flag or national anthem.

Facing imminent sanctions, Saids, chaired by respected retired Constitutional Court Justice Lex Mpati, took the only rational step.

After negotiations with Wada failed, and in consultation with the then minister, Zizi Kodwa, Saids turned to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland to seek a stay on Wada’s notice.

The goal was not necessarily to win the case against Wada, but to buy time for the department and Parliament to update the legislation and prevent a crisis for South African sport.

The strategy succeeded and sanctions were avoided, at a cost of approximately R1-million. This was negligible compared to the reputational, economic and sporting damage that would otherwise have ensued. The minister at the time, Zizi Kodwa, advised that the cost be borne by Saids and not the department.

Instead of acknowledging and commending this action, taken in consultation with the previous minister, McKenzie retrospectively framed the CAS litigation as wasteful and fruitless expenditure, even attempting initially to recover costs from board members personally.

Abuse of power

This is either wilful misrepresentation or profound ignorance of the stakes involved and the history of the matter, and a naked abuse of power.

Making matters worse, Saids was unaware that an investigation had been commissioned by Kodwa and conducted by a company unknown to the ministry, Ngidi Incorporated.

This report would become the pretext for McKenzie to dissolve the board. The process and report were deeply flawed: not a single board member, including Mpati, was interviewed.

Beyond procedural failings, the report itself, the parts which were available to the board, revealed a profound misunderstanding of the issues at hand and errors of fact.

Saids only learned of the report after McKenzie assumed office, and was denied access to the full document, receiving only a redacted executive summary along with a demand to justify why the board should not be dissolved.

It is obvious that an executive summary does not provide adequate detail, rationale, argument and bases for the conclusions of such a report. Furthermore, it does not provide details of where the failure lay.

Soon after taking office, McKenzie met with the Saids board at their offices in Cape Town. Two things stood out at that initial meeting. The first was his bizarre opening question: “Where are the white people on this board?”

He was assured that this was indeed a multiracial board, and the “white” members were either present online or provided apologies.

His second suggestion was to spend R200-million to build an anti-doping laboratory in South Africa, as the Free State University laboratory had been suspended by Wada for non-compliance. Aside from the fact that it made no financial sense to build a new laboratory at astronomical costs, anti-doping requires a separation of functions and independence of laboratories.

South Africa has an abundance of academic laboratories that could provide such services. But the minister was undeterred by caution from Saids, claiming he could raise money for this project. At this meeting, he made no mention of the Ngidi report.

McKenzie’s actions were procedurally unfair: Saids could not respond meaningfully to allegations without access to the underlying evidence and the full report. McKenzie’s invoking of the Protection of Personal Information Act to justify the secrecy was disingenuous, a point later acknowledged when Parliament forced the minister to release the report to the PPC — though still not to the affected board.

The minister’s allegations against the Saids board collapse under scrutiny. They revolve around three claims: that Saids failed to alert the department about legislative non-compliance; that it focused excessively on an alternative legislative model; and that the CAS litigation was wasteful. Each is demonstrably false.

While Saids is a creature of legislation, it has no independent authority to draft or pass legislation. That responsibility lies squarely with the department, ministry, Parliament and the Cabinet.

Saids fulfilled its expert advisory role repeatedly and documented its warnings to the department. Department officials attended international meetings where World Anti-Doping Code requirements were explicit. They attended the 2019 World Conference Against Doping in Poland and earlier Unesco’s Conference of Parties meetings, where these policies were discussed and adopted.

Underlying incompetence

As a demonstration of the underlying incompetence, even after the crisis and the Wada deadline, the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture produced a draft amendment that remained non-compliant — again without properly consulting Saids as the statutory expert body in its drafting.

Second, SAIDS did explore an integrated “ethics in sport” model, linking anti-doping with corruption, betting and governance, following examples from advanced countries such as Canada and Australia. But this ran in parallel with, not in place of, World Anti-Doping Code compliance. McKenzie’s claim that one replaced the other is plainly false.

The sophisticated networks trafficking prohibited substances in sport are integrated and involved in other illegal activities, thus requiring a broader scope of focus. This paradigm shift should be engaged with meaningfully and not seen as a distraction.

Third, and crucially, the dissolved board inherited these challenges when it took office in December 2022, appointed by Minister Nathi Mthethwa, after Wada had already issued its notice.

Yet McKenzie punished a board for issues largely stemming from previous administrations — who I believe acted responsibly — while no action has been taken against the departmental officials responsible for the legislative failures; a fact McKenzie acknowledged at the PPC hearings.

McKenzie ignored the board’s detailed response, prepared with senior legal counsel, which included measures Saids took to alert the department and subsequent measures to limit the fallout.

McKenzie failed to weigh the evidence and made no effort to seek dialogue or clarity from the board as he proceeded with his initial intention to dissolve the board. This outcome lacks rationality, appears predetermined, or represents a clear abuse of power.

Even Parliament’s oversight was brushed aside. Despite the PPC urging McKenzie to interrogate Ngidi Incorporated about its report and to suspend appointments pending further hearings — which to date have not been completed — he proceeded to appoint a new board, disregarding process and constitutional accountability. The PPC was partial to the merits of the Saids case despite the minister’s characteristic bluster.

This episode unfairly tarnishes the integrity and dedication of individuals who have devoted their lives to South African sport, many of whom serve voluntarily.

The Saids board chose not to pursue judicial review because litigation would have imposed unacceptable personal financial risks to board members whose positions earn them less than R20,000 a year.

Even more concerning, the saga exposes a minister who engages in bluster, dismissing evidence, disregarding accountability and substituting raw power for reason.

If this conduct goes unchallenged, the consequences will reach far beyond Saids: it will continue to corrode public trust, entrench a perilous precedent and confirm the bitter truth that irrationality backed by unchecked power is no longer an exception in our governance, but an alarming norm.

These episodes make plain the urgent need for transparent, independent oversight mechanisms, or for significantly greater authority to be vested in the PPC to hold ministers to account for abuse of power. DM

Dr Shuaib Manjra is a past board member of Saids, the previous chief medical officer of Cricket South Africa and Sascoc, and a past chair of the medical commission of the International Netball Federation.

The response from the DSAC