NSFAS board collapse was preventable: Minister Manamela must be held accountable

When a public institution is placed under administration, it is often framed as a decisive intervention. While that may be true, it is more often an admission that leadership has failed.

The decision by Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela to place the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) under administration this week is no exception. In this instance, it is not a sign of strength. It is the consequence of missed warnings, delayed decisions and a failure by the minister to act when it mattered most.

This decision, along with a string of other missteps, should trigger serious consideration by President Cyril Ramaphosa to remove him from office.

To understand the gravity of this failure, one must start with the timeline.

Following the mid-2024 general elections, Nobuhle Nkabane was appointed minister of higher education, with Manamela continuing in his long-standing role as deputy minister, a position he had held for close to a decade, since 2017.

A year later, on 21 July 2025, after a string of misleading communications, poor judgement and decisions, Ramaphosa removed Nkabane from the post and elevated Manamela to minister.

This distinction is critical, because when Manamela assumed the role, he was not stepping into unfamiliar territory. Having spent more than eight years inside the department, he understood the structural weaknesses and maladministration that had permeated NSFAS, the Sector Education and Training Authorities (Setas) and the National Skills Fund (NSF). He knew the governance risks and should have fully appreciated the urgency required.

Yet he did not act accordingly.

Failures across NSFAS and the broader skills development ecosystem consume more than 50% of the department’s budget. The requirement for urgent and focused intervention – particularly given the deterioration witnessed across the sector under his predecessors, including Blade Nzimande and Nkabane – was stark.

The Seta failures: Delays and dubious appointments

One of Manamela’s earliest tests was to address the expiry of Seta board terms and CEO contracts, which reached their five-year limit (including extensions) by 30 September 2025.

This was not a surprise deadline. It was a known governance milestone requiring planning and urgency.

Even within a constrained timeframe, this was manageable, particularly for a minister with deep institutional knowledge, supported by a full departmental apparatus.

Instead, what followed was delay and these very necessary appointments were not prioritised and processes were not accelerated. When decisions were eventually made, they reflected last-minute haste rather than considered judgement, coupled with bad judgement and poor advice.

Several CEO reappointments raised serious concerns, including individuals associated with repeated audit qualifications and governance failures. At the same time, opportunities to strengthen Seta leadership were missed. Outa submitted a list of 15 credible candidates for board chairperson roles. None was even contacted.

This raises serious concerns about the transparency and integrity of the appointment process and the consequences were predictable, triggering two separate legal challenges against Manamela’s decisions by Outa and the EFF. Concerns were loudly raised about institutional instability and political considerations outweighing governance requirements.

This is not simply poor administration. It is a failure to prioritise a known and time-sensitive governance risk.

NSFAS moved from signs of recovery to regression

A very similar pattern played out at NSFAS, but this time with far greater consequences.

When Manamela assumed office in July 2025, NSFAS had recently emerged from administration under Freeman Nomvalo, which concluded in February 2025. A new board had been appointed earlier that year, led by Dr Karen Stander, a credible and capable chairperson with the apparent resolve to confront entrenched governance failures.

For a brief period, NSFAS showed signs of recovery and while it was still far from being fixed, it was stabilising. What it required was consistent ministerial engagement, active support for the board and decisive intervention when challenges emerged.

Unfortunately, that did not happen and as a consequence, Stander resigned on 2 November 2025, citing internal board tensions and interference in critical matters such as the appointment of a permanent CEO, among other governance concerns. This should have triggered immediate intervention from the minister, with an approach to take her into his confidence and provide her with the necessary support to address the relatively toxic environment unfolding.

In the months that followed, at least three additional board members, particularly those with financial expertise, resigned. Governance capacity weakened significantly and the board became increasingly fragile and compromised.

Most concerning is that these vacancies were not filled with urgency and once again, the warning signs from a slow pace to act were clear.

A crisis foreseen, but not prevented

Having exited administration barely 15 months earlier, the risks of regression at NSFAS were well understood. The responsibility of the minister should not have been a reaction to collapse the board, but instead to prevent its collapse and to stave off a return to administration.

This required early intervention when instability emerged, swift appointment of credible board replacements, and a close, consistent engagement with the board. Instead, what unfolded was a familiar pattern of delay, drift and eventual crisis management.

Placing NSFAS under administration may now have been unavoidable, but it is also the clearest indication that earlier leadership intervention was either lacking or ineffective.

A sector in disarray

The failures at NSFAS are not isolated. They form part of a broader pattern of weak leadership and systemic dysfunction.

Across the higher education sector the same issues persist in delayed appointments, contested decisions, legal disputes and limited engagement with stakeholders raising legitimate concerns.

At the same time there is growing consensus that the Seta model itself has been failing to achieve its intended purpose for a number of years. Research from Stellenbosch University’s Bureau for Economic Research in 2025 highlighted significant inefficiencies, and in March this year Ramaphosa publicly acknowledged the need for reform.

Yet the ministry has shown little urgency in responding to this serious issue. To date, there has been no meaningful stakeholder engagement or presentation of a reform roadmap, or any intent thereof. This is nothing short of a stagnant, actionless, rudderless ministry.

Additional concerns around the new NSFAS administrator

A further concern arises from the appointment of Hlengani Mathebula as NSFAS administrator.

Mathebula previously served at the South African Revenue Service (SARS) as its chief officer for governance, international relations, strategy and communications, having been appointed by the infamous Tom Moyane in January 2016. Moyane’s tenure as SARS commissioner was marked by significant governance concerns.

While it would be unfair to tar all individuals at SARS during that era with the same Moyane brush, an administrator appointed to lead a fragile institution like NSFAS should be beyond reproach.

What we do know is that Mathebula was placed on precautionary suspension by SARS management on 31 July 2019, following the Nugent Commission of Inquiry into SARS governance failures. His subsequent departure from SARS on 26 August 2019, through a settlement agreement, meant that disciplinary processes were not concluded.

At best this raises questions and at worst it signals poor judgement in a critical appointment by Manamela.

Time for accountability

This string of failures reflects leadership that is reactive, not proactive. One that is consumed with firefighting rather than reform.

The consequences are real and confidence in the higher education system is eroding, with public funds that continue to remain exposed to mismanagement.

In a country facing high unemployment and a fragile skills pipeline, this is no longer just a governance issue. It is fast becoming a national risk and there comes a point where systemic failure must translate into personal accountability. That point is now.

Manamela has had nearly a decade of institutional exposure and close to a year in the top role. He has had many warning signals from key institutions, including the Auditor-General and civil society organisations like Outa. And yet, governance continues to deteriorate.

The placement of NSFAS under administration is not an isolated event. It is the culmination of a sustained failure to lead decisively.

South Africa’s higher education system cannot endure another cycle of instability, intervention and decline. It requires decisive, accountable and reform-driven leadership, which is currently absent.

Ramaphosa should act now and remove Manamela from his position, since his continued tenure poses a risk to the stability and credibility of the sector.

Something has to give and this time it must be leadership. DM