NSFAS recovery hinges on reform, not selective leaks and false narratives

Public scrutiny of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme is both legitimate and necessary. NSFAS administers more than R50-billion a year and supports about 800,000 students at public universities and Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) colleges. It must therefore be held to the highest standards of legality, accountability and prudent financial management.

But scrutiny must be rooted in facts, not selective leaks, legal conflation or narratives constructed to frustrate institutional recovery.

Recent reports have focused on the appointment of the NSFAS administrator, Professor Hlengani Mathebula, the technical advisers supporting him, and expenditure associated with the administration. These matters deserve clear answers. They should not, however, be used to obscure the scale of the crisis that made administration necessary or to divert attention from the urgent work now under way.

The legal position is straightforward.

The NSFAS Act empowers the minister of higher education and training to appoint an administrator. I exercised that statutory power, and Professor Mathebula’s appointment was published in the Government Gazette on 4 May 2026.

The act separately permits the administrator, with the minister’s approval, to appoint people with suitable knowledge and experience to assist him. A further provision governs the determination of their remuneration and allowances, with the approval of the minister of finance.

Distinct legal processes

These are distinct legal processes. The appointment of the administrator should not be confused with the process relating to remuneration. The National Treasury must be allowed to perform its statutory role, and the ministry will cooperate fully with that process.

The administrator has my support.

That support is not a blank cheque. It is support for a lawful, time-bound intervention with a clear mandate: stabilise NSFAS, restore sound governance, strengthen financial controls, modernise systems, improve service to students and return the institution to sustainable ordinary governance.

The timing and manner in which internal information has been selectively released, precisely as difficult institutional reforms are beginning, raise legitimate questions about motive.

Genuine whistleblowing must always be protected. But the selective disclosure of information without its full legal and institutional context can create suspicion, distract the administration and weaken confidence in the recovery process. Whatever the intention, the effect is to divert attention from the systemic weaknesses that must now be confronted.

We will not be distracted.

The first phase of the administration has exposed deep institutional weaknesses: fragmented systems that do not communicate with one another, unreliable data, weak financial forecasting, inadequate internal controls, unresolved accommodation matters, poor loan-book management, organisational design failures, low staff morale and an erosion of stakeholder trust.

Systemic risks

These are not public relations problems. They are systemic risks that threaten NSFAS’ ability to fulfil its mandate. The most urgent task is to develop a sustainable student-funding model.

South Africa cannot continue moving from one annual funding crisis to another. The number of students requiring support remains high, fiscal conditions are constrained, and the needs of poor and working-class students must be addressed alongside the growing challenge of the “missing middle”.

A sustainable model must provide greater certainty to students, institutions and the state. It must combine social justice with financial realism, improve forecasting and budgeting, and ensure that funding decisions are linked to reliable enrolment and progression data.

The second priority is digital transformation.

NSFAS cannot function effectively through disconnected platforms, manual reconciliations and incomplete student records. A modern funding institution requires an integrated view of the student journey – from application and eligibility assessment to registration, allowances, accommodation, progression, completion and, where applicable, loan recovery.

Digital transformation is not an optional technology project. It is fundamental to reducing fraud and error, accelerating appeals, improving payment accuracy and giving students reliable information about their funding.

The third priority is financial stewardship.

Every rand administered by NSFAS is public money intended to expand opportunity. The institution must improve cash-flow management, forecasting, audit readiness, reconciliation processes, expenditure controls and risk management. It must also build a credible loan-book management capability and resolve long-standing weaknesses in accommodation accreditation, verification and payment.

The fourth priority is institutional capability.

The last administration of NSFAS

Administration cannot become a recurring substitute for a functioning institution. I have told the administrator that this should be the last administration in the history of NSFAS.

That requires more than crisis management. It requires a fit-for-purpose operating model, clear accountability, ethical leadership, capable staff, effective audit and risk oversight, and systems that will endure after the administrator has left.

This is why specialised technical support has been approved.

The current administration is supported by four advisers working in defined areas linked to financial governance, turnaround, strategic implementation, stakeholder management and institutional change. The structure has deliberately been kept lean and is materially less costly than comparable technical-support arrangements used during previous administrations.

The test is not whether advisers exist. The test is whether their work produces measurable results, transfers capability to NSFAS and reduces the institution’s dependence on extraordinary intervention.

The same principle applies to all expenditure associated with the administration. It must be lawful, reasonable, properly authorised and defensible. Where wrongdoing is established, it must be acted upon. But allegations should not be treated as findings, and incomplete information should not be converted into conclusions of illegality.

The public deserves accountability. It also deserves perspective.

The real cost of NSFAS failure is measured in students unable to register, delayed allowances, unresolved appeals, unsafe or unpaid accommodation, institutional uncertainty and families pushed into crisis.

The cost of restoring the institution must be scrutinised, but it should be weighed against the far greater social and economic cost of allowing dysfunction to continue.

One of SA’s most important instruments of social mobility

NSFAS remains one of democratic South Africa’s most important instruments of social mobility. It has opened the doors of universities and colleges to generations of students who would otherwise have been excluded by poverty.

Our task is not to defend failure. It is to fix the institution.

We will answer legitimate questions. We will cooperate with Parliament, the National Treasury and every lawful oversight body. We will insist on value for money, measurable milestones and transparent reporting. But we will not permit selective leaks, distorted legal claims or internal resistance to derail the work of stabilising NSFAS.

The institution must be repaired, modernised and placed on a sustainable footing. That is the work before us, and that is where our focus will remain. DM