NSFAS: Adviser Payments Lacked Treasury Approval in ZA

• NSFAS administrator Professor Hlengani Mathebula and Minister Buti Manamela were questioned by MPs on August 12 regarding adviser appointments.
• Two of Mathebula's four advisers were paid nearly R500,000 monthly through private companies without Treasury or SCM approval.
• Section 17C of the NSFAS Act requires the Higher Education Minister to secure Finance Minister concurrence for remuneration and allowances.
• Minister Manamela admitted he had not yet received Treasury approval for Mathebula's salary.
• This situation highlights critical issues in public finance compliance and statutory approval processes in South Africa.

The incident underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to statutory approval processes, particularly Section 17C of the NSFAS Act, for remuneration and allowances within public entities.

Officials from the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) faced intense questioning from Members of Parliament on Wednesday, August 12, regarding the appointment and remuneration of advisers. Professor Hlengani Mathebula, the NSFAS administrator, along with Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela, were pressed on the circumstances surrounding the engagement of Mathebula's four advisers. The core of the inquiry centered on two of these advisers, whose payments reportedly bypassed crucial financial oversight mechanisms.

These two top advisers were said to have billed nearly R500,000 per month through private firms, a detail first reported by Daily Maverick on August 11, 2026. The payments to these individuals were made without the requisite approval from the National Treasury and without adhering to standard Supply Chain Management (SCM) processes. This lack of proper authorization for `NSFAS adviser payment Treasury approval ZA` became a central point of contention during the parliamentary session, raising concerns about public finance compliance in South Africa.

The legal framework governing such appointments and remuneration within NSFAS is clearly defined by the NSFAS Act. Section 17B of the Act permits an administrator to engage qualified experts, provided they have the minister's approval. However, a more stringent requirement is outlined in Section 17C, which mandates that the Minister of Higher Education must secure concurrence from the Minister of Finance before determining the remuneration and allowances for both the administrator and any support staff. This provision is critical for ensuring `NSFAS Act Section 17C compliance`.

Furthermore, the parliamentary questioning also delved into Chapter 2A of the NSFAS Act, which provides the framework for ministerial interventions and the appointment of administrators in instances of operational or governance failures. The specific requirements for `Hlengani Mathebula adviser remuneration` and the broader `NSFAS adviser payment Treasury approval ZA` fall squarely within these statutory provisions, highlighting the importance of robust `National Treasury NSFAS oversight`.

During the parliamentary session, MP Gaolatlhe Kgabo specifically challenged Minister Buti Manamela on whether he had obtained the necessary approval from Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana regarding Professor Mathebula's salary, as stipulated by Section 17C of the NSFAS Act. In response, Minister Manamela admitted that he had not yet received the required `Treasury approval` for Mathebula's remuneration. Despite this admission, he expressed confidence that the approval would eventually be secured.

This revelation regarding `Buti Manamela NSFAS payments` and the broader issue of `NSFAS adviser payment Treasury approval ZA` underscores a significant lapse in adherence to statutory financial protocols. Adding to the complexity, a prior report indicated that NSFAS had claimed procurement rules did not apply to the R500,000 monthly adviser deals, a position that the Treasury reportedly disagreed with, further emphasizing the need for strict `public finance compliance South Africa`.

The situation at NSFAS serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of strict adherence to statutory approval processes, particularly Section 17C of the NSFAS Act, for remuneration and allowances within public entities. The failure to secure `NSFAS adviser payment Treasury approval ZA` before disbursing funds, especially for significant amounts like R500,000 monthly to advisers, can lead to irregular expenditure and undermine public trust in governance.

This incident highlights the necessity for government departments and state-owned entities to implement robust compliance frameworks. Such frameworks are essential to ensure that all necessary ministerial and Treasury concurrences are obtained, thereby preventing governance failures and upholding the principles of `public finance compliance South Africa`. Effective `National Treasury NSFAS oversight` is not merely a bureaucratic formality but a fundamental safeguard against financial mismanagement and a cornerstone of accountable public administration.

This development underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to statutory approval processes, particularly Section 17C of the NSFAS Act, for remuneration and allowances within public entities. Lawyers advising government departments or state-owned entities must ensure robust compliance frameworks are in place to secure all necessary ministerial and Treasury concurrences to avoid irregular expenditure and governance failures.

Source: Reporting based on Daily Maverick via AllAfrica