Manamela snubs higher education portfolio committee

Higher education minister Buti Manamela has snubbed a parliament portfolio committee meeting, citing an ongoing dispute over the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) board dissolution before the courts.

Manamela was summoned by portfolio committee chairperson Tebogo Letsie to account for recent developments with the student financial aid scheme board and its subsequent dissolution by the minister.

The invitation to appear before the committee was sent to the minister two weeks ago, but Manamela wrote to Letsie on Monday, a day before the much-anticipated sitting, revealing he would not be attending the meeting.

He told Letsie that he required additional time to finalise and “quality assure” the presentation that would have been presented before the committee.

In a letter, which the Sunday Times has seen, the minister tells the chairperson that he requires counsel on the matter as it currently sits before the court.

“The committee should also note that the matter of the administrator is now before the courts under case 2026/10762 at the Pretoria high court. Against this background, I plead with the committee to understand that I cannot meet today’s deadline to submit the presentation.”

Last week, this publication reported how remaining members of the NSFAS board are challenging the minister’s decision to dissolve the board and place the entity under administration.

The seven ousted members have also asked the court to interdict Prof Hlengani Mathebula from taking over the management, governance and administration of NSFAS, as well as to bar him from performing any functions of the fund.

An eager committee waiting to ventilate these matters was taken aback by Manamela’s notified abscondment, which resulted in a postponement of the gathering.

This raised the ire of portfolio committee member Sihle Lonzi, who petitioned for chair of chairs Cedric Frolick’s intervention over what he deemed an “unprocedural cancellation”.

“Our objection is not confined to the postponement itself, but rather extends to the manner, timing and procedural irregularity with which this decision has been conveyed, which risks undermining established parliamentary practice and precedent.”

Lonzi criticised the manner in which MPs were informed of the cancellation, calling it unparliamentary.

“The meeting in question was properly scheduled following agreement by MPs in a duly constituted portfolio committee meeting and was subsequently placed on the official parliamentary programme.

If allowed to stand, this approach risks establishing a dangerous precedent that parliamentary oversight meetings may be unilaterally deferred or abandoned at the last minute through informal communication whenever accountability becomes inconvenient or contested.

—  Portfolio committee member Sihle Lonzi (EFF)

“It is therefore deeply concerning that members are now being informed on the eve of the meeting through informal communication channels such as WhatsApp messages that the meeting will not proceed.”

The EFF MP said this was inconsistent with the formal procedures that govern meetings of parliament and its committees.

“Parliament is a constitutional arm governed by formal and recorded resolutions, through collective decision making by members of parliament, not by informal reversals communicated outside a formal sitting of a committee of parliament.”

Lonzi told the chair of chairs that Manamela was wrong in making the decision not to attend without consulting the committee members.

“If a committee has resolved to convene, any subsequent proposal to postpone or cancel such a meeting ought itself to be tabled, debated and resolved in a formal sitting of the committee of parliament. That decision cannot be made unilaterally, outside a formal meeting and imposed upon members of parliament after the fact.”

He warned that the acceptance of Manamela’s conduct could set a wrong precedent for the future.

“If allowed to stand, this approach risks establishing a dangerous precedent that parliamentary oversight meetings may be unilaterally deferred or abandoned at the last minute through informal communication whenever accountability becomes inconvenient or contested.”

According to Lonzi, MPs’ oversight reach should not be dependent on the convenience, cooperation or compliance by the executive.

“On the contrary, it is precisely in circumstances of alleged non-cooperation, including concerns relating to governance issues and reported irregularities within NSFAS and misconduct of the minister, that parliament’s oversight function is most critical and must be exercised in full view.”

In a statement, Manamela said he had confirmed his availability and readiness to appear before the committee to account, but it is the court battle that stopped him in his tracks.

“The postponement occurred in the context of urgent litigation proceedings instituted by former NSFAS board members relating to the decision to place NSFAS under administration, as well as related legal and procedural processes currently under way.”

The minister insisted that he will engage the portfolio committee on scheduling a suitable future date to be scheduled.

“We remain focused on ensuring operational stability at NSFAS while respecting the ongoing legal process and constitutional role of parliament,” he said.