A WHISTLE-BLOWER who reported allegations of irregular appointments at the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) has been left furious after the public protector closed the file.
The former employee, Bibi Madiba, expressed dissatisfaction after the office closed the case without contacting some implicated officials.
She was also infuriated that the public protector did not inform her about the outcome as the whistle-blower.
Madiba also accused the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) of not being willing to investigate the matter despite signing a proclamation to probe allegations of maladministration and corruption against the financial scheme.
This was after she was told that the SIU had not started investigating the alleged irregular appointments.
The public protector’s spokesperson, Khulu Phasiwe, said it had been established that the SIU obtained a proclamation to investigate the affairs of NSFAS from 2016, which included the allegations in the complaint referenced.
Phasiwe said it was also established that the NSFAS board had commissioned a forensic investigation, which took place during August 2018 to December 2020, to investigate the allegations raised by the complainant. He said a report was produced with recommendations for implementation by NFSAS.
Phasiwe said it was further established that the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education (PCHE) conducted a hearing in relation to the matter in November 2020.
“Considering the above, the view was that to avoid duplication of processes and to utilise investigation resources sparingly, the PPSA investigation should not be taken further to allow the SIU investigation to proceed, as it was covering a wider scope of investigation. The file was therefore closed, and the complainant was provided with a closing report.”
He added that the file was closed on March 30, 2023. He said Rule 44(2) of the public protector rules provided that “a request for an internal review of a decision must be made in writing on a form that is available from any of its offices within 90 days and the complainant did not lodge an application for an internal review in connection with the said closing report”.
The SIU spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago said the allegations were not included in the scope of their internal committee’s investigation when they were reviewing the matter for possible action. Kganyago said the allegations were not brought to their attention.
He said whistleblowers should contact the SIU if they want the unit to look into these allegations.
The public protector launched investigations in 2019 after Madiba and other former employees exposed how former administrator Randall Carolissen purged them for refusing to implement questionable instructions, including hiring his associates without following due process. There were also allegations of corruption, maladministration and mismanagement against Carolissen.
In a letter to investigator Shireen Lengeveldt, Madiba said the process had been miserable and unfair, adding that she had failed to keep her in the loop.
Madiba also accused Lengeveldt of failing to inform her about the report, saying she received it after she visited the offices in Johannesburg on August 6, 2024.
“I instructed the Johannesburg office to provide a report on the investigation. The office emailed the document the next day, which you were supposed to inform me of as the whistle-blower,” said Madiba.
In the report, the public protector said the reasons for the closure of the file were that the same allegations were investigated by the NSFAS board investigator and would have resulted in a duplication of efforts.
The office added that some of the implicated officials, including Carolissen, were no longer employed by the financial aid scheme.
The public protector also stated that the NSFAS report was considered and it was established that the National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union (Nehawu) complained to the PCHE, alleging acts of maladministration. The office said these allegations were captured in Nehawu’s submission in September 2020.
Madiba said she studied the report and found that the office failed to deal with matters that Nehawu raised with the PCHE.
She said Nehawu’s report was clear and also outlined the evidence that the NSFAS administrator admitted to 12 charges.
Madiba said: “This information should be and is with Parliament and therefore is in the public domain. Not certain if you asked for the report of 2021 from Parliament to conduct your investigations.
“PCHE was very much aware of Nehawu's evidence report and PCHE had conducted their investigation and the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) task team that was appointed by the Minister, too, was supposed to have submitted to your office as per my statement.”
Madiba questioned the credibility of the report, saying she did not understand how the investigations were conducted when some implicated individuals, including Carolissen, could not be located. She said this was a concern.
In its evidence report, Nehawu said the administrator introduced CVs to NSFAS outside the recruitment process.
Nehawu also found that there was no approved organisational structure position for the positions he provided CVs for.
It also emerged that these were personal associates of the administrators.
The union’s investigation also found that the administrator had terminated contracts, targeted, victimised, suspended and dismissed highly qualified and experienced senior management members since his arrival. Others were given options to resign and threatened “if you don’t resign, we will find something against you”.
Nehawu provincial secretary in the Western Cape, Baxolise Mali, said the public protector’s report was a whitewash, adding that there was no commitment to deal with this matter from the onset.
He said this was based on the fact that:
- Nehawu submitted a complaint in 2020 which was simply acknowledged, and was never called upon to participate in the investigation despite being the majority representative of workers at NSFAS. The complaint was only linked to the union’s participation in PCHE at a later stage in the same year.
- Nehawu as a complainant was never interviewed, so who were the people who refused to participate in the investigation?
- Why was the report from the board never shared with complainants, and was there no conflict of interest for the board to do an investigation on its conduct. Nehawu raised this because the administrator was appointed to report to the Minister of the DHET, but acting with full powers given to the board?
Mali said: “Is the Public Protector Office then of a belief that the conduct of the then administrator can be separated from the board all of a sudden to an extent that it was allowed to absolve its conduct, and nothing then could be done yet decisions of the administrator are legally deemed as decisions of the board?”
The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse’s (Outa’s) investigative manager, Rudie Heyneke, said it was unknown when the NSFAS investigation commenced and when it was finalised, but the scheme reported back to the portfolio committee in November 2022 on the findings of the investigation.
Heyneke added that the complainants had the right to take the public protector’s decision on review.
Sunday Independent