DA and opposition parties reject Higher Education Minister Nkabane's budget
Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane on Tuesday accused the DA, MK party and EFF of 'rejecting the transformation of the post-school education and training sector in South Africa' after they rejected her proposed budget for the Department of Higher Education and Training.
Nkabane presented her department's budget vote speech for the 2025/26 financial year at the National Council of Provinces. She said the budget would improve the efficiency and performance of South Africa's post-school education and training system.
Earlier on Tuesday, the DA — a member of the Government of National Unity — opened a criminal case against Nkabane for fraud and statutory offences under section 26 of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislature Act 4 of 2004.
Nkabane's budget covered key higher education sectors. In terms of it, TVET colleges are to receive R14-billion, up from R13.1-billion last year. The combined allocation for Sector Education and Training Authorities and the National Skills Fund is R26-billion. National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) funding rises to R48.7-billion this year, with further increases planned in the coming years. University education rises from R91.7-billion in 2024 to R96-billion this year alone.
Nkabane acknowledged that there was a R1.4-billion deficit in the universities budget and said that the NSFAS budget would 'not [be] sufficient to meet the growing demand for access to higher education.
'We continue to seek efficient ways of allocating limited resources to ensure that no deserving learner is left behind,' she said.
Opposition
After Nkabane presented her budget, the DA's Jeanne Adriaanse wasted no time in shooting it down when she was allowed to respond.
'It is time for President Ramaphosa to fire Minister Nkabane and clean up the ANC's criminal network from the heart of Parliament… Another failure in this minister's dossier is a recent scandal involving the appointment of ANC-connected individuals to the Sector Education and Training Authority. The minister brazenly appointed the comrades to these crucial roles and acted like they were in employment, intending to serve political interests rather than the public good.
'When this list was leaked, the minister smoothly revoked these appointments, attempting to cover her tracks. But the dissension did not go unanswered,' said Adriaanse.
The EFF's Laetitia Arries said, 'We reject the budget, minister… You have failed to account for appointments that are glaring examples of political patronage, where state institutions intended to empower youth and workers are turned into ANC deployment zones for local cadres and family members of the ruling elite.
'Year in and year out, this department is … always inadequately prepared to receive thousands of students at the start of the academic year, while the missing middle students who don't qualify for NSFAS and can't afford tuition are often left without support.'
The MK party rejected the budget for similar reasons to those of the DA and EFF.
The Patriotic Alliance's Bino Farmer said the party supported the budget and that higher education should be a driver of local development. He, however, warned the minister not to do wrong.
In response, Nkabane said, 'Those who are rejecting the budget are rejecting the transformation of the post-school education and training sector in South Africa. They are not rejecting the budget of Nobuhle Nkabane.'
Nkabane is set to appear at the Good Hope Chambers on Thursday, 3 June 2025, for the debate on the budget.
The spokesperson for Higher Education and Training, Camagwini Mavovana, said the minister was aware of the DA's criminal case against her, but was focused on delivering tangible outcomes for young people. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The GNU has failed the only test that matters: growing the economy and delivering jobs
The national coalition is entering yet another week it may not survive. While there have been real mistakes of leadership – and the ANC and the DA cannot give up their patterns from the past – it is becoming increasingly obvious that what is missing is a sense of mission. Because the parties involved are not focusing on the economy, and particularly youth unemployment, the coalition can give the impression that it is doomed. When the national coalition was formed and the ANC and the DA agreed to work together, along with eight other parties, there was some discussion about how to assess, in the future, whether the coalition was a success. Because the lived experience of so many South Africans has become so much tougher so quickly, it was pretty obvious, back in June 2024, that the real test was the economy. As has been said many, many, many times before, our youth unemployment is now so bad that it is easily the biggest long-term problem we face. Despite this obvious fact, disputed by nobody, the coalition has done nothing. At the same time, it appears the coalition is missing a sense of unity around a purpose. There appears to be no sense of 'mission' that could help bring people from different political backgrounds together. Instead, it can give the impression of a group of people united only by their belief that they should be in Cabinet and the MK party and the EFF should be out of it. If the coalition had created a sense of mission by focusing on youth unemployment, perhaps this could have brought them together. Surely parties as far apart politically as the PAC and the FF+ agree that helping young people into jobs and giving them hope is vital for our future. If the coalition had this sense of mission, perhaps it would have been able to overcome the lack of leadership and personal chemistry that is currently on display. It would have been much easier to overcome disagreements over the Budget, or the still-strange firing of the DA's Andrew Whitfield, if there had been another ultimate aim. But that is curiously lacking. And, strangely, it is not just the coalition. Direction unknown While there are many differing views about whether a National Dialogue would really be constructive, one of the most powerful arguments against it is that it will lack focus. It appears to include people from almost all parts of our public life. And their job is to discuss pretty much everything. This will probably be fatal to the process. It is hard to see what can really be achieved. Surely no decisions will be made that will alter the nature of our economy. Instead, it appears that many of our politicians, whether they are a part of the coalition, or supporting a dialogue, are more comfortable discussing issues other than the economy. There is a curious lack of focus. Of course, Operation Vulindlela and the progress it is making should not be ignored. Some of its measures, dealing with load shedding and the progress it's made at Transnet, are making slow changes to our economy that should be celebrated. But our politicians appear to lack the will to make the real changes that will matter. This is part of a pattern which took hold some time ago. Fifteen years ago, I made the same point about the ANC's lack of focus on the economy. At least eight years ago, ANC members made the same point on these pages. Government itself said back in 2020, even before the pandemic, that the economy was not going to grow unless there was action. This lack of focus obviously predates President Cyril Ramaphosa. Rather, it may be a feature of how the ANC has governed over the years. In 2007, days after winning the ANC leadership at Polokwane, Jacob Zuma gave very few clues on governance priorities. In 2009, the ANC said it had five 'apex priorities'. During the Zuma era in government, this lack of focus revealed itself in interesting ways. For example, in 2014 he appointed inter-ministerial committees to deal with particular issues. These committees were huge. The committee appointed to work against corruption (this was in the relatively early days of the Zuma era – the full irony of this committee would emerge later) included nine ministers. The committee on information and publicity had 12 (twelve!) members. It should be no surprise to anyone that nothing constructive was done here. Too many cooks There is, of course, a structural reason for all of this. As our society is so diverse, with so many different constituencies, politicians often struggle to be involved in discussions that will involve trade-offs. They do not want to be seen to be losing a single vote. The fact that the ANC set the tone for this may well be because it had the most diverse group of constituencies of all our parties. Simply put, it was always too broad a church to create economic policy that could include trade-offs. Something similar might well be happening today. The coalition is simply too broad to make the decisions that matter. For this reason, the National Dialogue might well appear to fail as well. It is true that there are many other factors holding our economy back. They include the fact that so many people have literally been betrayed by our education system, that inequality generally harms economic growth and that our infrastructure has been allowed to rot. None of this will be overcome without political will. For the moment, members of the national coalition are displaying none of the will, and the unity, necessary to change this. There will be many casualties as a result of this inaction.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
FSCA cleared to go global and pursue R50m fine for Viceroy over Capitec report
Following a high court ruling, South Africa's market cop has grown a new set of teeth that can pierce across borders. In a landmark ruling on 9 July, the Pretoria High Court handed the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) a powerful new weapon: the ability to fine foreign entities that mess with South Africa's markets, even if they've never set foot in the country. The FSCA said that it considers this a significant legal victory and believes that it is an 'essential part of protection of the public in an interconnected, digital global financial environment'. For the likes of Viceroy Research, which became a household name in 2018 after detonating a bomb under Capitec with a dodgy research report, the rules of the game have changed. The next time a hedge fund hit squad fancies nuking a JSE-listed stock with dubious 'research', they might want to budget for a fight in a South African court. How to burn R9.3-billion before lunch In January 2018, Viceroy lit a match in the form of a report titled Capitec: A wolf in sheep's clothing. The report accused the bank of 'predatory lending practices', pushing clients into debt spirals and called for an immediate curatorship by the South African Reserve Bank (SARB). The report went on to claim that Capitec had to write off more than 42% of the gross collectible principle due to it in the 2017 financial year, even suggesting the loan book was an 'irreconciliable R3-billion'. Twitter went feral, media outlets amplified the claims, and by closing bell, Capitec's price share had plummeted 23%, erasing R9.345-million in market value, according to a FSCA newsletter sent out in September 2021. The SARB scrambled to calm markets, assuring everyone that Capitec was solvent, capitalised and had adequate liquidity. The stock might have bounced back, but the reputational shrapnel lingered. The FSCA later warned that Viceroy's falsehoods 'posed a clear and present threat to the stability of the South African financial system'. Capitec told Daily Maverick that the bank has 'consistently maintained the 2018 report was misleading and caused unwarranted harm'. A calculated hit and a big payday The watchdog eventually pieced together that Viceroy was executing a targeted hit. A transcript of a hearing held by the Financial Services Tribunal (FST) in October 2022, reveals that Viceroy had a deal with a hedge fund, Oasis. It would $100,000 a month for tailor-made hit pieces plus 12.5% of the profits from short positions. Oasis banked an estimated R82-million, and Viceroy's cut was estimated by the FSCA to be close to $744,482 (R10-million at the time). All while ignoring legal obligations to correct falsehoods under the Financial Services Act. Dodging the net The FSCA initially slapped Viceroy with a R50-million fine for breaching Section 81 of the Financial Markets Act, which bans false or misleading statements about listed securities. FSCA commissioner Unathi Kamlana hoped the penalty would be 'a deterrent to those hoping to make a quick buck by peddling false information'. Viceroy cried foul, basically saying, 'You can't touch us, we're not in South Africa'. Shockingly, the Financial Services Tribunal largely agreed. The tribunal admitted that Viceroy's actions 'had an effect' on South Africa. But under common law, they said, you need to serve a foreigner in person while they're in the country to establish jurisdiction. The fine was set aside and the case was closed. Or so Viceroy thought. Closing the loophole The FSCA fought back and launched an application to review the decision to scrap Viceroy's fine. The Pretoria High Court ruled on 9 July 2025 that clinging to an area of physical service would 'hamper and frustrate the effective regulation of financial activity that takes place extra-territorial and digitally'. Citing section 173 of the Constitution, the court developed the common law. The FSCA can fine a foreigner if: Notice is delivered by any means (including electronically); and The conduct's link to South Africa is 'sufficiently close'. 'The court remitted the reconsideration application brought by Viceroy Research and partners back to the Financial Services Tribunal, so that a decision can be made on the merits,' the FSCA said. The case is not yet closed, but the R50-million penalty is back on the table. The FSCA remains confident that it made a clear and compelling case against Viceroy. 'The public can take confidence from the fact that the FSCA will not shy away from taking appropriate action to protect its investigation and enforcement powers to ensure appropriate investor protection and the integrity of financial markets,' it said. DM
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
eThekwini taken to court for ‘possum' stance on Durban beach sewage crisis
Durban municipal leaders will come under renewed legal pressure this week to devise a more ambitious and 'credible' action plan to resolve a long-standing sewage management crisis that has led to widespread pollution of local rivers and repeated closures of tourist beaches. The civil court case over eThekwini's sewage management crisis, to be heard over two days in the Durban High Court from 24 to 25 July, is the culmination of separate legal actions brought by the DA and ActionSA more than two years ago. The two party actions have now been joined into a single case to determine whether the City has responded reasonably to resolve the crisis and to also consider new measures, including the appointment of an independent administrator to supervise the City's wastewater management and remediation plans. While the City has largely blamed the crisis on the devastating flood events of April and May 2022 and limited budgets to repair the damage, the DA argues that the crisis is the direct result of years of failure and neglect in maintaining and upgrading infrastructure to cope with sewage flows generated by nearly four million city residents. In heads of argument prepared by legal counsel Max du Plessis SC, Toni Palmer and Ruchir Naidoo, the DA alleges that the city leadership is 'playing possum' and resorted to 'opportunistic' excuses by denying culpability for the crisis. Noting that the city's Water and Sanitation department had been presented with United Nations awards in 2007 and 2011 for 'world-class' sanitation and service delivery, the DA counsel recalled that problems were evident before the floods. For example, the City tried to blame water hyacinth for beach closures in December 2021, when the true reason was high levels of E. coli sewage bacteria being pumped into the Umgeni River from dysfunctional sewage treatment works. 'The question eThekwini studiously avoids in explaining its position in these proceedings is what happened between 2007 and now, to take this award-winning system to its present state? Plainly the infrastructure did not age or break overnight. 'Had eThekwini intended seriously to dispute the averment that it had underprioritised its wastewater infrastructure in the past decade, it would have done so by disclosing the amounts, its plans and confirming the adequacy of its budgetary allocations during this time. eThekwini's answering affidavit is entirely mum on this.' But the City's counsel charge that the DA case is big on complaints but short on practical solutions. They say the party has deliberately downplayed relevant factors such as the unprecedented floods and major financial constraints facing the city. 'The impact of the floods has been so significant that the eThekwini Municipality will now have to effectively rebuild damaged and destroyed infrastructure.' The City further argues that it is being asked to 'achieve the impossible', also indicating that full rehabilitation of sewage infrastructure could extend over 25 years. Hastening the rehabilitation timeline would require diverting funds from other priorities such as housing, health or electricity. 'How much money and manpower can legitimately be moved away from housing to the (sewage) repair infrastructure? Does a new clinic get placed on hold until the repair work is undertaken. These are questions that the Democratic Alliance simply ignores…' But the DA denies this, stating: 'This case is about finding practical ways to end the sewerage crisis, while respecting that eThekwini, while floundering and excuse-prone, is nonetheless the local executive authority.' In the absence of political will and the City's failure to develop 'meaningful plans' to resolve the problems, court intervention was needed to craft a legal solution. 'This is relief which is forward-looking, meaningful and within this Court's powers to grant in order to resolve the true dispute between the parties: that is, securing compliance with environmental legislation in the interests of eThekwini residents and visitors and putting an end to continuing violation of human rights in contravention of the Constitution. 'The DA has not approached the Court to tell eThekwini that it knows better how to resolve the problem. It has not sought to dictate to eThekwini how it should prioritise spending of public money. It has not sought to dictate to eThekwini how to comply with the law. It has not sought to force a plan upon eThekwini, or bind its hands in developing such a plan.' Rather, it was seeking to ensure that eThekwini produced a 'proper' action plan rather than elastic wish-lists. 'The (current eThekwini action plan) is not a plan at all, but an aspirational wish-list, the timelines for which are not deadlines, but mere suggestions, which will be revised and pushed back in order to accommodate them being ongoingly missed by eThekwini.' The party further says that eThekwini strongly opposed any court supervision. 'Instead, it remains stuck in history, blaming its ageing infrastructure and limited budget as reasons to excuse it from complying with its constitutional and legal obligations… The law has been violated by the sewerage crisis for which eThekwini is responsible, and this must be recognised and declared by the Court.' Speaking ahead of the court case, DA provincial spokesperson Dean Macpherson said his party had offered to drop the case and reach an out-of-court settlement, but this had been refused. Therefore, his party had no alternative but to approach the courts because neither the provincial or national government had demonstrated a willingness to compel eThekwini to rectify the problems. 'We get no victory from dragging eThekwini and government departments to court to do their jobs and it should not be up to a political party to do this.' In heads of argument prepared by advocates Vinay Naidoo SC, Immanuel Veerasamy and Minikazi Mtati, the City estimates that it will cost R4.5-billion to rehabilitate wastewater treatment infrastructure and a further R1.6-billion to maintain this network thereafter. City officials argue that it is also unaffordable to protect all sewage pump stations from vandals and copper wire thieves as it would cost R900-million per year to provide on-site security guards at all 273 pump stations in the city. As a result, on-site security was only provided at certain 'higher risk' stations. 'The Democratic Alliance would have the court focus on water and sanitation obligations imposed on the municipality to the exclusion of all other obligations… A full reading of the eThekwini Municipality's answering affidavit and the DA's complaints demonstrates that the problems are being attended to, just not with the expediency which the DA would want the municipality to do.' DM
