Parties support Nkabane's education vote, staying out of ANC/DA spat
This follows a recent announcement that the DA intends to boycott the budget votes in departments led by controversial ANC ministers such as Dr Nobuhle Nkabane and Thembi Simelane, who leads human settlements. The DA has called for their axing.
The fury of the GNU's second-biggest party was prompted by the ousting of their former deputy minister of trade, industry and competition, Andrew Whitfield, last week.
However, parties say they will not allow the budget vote to stand in the way of the department's ability to continue with its functions.
EFF MP Sihle Lonzi led the charge, saying that while they do not see eye to eye with Nkabane, they will not be hoodwinked by GNU's trouble in paradise.
'We are perplexed that the DA only discovered corruption when their deputy minister was fired. Before the firing, they were singing praises about the GNU, today they want to behave like an opposition. The people of South Africa are not stupid and can see through your lies. We are not going to waste time on this fake fight between the DA and the ANC.
'The DA will vote for this budget which funds each and every department, including the department of higher education and human settlements. The DA's narrative is a deliberate distortion at best and sheer ignorance at worst. The EFF has been at the forefront of confronting the crisis at higher education even when those who are making the most noise now stood on the sidelines.'
The highly anticipated higher education budget vote took place in the mini plenary of the National Assembly on Thursday.
Lonzi told the plenary the EFF will not fall for the propaganda of the DA that it can support certain budgets and not other departments, clarifying that the DA's stance is not going to be effective.
'There are four key budget votes in parliament. The first is the fiscal framework and revenue proposals which gives budget bills the blueprint and sets the economic policy direction, which the DA voted in support of.
"The second is the division of revenue bill which deals with the appropriation of national and provincial government, the DA voted in support and it passed.
"We are now dealing with the appropriations bill which allocates funds to government departments and programmes — the DA cannot cherry pick. Voting for the appropriation bill means approving the entire budget inclusive of all the departments.'
Lonzi gave the minister seven steps to turn around the embattled education sector, which included the 'fixing' of NSFAS or complete removal of the controversial institution.
'You must rescue higher education from the collapse. There should be no reason NSFAS still struggles to pay students. We have about 19-million people on SASSA and an additional 9-million people receiving the R350 grant every single month. NSFAS only deals with an odd one-million students, why is there no efficient payment system that will pay students, institutions and accommodation directly?'
He added that the minister ought to blacklist corrupt board members.
'You must clean up the SETAs. You must blacklist corrupt board members and CEOs, not this thing you are doing now where when someone is suspended in one SETA, you take them [into] another SETA,' he said.
DA MP Karabo Khakhau who led the charge against Nkabane said she was not surprised by Nkabane's actions, saying that it is a result of the culture of the political party that has deployed her.
'To them, corruption is their daily bread. Living in a corruption-free South Africa is a threat against the very core of their existence. Unlike the other political parties who have today pledged their support to this budget under Nkabane, the DA has not forgotten about the people of this country.
'Our loyalty remains to nothing but the people. South Africa can count on the DA to fight for them and for justice against corruption. The real enemy of progress against young people is Nkabane - it is the ANC for protecting her and corruption, it is President Ramaphosa for refusing to fire her, it is the political parties that think R142bn is safe in the hands of Dr Nkabane.'
She told Nkabane that she should voluntarily vacate office if she feels strongly about serving the young people of this country.
'Committing fraud under statutory offence under section 26 of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament Act is not only spitting on the graves of the forefathers of this democracy, but it is spitting in the faces if the young people whom you've failed to lead. It is a spit in the face of your DHET staff that you have sacrificed at the altar of your own protection.
'You said that you are dedicating this budget to the memory of the fallen heroes and heroines of the PSET sector. So I dare you, do the right thing in honour of them and resign! Detox the department of the toxicity of your poor leadership, arrogance, effective allergy to honesty and commitment to no-one but yourself. You don't need to wait for President Ramaphosa to fire you, if you mean it that you are a servant of the leadership of the people, serve and be honest and resign.'
Build One South Africa's Mmusi Maimane argued that the sector had bigger problems, adding that the starting point was to clear the air around Nkabane's alleged wrongdoing.
'On leadership, we can debate whether this is the right minister or not the right minister. The issue of whether the minister misled parliament needs to be brought to a parliamentary committee and an investigation must be sought so we can get to the bottom of this. It's not a violation of anyone's feelings, it's about a constitutional obligation which must be followed.'
He added that the bigger picture is to understand that the ambition of freedom could not be delinked to the sector overseen by Nkabane.
'You cannot delink the ambition of freedom from the ambition of higher education. We focused on the intrinsic nature of education but we've never linked it to our economic outputs. When we derive a plan for what South Africa needs to look like in the future, we become clear about the kind of graduates that we want to produce.
'This department progressively oversees the number of black students declining who go into higher education, but students who are Asian and Indian are increasing. It tells you that our empowerment story has been delinked from higher education.'
He urged the ministry to prioritise access to higher education to fully commit to the transformation of the country.
'From a capacity point of view, it's clear that infrastructure build in higher education is poor. We are talking about a shortage of 500,000 beds in this country. If we are going to see the doors of learning open, as is the ambition, we need to fund the capacity thereof.
'It's now common cause that NSFAS is not an efficient institution for managing how many students we want to get in. It's either we reform NSFAS or we shut out the middle man.'
Rise Mzansi's Makashule Gana told the committee that he refuses to take part in the scandal and spectacle that has brought attention to the ministry.
'Education, especially higher education, is not a luxury, it is a path out of poverty and is the foundation of a prosperous nation. The department's R142bn budget is substantial but not enough, because our crisis is not just funding — its spatial, access, and a system that is failing the poor.
"Nowhere is that failure more glaring than in NSFAS. I'm a product of it, many of us are, but what we see today is heartbreaking because hyenas and tenderpreneurs are circling what should be a lifeline for our students. That R95bn for NSFAS has to go to students, not middlemen.'
Despite the minister conceding that there is a R1.4bn deficit in the universities' budget, she vowed that the NSFAS budget would 'not be sufficient to meet the growing demand for access to higher education". NSFAS funding sits at R48.7bn this year, with further increases planned in the coming years.
Nkabane's budget covered key higher education sectors, detailing that TVET colleges are to receive R14bn, up from R13.1bn last year.
The combined allocation for Sector Education and Training Authorities and the National Skills Fund is R26bn. Meanwhile, university education rises from R91.7bn in 2024 to R96bn this year alone.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SowetanLIVE
an hour ago
- SowetanLIVE
More people deny being on Nkabane's 'independent panel' on Setas
More people have come out to deny being part of higher education minister Nobuhle Nkabane's panel to appoint the board chairs of the sector education and training authorities (Setas). The pressure continues to pile on Nkabane after her own chief of staff Nelisiwe Semane, director of Seta co-ordination in the department Mabuza Ngubane, and deputy director-general for corporate services Rhulane Ngwenya wrote to parliament's portfolio committee on higher education and training. The three declared they were not involved in the now-reversed process that recommended the appointment of ANC-linked cadres to chair some of the 21 Seta boards. This is despite Nkabane last month revealing names of a panel which she said was independent and had recommended names of ANC cadres to lead the Seta boards. The trio's denial comes just weeks after advocate Terry Motau, whom Nkabane said chaired the panel, denied his involvement. In a letter dated June 24, Semane said she was involved only with the advisory panel that recommended the board members. She said this was a different process altogether to the one that recommended the board chairs.
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
President Ramaphosa's National Dialogue is out of touch with African grassroots
President Cyril Ramaphosa's announcement of a National Dialogue, intended to forge consensus around a new 30-year National Development Plan (NDP), is yet another reminder of how disconnected our leadership has become from the realities South Africans face daily. While our communities grapple with gender-based violence, crime, corruption, inequality and social fragmentation, what we are being offered is not the opportunity to confront these urgent crises head-on, but rather a carefully curated event, far removed from the daily struggles of ordinary citizens. This disconnect becomes even more glaring when we consider the lessons of the past. Back in 2009, when the original NDP process began, the National Planning Commission, chaired by then Minister Trevor Manuel, was clear about the distinction between lofty ideals and actionable plans. 'Visions are visions. They are broad, frequently general. They are aspirations,' Manuel warned. 'But plans have to be detailed, supported by numbers.' Ramaphosa's proposed dialogue feels like yet another broad, aspirational exercise disconnected from practical, measurable action. The missing first step: returning to our roots of authentic dialogue Growing up in an African community, Ramaphosa would have been shaped by traditions that prioritised meaningful, grassroots engagement. Justice under the tree, gathering around the fire and community problem-solving were never abstract ideals; they were lived, practical realities that anchored decision-making in language, culture and shared understanding. Our Constitutional Court itself reflects these principles, embodying restorative justice rooted in African traditions. We saw the same values during the Mont Fleur Scenarios of 1991, where South African leaders, activists, economists, ANC officials, academics and business leaders came together to confront the harsh realities of apartheid and imagine a different future. Importantly, they engaged with humility, urgency and a willingness to hear uncomfortable truths – not in corporate boardrooms, but through inclusive dialogue grounded in real experiences. Somewhere along the way, Ramaphosa seems to have lost sight of these foundational principles. The fundamental flaw in Ramaphosa's National Dialogue is that it skips the most crucial first step: genuine engagement with the communities most affected by South Africa's challenges. This is not merely a matter of consultation; it is about ensuring any national conversation is grounded in real data, authentic voices, and the uncomfortable truths that emerge from township streets, rural villages and community halls. Without this foundation, dialogue among elites becomes premature, uninformed and, ultimately, disconnected from the problems it claims to address. The reality on the ground: excluded frontline voices In my recent experience of engaging with three police stations on their approach to gender-based violence (GBV), it became clear that the very people tasked with delivering justice are underprepared, unsupported and excluded from meaningful conversations about solutions. Officers openly expressed frustration at their lack of training and resources, especially when dealing with GBV cases. Some even asked, 'How do we begin to report and deal with GBV cases?' It was deeply concerning to hear officers say that they don't know how to deal with one of the biggest issues the country is facing. If Ramaphosa spent time listening to those on the front lines – police officers, community workers, survivors – his policies would be shaped by reality, not disconnected visions. But right now, these critical voices are excluded from shaping national solutions. This concern reflects a broader problem: the people working on the front lines are systematically excluded from meaningful conversations about solutions. Many operate within broken systems, with little institutional support, resulting in failed justice for survivors and growing public distrust. These are the voices and experiences that should inform any national dialogue. Building an informed foundation: the path forward Before any national dialogue proceeds, we need to start where the real South African story is being lived – around fires, in community halls, on street corners – speaking directly to those affected by these challenges. Language, culture and context matter. Social consensus cannot be built in luxury venues when trust, understanding and practical solutions have yet to be built at the grassroots level. This means conducting proper research, gathering credible data and creating space for diverse communities across South Africa to share their lived experiences. We don't need to reinvent solutions – South Africans already know what works: authentic, community-driven engagement, leadership grounded in reality, and a willingness to hear hard truths. Return to roots Ramaphosa must return to the spaces where he once witnessed genuine, grassroots dialogue. We need honest, uncomfortable, face-to-face conversations with those carrying the daily weight of South Africa's hardships. The president would do well to take cues from his own comrades, notably Trevor Manuel, whose original NDP process recognised that vision alone is meaningless without measurable action rooted in lived experience. Likewise, the lessons of Mont Fleur show that during times of deep division, bold, inclusive conversations driven by ordinary people, not staged events, can help reshape South Africa's future. The president faces a clear choice: continue with another sanitised, media-friendly gathering that delivers little beyond soundbites, or embrace the messy, uncomfortable, yet potentially transformative work of authentic, community-based engagement. Until that first critical step is taken, this so-called dialogue remains premature, disconnected and destined to miss the very voices it claims to elevate. Anything less is performative politics – a detached exercise in optics, wasting state resources that should be directed towards solving the very crises this dialogue claims to address. DM
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Building cultures that outlast politics – moving forward from the seeming collapse of DEI and BEE
In 2020, the murder of George Floyd shook the world and reawakened global demands for racial justice. Boardrooms pledged diversity. Governments proclaimed equity. Corporations rushed to signal solidarity. But just five years later, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the United States have crumbled under executive orders, while in South Africa, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) faces deep public disillusionment. Both DEI and BEE were concessions — important, symbolic acknowledgements of injustice, but negotiated within old systems that largely remained intact. DEI largely diversified workplaces superficially, without transferring real decision-making power or wealth. BEE enabled the emergence of a black elite, but often left structural economic inequality untouched for the majority of South Africans. To more effectively reach equity in historically segregated societies, we need to rethink our system by legislating culture and quality of life in workplaces. True inclusion means that marginalised communities must not only feel empowered, but also be structurally positioned to participate in and shape economically empowered spaces. Structural cul-de-sac The history of economic power in South Africa reveals the structural cul-de-sac that BEE cannot escape, as much as it tries. Starting in the 1600s, Dutch settlers introduced the notion of racialised labour exploitation through enslavement in the Cape, concentrating wealth in the hands of elite white Dutch settlers via stolen bodies and land. Soon after taking power in the 1800s, British colonists freed enslaved persons but maintained racialised exploitative labour and land appropriation practices. By the Union of South Africa in 1910, the British colonial government had implemented a series of land and labour laws that favoured the white colonial elite and disempowered black communities. So, when the National Party took over in 1948, economic policies favouring a white-controlled capitalistic system were firmly rooted in how South African culture, society and politics played out. We all know what happened after. BEE We had an opportunity to right the ship in 1994. When the ANC government signed BEE into law in 2003, it seemed like a way to reverse long-standing policies that had repeatedly pushed black communities to the back of the economic line. Yet more than 20 years later, it's largely failed to do so. When reviewing BEE from a DEI perspective, we see a number of flaws. For one, South African diversity efforts through BEE and similar policies have focused primarily on statistical representation rather than quality of opportunities and equitable chance of success. Because BEE employs 'black' to envelop every non-white person, it retains the uncomplicated notion that racial dynamics are only black versus white. It does not account for ethnic differences within that broad category of 'black.' As a result, BEE focuses on statistical representation rather than quality of opportunities and equitable chance of success, making it easy to rig for the wealthy elite. BEE may be embedded in law, but much of its practical impact has been reduced to compliance exercises, targets for black shareholding and senior appointments that can be gamed without fundamentally shifting economic ownership or decision-making power. Furthermore, like DEI in the US, BEE relies on obedience and goodwill within existing societal frameworks, making both schemes politically vulnerable from the start. DEI programmes can be undone almost overnight through presidential decree. BEE policies risk favouring the elite and leave ordinary citizens behind. Transformation failure Recent articles on issues like corruption have demonstrated just how BEE and related policies have failed to transform South African workplaces. The writers speak to a South Africa that feels trapped in a cycle of economic diversity efforts, corruption and continued entrenchment of racial and class stratification. This collapse is no accident. It reflects a deeper flaw in how both DEI and BEE were conceived: seeking justice through symbolic inclusion, not through the material realities of lived dignity. BEE was not a form of reparations; it did not redistribute land or wealth to those historically excluded. Instead, it offered a pathway for a few to ascend within systems that remained structurally unequal. Similarly, DEI diversified leadership optics without altering who controls opportunity or capital. In post-apartheid South Africa and post-civil rights America, white citizens often anchor their sense of justice in how far we've come from the horrors of apartheid and slavery. Black citizens, by contrast, anchor theirs in how far we still are from the promises of freedom — a future of dignity, opportunity and ownership. Psychologists call this 'anchoring bias', or the tendency to judge progress based on the reference point we're first given. National justice efforts will continue to rise and fall with political tides unless we re-anchor them in systems of power: ownership, education, and everyday workplace dignity, not just in how far we've come, but in how just the present truly is. Some answers The path forward will be tough, but it can be walked. First, BEE should be capped for certain business owners who meet agreed-upon high-grossing income levels. Second, all BEE candidates who reach that income level should be required by law to use x percent of that income towards uplifting the communities that they come from through scholarships and a minimum amount of start-up funding for local black businesses. As part of this scheme, the donating business would also provide mentorship to help the receiving business(es) understand how to expend that money in the most successful and equitable way possible. Finally, both black and white firms need to focus on inclusion training. All businesses have to recognise their ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic class diversity in order to create equitable workspaces and, in the process, become highly lucrative. While some businesses voluntarily participate in inclusion training, not all do, creating an unequal playing field across the country. As a result, the government could mandate cultural transformation as part of its economic policies, crafting a sound-proof solution that is resilient in the face of party politics. While legislation and policy reform are vital, they must be matched by deep culture work – in classrooms, boardrooms and leadership teams. We cannot legislate dignity into someone's daily experience without also transforming how people lead, communicate and relate to one another. That's why grassroots approaches like the Anti-Racist Hot Dog that blend storytelling, education and collective practice are so critical. These kinds of approaches work with schools and companies to turn inclusion into a lived experience — not a checkbox.
