On Friday, 14 August 2026, the High Court in Pretoria delivered a blow to the Higher Education and Training Minister Buti Manamela, suspending his appointment of Professor Hlengani Mathebula as administrator of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), and reinstating the board.
This comes after the NSFAS board dragged Manamela to court over his decision to dissolve the board, place the scheme under administration on 4 May and appoint Mathebula under section 17A(1)(b) of the NSFAS Act. In his three-month tenure, Mathebula has been embroiled in scandal involving expensive hotel bookings and adviser appointments and faced scrutiny in Parliament.
In his judgment, Judge Labuschagne ordered the immediate reinstatement of the remaining seven NSFAS board members to govern the R54-billion scheme, pending the final review of the case later this year.
“The appointment of the second respondent [Mathebula] as administrator of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) in terms of section 17A(1)(b) of Act 56 of 1999 (the “Act”) by the first respondent on 4 May 2026 is suspended pending finalisation of Part B,” said Labuschagne.
Judge Labuschagne made findings regarding both the procedural rationality of the minister’s decision and the suitability of Prof Mathebula to oversee tens of billions in public funds.
Addressing the minister’s failure to consult the board on whom would be appointed, the court stated: “As the appointment of this particular administrator was a foreseeable controversy, due to the adverse findings by the Nugent Commission, I find that the duty to consult with the board did, on these facts and in this instance, require the identity of the administrator to be disclosed for purposes of consultation.”
He continued: “To place an administrator in charge of the NSFAS whose response to corruption is questionable, and who has a poor track record in a position of trust at SARS [South African Revenue Service], does not augur well. It cannot be in the interests of NSFAS to be governed by such an administrator,” said Labuschagne.
Daily Maverick reported that in 2019, Mathebula was placed on precautionary suspension by SARS and later parted ways with the tax revenue collector.
Background events in Manamela’s defence
The Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) had argued that the drastic intervention was essential to protect a crucial national asset that funds more than 800,000 students.
According to court filings, the minister pointed to an escalating series of red flags, including an opinion disclaimer issued by the Auditor-General for the 2024/2025 financial year, which identified nine material irregularities. In addition, the minister highlighted a wave of high-level exits between August 2025 and April 2026, including the resignations of key financial experts, the board chairperson and the acting chairperson, leaving the board drastically depleted.
Manamela contended that the remaining seven members no longer complied with the statutory composition requirements of the Act, and argued that individual board consultation was the only practical approach given the lack of a board chairperson to officially convene meetings.
When Manamela appeared at the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education on 29 May, he said: “I must indicate that this was not a political fight with the board, but it was a legal governance intervention which was intended to protect the NSFAS and students.”
NSFAS board fights back
The applicants in the court case – the remaining NFAS board members – presented a starkly different account, asserting that the minister lacked the statutory grounds to dissolve the board under section 17A. In their court affidavit, they stated: “Your [Manamela] notice makes no allegation that the board, or any of its remaining members, have engaged in financial or other maladministration, or have acted to undermine the functioning of NSFAS… In the absence of any conduct attributable to the board that meets the threshold in section 17A(1)(b), the jurisdictional facts required for the appointment of an administrator are absent.”
When Manamela dissolved the board in April, they had already finalised the process to appoint former acting CEO and now CFO, Waseem Carrim, as the permanent head of the scheme. The board claimed that Manamela acted with an ulterior motive to block the board from appointing a permanent CEO.
When the board appeared in Parliament on 29 May, board member Advocate Richardt Ramashia said the minister gave them an unlawful instruction to halt the appointment process.
“It is true that on arrival, our cellphones were taken, stored in different white, not brown, envelopes, all of us who came. There was no formal agenda to that meeting. In fact, there was no agenda,” said Ramashia. He continued that the appointed Services Seta administrator, Lehlogonolo Masoga, called him and said: “ The minister, that’s the minister responsible for higher education and training, was not comfortable with the trajectory we’re taking as the board in relation to a candidate that would potentially be appointed as the CEO.”
In the court’s judgment, the board also said the minister gave individual board members a mere 48-hour deadline to respond to the proposed administration notice, refusing requests for an oral hearing or a group meeting. The board raised serious objections to Prof Mathebula’s background, citing damning findings from the Nugent Commission of Inquiry into SARS.
Advisers, remuneration, Parliament
As Mathebula is suspended, public funds have been splashed on hotel stays, with double bookings that could result in fruitless expenditure. In addition, four advisers to Mathebula were paid close to R500,000. On 13 August, MPs also grilled Manamela and Mathebula over their conduct relating to the scheme.
The court’s ruling immediately reinstates the NSFAS board, returning governance authority to the remaining seven members, with review proceedings (Part B) set to be heard on an expedited basis before the end of November 2026. DM
Comments
Scroll down to load comments...
Facts Only
* On August 14, 2026, the High Court in Pretoria delivered a ruling.
* The court suspended the appointment of Professor Hlengani Mathebula as administrator of the NSFAS and reinstated the board.
* The suspension followed a dispute over the Minister's decision to dissolve the board, place NSFAS under administration on May 4, 2026, and appoint Mathebula under section 17A(1)(b) of the NSFAS Act.
* Judge Labuschagne ordered the immediate reinstatement of the seven remaining NSFAS board members to govern the R54-billion scheme pending final review in 2026.
* The court suspended Mathebula’s appointment pending finalization of Part B.
* The judge made findings on the procedural rationality of the Minister's decision and Prof Mathebula's suitability.
* The court stated that due to adverse Nugent Commission findings, disclosure of the administrator's identity was required for consultation.
* The court found that appointing an administrator with questionable responses to corruption and a poor track record at SARS does not augur well for NSFAS.
* Mathebula faced scrutiny in Parliament regarding hotel bookings and adviser appointments during his tenure.
* Mathebula was placed on precautionary suspension by SARS in 2019 and subsequently parted ways with the tax revenue collector.
* The board alleged the Minister acted with an ulterior motive to block the appointment of a permanent CEO.
Executive Summary
The High Court in Pretoria suspended the appointment of Professor Hlengani Mathebula as administrator of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) and reinstated the board on August 14, 2026. This decision followed a dispute initiated by the NSFAS board regarding the Minister's actions to dissolve the board and place the scheme under administration on May 4, 2026, and subsequently appoint Mathebula under section 17A(1)(b) of the NSFAS Act.
Judge Labuschagne suspended Mathebula's appointment pending the finalization of Part B of the case. The judgment addressed both the procedural rationality of the Minister's decision and the suitability of Mathebula to oversee public funds. The court noted that because the appointment was a foreseeable controversy due to adverse findings from the Nugent Commission, the duty to consult with the board required disclosing the administrator's identity for consultation purposes.
The court found that appointing an administrator with questionable responses to corruption and a poor track record at SARS was not in the interests of NSFAS. The ruling immediately reinstated the seven remaining board members to govern the scheme. The judgment also noted that the Minister provided individuals with a short deadline to respond, refusing requests for oral hearings or group meetings, while the board raised objections regarding Mathebula’s background, citing the Nugent Commission findings.
Full Take
The unfolding events reveal a tension between executive action aimed at governance control and the procedural rights of the oversight body, which ultimately led to a judicial intervention based on perceived suitability. The conflict is not merely about who should administer funds, but about the legitimacy of administrative procedure when high-level decisions are made under pressure. The court’s emphasis on incorporating external findings, such as those from the Nugent Commission, into the consultation process suggests a paradigm shift where internal governance mechanisms must be rigorously vetted against external accountability markers before authority can be exercised over public assets.
The narrative oscillates between the government's assertion of protecting a national asset and the board's claim that statutory grounds for intervention were absent. This highlights a structural pattern where political motivations—whether aimed at executive control or procedural fairness—compete for dominance in legal adjudication. The fact that concerns regarding external impropriety (SARS history) became central to the judiciary's view of suitability indicates that institutional trust is no longer an abstract concept but a quantifiable factor in administrative oversight.
This situation raises questions about the systemic resilience of public financial management when internal dynamics clash with mandated procedures. If administrative appointments are subject to immediate judicial review based on contextual factors, it implies that decisions affecting vast sums of public money require a foundation of demonstrable integrity beyond mere procedural compliance. What is the long-term effect of prioritizing an expedited review versus fully exhausting deliberative processes in high-stakes financial governance?
Sentinel — Human
This analysis presents a complex legal dispute with competing narratives, strongly indicative of human reporting synthesizing adversarial court documents rather than synthetic generation.