The Democratic Alliance has launched a sharp attack on Higher Education Minister Buti Manamela, saying the portfolio has been allowed to fall into a “mess” after what the party calls politically motivated appointments to administer Sector Education and Training Authorities (Setas).
Karabo Khakhau, a DA member on Parliament’s higher education and training portfolio committee, set out the party’s grievances on the sidelines of the DA’s manifesto launch in Johannesburg on Saturday. Khakhau said some administrators appointed by the minister were politically connected African National Congress cadres who had been flagged in forensic audits.
“We don’t have leadership. The minister does not inspire confidence in anybody,”
Khakhau singled out the selection of administrators to oversee Setas — statutory bodies that oversee skills development in sectors of the economy — arguing that candidates who had been implicated in forensic investigations were being deployed as custodians to reform a sector already “riddled with corruption”. She said this pattern was not limited to higher education but reflected a broader culture of loyalty to the ANC’s national structures rather than independent stewardship of public institutions.
Cadre deployment and oversight
The DA’s complaint centres on what it describes as cadre deployment: the placement of politically aligned individuals into positions across government. Khakhau told reporters that many ministers were beholden to the ANC’s national offices at Luthuli House and therefore unable to act independently when it came to appointments and consequence management.
"The way the higher education sector is organised is that there is a very serious core of cadres that control what happens within higher education and training," she said, accusing the ANC of allowing "a culture of cadre deployment and corruption to permeate government."
- Target: Higher education and training sector, specifically Setas administrators.
- Allegation: Appointment of politically connected individuals, some referenced in forensic audit reports, to custodial roles.
- Consequence: Erosion of public confidence and weakened oversight in skills development.
Political context and consequences
The accusations from the DA come as the party seeks to position itself on governance and accountability ahead of national contests. Khakhau framed the problem as systemic, saying that ministers who prioritise party instructions from Luthuli House over independent oversight cannot be relied upon to tackle corruption.
She went further to say that meaningful reform across national and local government would require removing the ANC from power, asserting that the party’s culture would not reform itself while it remained in control of the state.
The minister’s office has not been quoted in the DA’s remarks contained in the party event coverage. The claim that specific administrators were implicated in forensic investigations is drawn from Khakhau’s remarks as reported at the manifesto event.
| Issue raised | DA claim |
|---|---|
| Appointment of Seta administrators | Politically connected cadres chosen, some flagged in forensic audits |
| Ministerial independence | Ministers beholden to Luthuli House rather than public interest |
The DA’s criticism highlights long-standing tensions over appointments to state entities. Setas manage levies and grants intended to develop skills in specific sectors; confidence in their governance is important to both employers and learners who depend on training programmes funded through those channels.
By raising the spectre of forensic audits, the DA seeks to link the minister’s personnel choices to a history of investigations into maladministration. That linkage, if substantiated, would add to public scrutiny of the minister’s stewardship of the sector and could prompt parliamentary oversight actions by the portfolio committee on higher education and training.
For now, the debate underscores two competing narratives: one from the governing party, which has defended its appointment processes as necessary to transform the state and correct historical imbalances; and one from the opposition, which frames those same processes as entrenching patronage and weakening accountability. The practical outcome will be decided in the institutions charged with oversight: Parliament’s committees, the Auditor-General and, where appropriate, law-enforcement agencies.
Those bodies will determine whether the DA’s allegations of improper appointments amount to maladministration or unlawful conduct — and whether remedial action is required to restore trust in a sector central to the country’s skills pipeline.
