Labour court to deliberate over National Skills Fund CEO appointment controversy

Higher education minister Buti Manamela has yet another day in court on Thursday as he faces off with Dr Khathutshelo Innocent Sirovha over the controversial re-advertisement of a National Skills Fund (NSF) post he had already been tipped for.

The initial urgent application at the Johannesburg high court was referred to the labour court earlier this month.

The labour court will deliberate over Sirovha’s application to interdict Manamela from taking any steps to re-advertise the NSF CEO position, as well as to prohibit the submission, preparation or processing of any document to facilitate the re-advertisement.

This follows the minister’s decision to re-advertise the position, even though Sirovha was recommended after a recruitment process was completed.

In February 2025, the NSF called for applications to find an executive authority to preside over the embattled institution charged with upskilling unemployed and destitute young people.

Notably, Manamela, then a deputy minister of the same sector, was invited by the director-general to participate in the inter-ministerial committee which oversaw the recruitment process, alongside others in cabinet.

On conclusion of the process, former higher education minister Nobuhle Nkabane wrote to her cabinet colleague and public service minister Mzamo Buthelezi announcing Sirovha as the successful candidate.

“A selection committee conducted interviews with all the shortlisted candidates. After thorough consideration of the candidature of the shortlisted individuals against particular requirements and circumstances of the post, Dr KI Sirovha was found to be the most suitable candidate for the post,” read a memo written in July 2025 by Nkabane.

The director-general’s task is to appoint one candidate and the concurrence process is concerned with that one appointment. Only one name was ever going to be, and was, forwarded for concurrence.—  Dr Khatutshelo Sirovha’s team

However, Manamela stopped the process in its tracks shortly after he took over as minister, when he ordered the re-advertisement of the post, despite the candidate already having been recruited, recommended and selected for appointment.

In his legal bid, Sirovha cites section 29(1)(d) of the Skills Development Act, which bestows the power to appoint the CEO in the hands of the director-general of the department.

“It places the powers in him and him alone. That is the empowering provision and it is decisive. The minister is named nowhere in that provision, whether as an appointing authority, a concurring authority, an approving authority or a reviewing authority. He is not named at all.”

Despite this, Manamela is reported to have questioned why only one name was put forward, resulting in his alleged interrogation as to why others were not recommended and in the subsequent call to re-advertise.

Sirovha’s legal team argue that through his actions, the minister misunderstood the process.

“The director-general’s task is to appoint one candidate and the concurrence process is concerned with that one appointment. Only one name was ever going to be, and was, forwarded for concurrence.

“There was no occasion for the comparative ranking of unsuccessful candidates to be placed before the minister or cabinet because concurrence attaches to the single recommended appointee, not to a competition between candidates,” Sirovha’s team said.

His legal representatives further stated that there were records of the recruitment process which proved that Sirovha was found to be the most suitable candidate.

Sirovha claims he was even called to a meeting by the director-general where he was congratulated on the appointment and advised to familiarise himself with the affairs of the fund, including previous audit findings.

He was also told to present himself for fingerprints for the finalisation of the appointment.

However, in May, the acting deputy director-general responsible for corporate services told Sirovha that the minister had recommended that the process be started afresh.

Manamela’s alleged reason was that there was missing information.

Sirovha, in his papers, contests this, arguing that Manamela’s stated reason differed from the reasons subsequently advanced in a formal directive issued in June when the chaos began.

“As of May 2026, I was informed only of a recommendation that the process commence afresh. I was not informed and did not know that any decision had in fact been taken.”

When questioned in parliament, the minister acknowledged publicly that interviews had been conducted for the post, with a submission made to department of public service and administration (DPSA) and that it had been returned owing to missing information which had since surfaced and that the matter was being finalised so it could return to DPSA and thereafter to cabinet for an appointment.

“This public acknowledgement, made less than two months before the directive, is directly inconsistent with the minister’s subsequent characterisation of the process as so fundamentally compromised that it had to be abandoned and recommenced.”

Sirovha said he believes that the minister seeks to undo his completed appointment and to throw the post open.