Pressure mounts over parliamentary vetting after Yoliswa Makhasi’s appointment

Parliament is reviewing concerns over its vetting processes after appointing former public service director-general Yoliswa Makhasi, despite a record of union complaints alleging governance failures, staff intimidation and irregular appointments during her time in government.

The pressure is reflected in internal correspondence seen by the Mail & Guardian, which shows parliament is engaging with concerns about whether Makhasi’s track record was properly assessed before her appointment to the office of the secretary to parliament, led by Xolile George.

Parliament’s human capital executive, Duke Mgaga, confirmed that the concerns were under consideration.

“Please be assured that the matter you have raised is receiving attention. The concerns outlined, including those relating to vetting processes and the information submitted, are being duly considered,” said Mgaga, adding that “further communication will be provided in due course, where necessary”.

National assembly speaker Thoko Didiza also acknowledged the concerns and requested further information.

“I have noted the allegations presented, even if not enough evidence has been provided,” Didiza said. “We will appreciate that the organisation concerned furnish to our HR [human resources] offices relevant documentation based on the allegations. We further request a contact person in order to engage with the said representative of the organisation on this matter.”

The documents show that the National Education, Health and Allied Workers’ Union (Nehawu) raised concerns with the government over several years regarding appointments, labour relations and management practices in departments where Makhasi held senior roles.

In a letter dated 18 July 2018, Nehawu said it welcomed a review of appointments in the public service but raised concerns about its scope. “There have been numerous complaints about irregular appointments and grievances dating from 2013 to date. Most of these grievances have not been resolved,” the union said.

In a follow-up letter dated 3 August 2018, the union called for the review process to be halted pending engagement with the minister.

“We therefore request that the process be put on hold until the minister has engaged with Nehawu on the issues raised,” the union said, adding that it sought observer status in the process and the recusal of two members of the review team.

In a letter dated 25 November 2021 to then-minister Ayanda Dlodlo, Nehawu raised concerns about conditions within the department of public service and administration (DPSA).

“The department has become weak and has lost direction,” the union said. It further alleged “an autocratic style of management”, “bullying of staff”, “irregular appointments” and “victimisation of union leaders” and called for the suspension of the director-general pending an investigation.

In another letter, dated 25 January 2022, Nehawu objected to the suspension of its branch secretary, Rhulani Manganye, who it argued was suspended after raising concerns about recruitment processes, working conditions and occupational health and safety issues, including those linked to Covid-19.

The concerns raised with parliament also refer to matters previously reported in the public domain, among them media reports and a labour court process.

Correspondence to parliament raises questions about whether vetting, due diligence and risk assessments were conducted before Makhasi’s appointment and whether prior complaints and submissions were considered during the process.

The correspondence calls for an investigation into the circumstances of the appointment and a review of vetting procedures for senior administrative positions.

Makhasi previously served as director-general of the DPSA, a department responsible for norms and standards across the public service.

During her tenure, Nehawu and other organised labour bodies raised their concerns. Makhasi has previously denied wrongdoing.

The matters raised remain subject to verification and due process and no findings have been made against Makhasi in relation to the concerns.

At the time of publication, parliament had not provided further details on Makhasi’s role in the office of the secretary to parliament or the vetting process followed in her appointment.

Makhasi had not responded to requests for comment.