Ramusi’s Bonus Betrayal: Icasa staff pay for council’s failures
Corporate Governance
Icasa staff strongly expressed dissatisfaction with the decision made by the Icasa Council to withhold performance bonuses for the 2023/24 financial year.
Image: Supplied
IN an unprecedented internal revolt, 70 senior Icasa managers have condemned chairperson Mothibi Ramusi for what they describe as a “blatant disregard” of legal obligations, institutional policy, and basic fairness, accusing him of scapegoating staff for the council’s own failures in a bitter dispute over non-payment of performance rewards for the 2023/24 financial year.
This publication has had sight of two explosive internal documents — a letter from Ramusi to Nehawu and a 13-page memorandum signed by Icasa’s senior staff — that lay bare a deep institutional crisis at South Africa’s communications regulator.
At the heart of the dispute is the Council’s decision not to pay performance bonuses for 2023/24, despite the organisation having met most of its targets. In his letter to Nehawu National Organiser Ryan Motau, Ramusi curtly reaffirmed Council’s stance, stating: “Council has considered the contents of your letter. Kindly be advised that the previously communicated Council decision not to approve the payment of performance rewards for the 2023/24 financial year remains unchanged.”
Nehawu said it had exhausted all internal processes and eventually turned to the CCMA after Ramusi dismissed the bonus claims in a letter, also seen by the Sunday Independent. “The matter is at CCMA now,” a union spokesperson said, highlighting the protracted engagement. “We have been engaging the employer for the past 14 months… The rejection by Ramusi shows the arrogance, hence the referral to the CCMA. He does not appreciate the fact that we have been engaging them for 14 months; it’s arrogance of core that must be challenged.”
After this 14-month negotiation deadlock, the union also slammed Icasa senior management, describing their actions as “arrogant”. The Nehawu has referred the dispute to the CCMA after its demands were formally rejected.
When contacted for comment, Ramusi acknowledged receipt of our questions; however, Icasa gave a written response. Icasa said the decision to withhold performance bonuses for the 2023/24 financial year was made after careful consideration of a range of factors beyond the 87.5% organisational performance achievement, which, while consistent with the prior year’s score, does not tell the full story.
“Council emphasised that financial sustainability, governance obligations, and the broader operational context played a significant role in its deliberations. Although reduced bonuses were approved in 2022/23 under different circumstances, the two performance years are not directly comparable due to shifting priorities and environmental challenges. Council acted within its statutory discretion under the Performance Management Policy to arrive at its final determination.”
Icasa said it retained the statutory responsibility to evaluate all inputs and make a final, independent determination based on the totality of the evidence, including performance outcomes and organisational considerations.
According to Icasa’s 2023/24 Annual Report, the regulator achieved 87.5% of its organisational targets — just 3.5 percentage points short of the 91% benchmark. Crucially, the memorandum reveals this shortfall was not caused by staff underperformance.
“The reality is that ordinary staff members do not have control over supply chain-related matters… Council and EXCO should tackle [these issues] separately instead of tackling it through the non-payment of performance bonuses to the prejudice of ordinary staff members,” the memo stated.
For years, the Council approved reduced bonuses despite never meeting the 91% target. In 2022/23 — when performance was also 87.5% — Council approved bonuses with a 3.5% reduction, explicitly “to align rewards with performance and ensure fairness”.
“Council seems to have dispensed with the principle of fairness and rationality… It begs the question: Why now? Why the decision, so belated, not to pay anymore?” the memo states.
Bonuses for 2023/24 were due by September 1, 2024, per Icasa’s Performance Management Policy. Yet Council delayed its decision until November 2025, 14 months late, creating legitimate expectations among staff that payment would follow historical precedent.
The memo highlights that Ramusi’s Council ignored binding recommendations from both the Remuneration Committee (Remco) and the chief executive, bodies mandated under Sections 17(1) and 14(1)(a) of the ICASA Act to advise Council on precisely these matters. “Council decided not to exercise its discretion… [and] blatantly ignoring the recommendations of Remco and the CEO,” the memo reads.
This, staff argued, violated the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (Paja), which requires administrative decisions that “materially and adversely affect the rights or legitimate expectations of any person” to be procedurally fair, a standard Ramusi’s Council failed to meet.
The memorandum accuses the Council of showing “lack of appreciation” for staff who “sacrificed time with their families” to attend after-hours meetings called by councillors, and delivered 100% performance in many units. “The decision taken by Council nullifies such [efforts]… High-performers… are discouraged since they would not understand what more was required.”
In a historic move, the 68 signatories — ranging from directors to specialists — announced they will:
- Support Nehawu legally to have the Council’s decision “reviewed and set aside”;
- Join Nehawu themselves, citing “no proper representation in management”;
- Withdraw from the Management Forum, declaring it “does not exist and has never been recognised or considered by the Executive and Council.”
Section 4(5) of the Icasa Act tasks the chairperson with providing “overall leadership to the Council” and managing councillors’ activities. Yet, according to internal records, councillors’ unavailability — often due to international travel — directly caused project delays that derailed performance targets.
The memo warns the decision will trigger “diminished staff morale”, “increased staff turnover”, and a “destroyed” working environment, jeopardising Icasa’s ability to function as an effective regulator during a critical phase of digital migration and spectrum reform.
Concerning the missed performance targets, including in spectrum planning, Icasa disputed the suggestion that these were caused by councillors’ international travel. The regulator pointed out that such travel is not discretionary but mandated under Sections 3(1)(c), 3(2), and 34 of the Electronic Communications Act, as it ensures South Africa’s active participation in critical global regulatory and standards-setting forums.
"Moreover, Icasa operates through structured teams, delegated authority, and continuity mechanisms designed to maintain progress on core deliverables regardless of individual availability."
When asked if it supported allegations that Icasa Council's international activities represented self-enrichment, depriving staff of rewards, Nehawu kept its focus on member dues. "Our focus is the performance appraisals due to our members, which they deserve," the union responded, "and the fruitless expenditure is something that must not cloud the fair demands of members."
On the potential for strike action after a recent deadline, the union provided an update on member mobilization. "Members have not balloted," the representative said, "and we will soon be having a meeting with members to give an update."
Nehawu also framed the lengthy delay as a clear violation of both internal policy and administrative justice. “The delays in implementing these payments due to our members constitute a gross violation of the Performance Management Policy and Remuneration policies, respectively,” the union said. “In our view this is unfair to members who had worked very hard to ensure that service is rendered. It can never be justifiable that those who are at the coalface of service delivery are subjected to such a treatment by a so-called caring employer.”
Outlining its intended remedy as the dispute proceeds, Nehawu confirmed its legal path and objective. “The matter is at CCMA now,” the representative reiterated, “and we want both financial years paid urgently”