Higher Education and Training Minister Buti Manamela.
Image: Kopano Tlape / GCIS
THE College Council of the College of Cape Town has lodged a formal complaint with the Public Protector of South Africa, alleging “irregular and unlawful” conduct by the Minister of Higher Education and Training, Kgwaridi Buti Manamela, in the appointment of an administrator to the institution.
In a letter dated March 5, 2026, addressed to the Public Protector, Council Chairperson Dr AAK King states: “This letter serves as a formal complaint on behalf of the College Council of the College of Cape Town against the Minister of Higher Education and Training.”
According to the complaint, the allegation follows the Minister’s appointment of Dr Robert Nkuna as Administrator on February 17, 2026, for a period not exceeding two years, based on a Stabilisation and Governance Support Team (SGST) report that identified multiple irregularities in governance, human resources and financial management.
The complaint cites the SGST report, which allegedly formed the basis for the Minister’s intervention, and recorded significant concerns regarding the College’s governance structures. Among the findings in the report cited: “Uncertainty regarding the Council Chairperson, whose appointment was marred by an ‘administrative glitch’ regarding a purported third term contrary to the CET Act. Despite termination by the Minister, King continued serving as Chairperson, creating risks regarding the legality of Council resolutions.”
The report also cited procurement irregularities, as the report found: “The Council is complicit in disregarding a Western Cape High Court order that set aside security tender CCT042023. The contract, invalidated in October 2024, remained in operation with potential irregular expenditure of R17 380 631.”
The report further noted conflict-of-interest management, the SGST recorded: “The son of Chairperson King, Bruce Dinwayo, was employed in the Principal’s office following an internship, with no declaration form received by the SGST. The Principal’s wife, Muswaba, was appointed under ‘dubious circumstances’ and seconded to a higher-paying role without a transparent process.”
The report described these appointments as: “Smacking of nepotism and are both legally and morally indefensible.”
The report also addressed academic governance, the SGST found: “The Academic Board’s composition was inconsistent with section 11(4) of the CET Act. Of 23 attendees at a 21 October 2025 meeting, only two were lecturers; the majority were administrators.”
The complaint states that on 16 February 2026, the Council submitted a preliminary response contesting the SGST’s methodology. It alleges the investigation was not free from bias, that not all parties had the opportunity to respond, and that findings did not meet the statutory threshold for administration.
Specifically, the complaint argues: “The Final Report made broad and sweeping allegations without attaching any evidence to support the SGST’s submissions.
“The SGST did not conduct a thorough investigation or fact-finding exercise into management disputes and appears to have focused its energies solely on the leadership and governance of the College, despite the same being a requirement under the SGST’s TORs.
“The Council in its current form was not constituted over the 2021-2024 audit period, which was highly referenced under the SGST report and over the period whereunder most of the allegations related to the SGST’s investigation occurred and cannot reasonably be accused of ‘failure to exercise the appropriate oversight’ therein.”
The complaint raises concerns about the publication of the Terms of Reference (TORs) for the SGST. While the team was appointed on October 8, 2025, the Council asserts that the final TORs were only gazetted on January 28, 2026 — two days before the SGST’s final report was released.
“What is peculiar about the TOR Gazette is that the TORs are purportedly signed and dated by the Minister on 21 October 2025; however, upon examination, it is evident that the year penned by the Minister was 2026, which was then crossed out as an unsigned change and the ‘6’ converted to a ‘5’.”
The complaint alleges: “It is evident that the TORS were signed only in 2026 and backdated by the Minister to convey the impression that due process was followed.”
According to the complaint, after receiving the SGST’s Final Report, the Minister requested the Council’s written response by 16 February 2026. Council submitted its response on time, with email confirmations of receipt at 08:11 and 10:50 on 17 February 2026.
The complaint adds that Council also served the Minister with a High Court application (Western Cape High Court Case No. 2026-037436) challenging the SGST report on the same day.
“Notwithstanding the submission of the Council and that the Minister was well aware that the Final Report of the SGST was being challenged in the WCHC, he chose to appoint an administrator pursuant to Government Gazette No. 54160 of 2026, published on 17 February 2026.”
The complaint contends the dual appointment of the Administrator to oversee both governance and management contravenes the CET Act: “Whereas Section 46(4) of the CET Act does not permit the administrator to take over Council and Management in order to ensure that there is separation of function, that has to retain accountability.
“In the regime now created by the Minister, the Administrator will not be accountable to anybody but the Minister who has appointed him on both the functions of the Council and the Management of the College, when the law is clear that only one of the functions can be placed under administration, not both.”
The complaint highlights that both the TORs and Administrator notices were published as “Extraordinary Gazettes”, which require submission before 10am on the publication date.
“It is improbable that the Minister was able to consider the substantial submissions by the Council, and submit the publication on the basis of an ‘Extraordinary Gazette’ on the same day, considering the 10am cut-off time.”
The complaint alleges: “The Minister's office claims that he considered the Council's submission under the notification letter was an outright lie, to make it appear as though due process was followed.
“If established that the decision was preconceived before the submissions of the council or the consideration thereof, the Minster’s decision therein is a nullity.”
The complaint outlines the harm caused by the Minister's actions: “The College has more than 10 000 students enrolled across eight campuses who have just started the 2026 academic year. Despite the issues which exist, the College remains one of the best performing TVET Colleges in the country, even by the Minister's admission.”
Yet, the complaint warns: “The College, however, faces an immediate and existential threat through the appointment of the administrator who has been appointed in a manner which is simply not permissible under the CET Act.”
The complaint raises specific concerns about the appointed Administrator include:
The complaint states regarding Council members — described as “doctors, academics and highly respected individuals in their respective fields”:
The complaint concludes with a direct request to the Public Protector: “I herein request that the Public Protector investigate this matter and ensure that the appropriate legal proceedings are instituted against all parties implicated.”
Efforts to get comments from the Department of Higher Education and Training drew a blank.