Students experience governance through the payment of allowances, the confirmation of tuition funding, the availability of accommodation and the certainty that their studies will not be disrupted, says the writer.
Image: Ayanda Ndamane / Independent Newspapers
By Nqobani Mzizi
As I mark one year of writing this column, and my 50th article, I find myself reflecting on how often governance questions emerge from moments of institutional tension. The question is seldom confined to the institution concerned. It often speaks to the deeper condition of governance itself. The recent developments at the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) provide such a moment.
Reported resignations of board members, questions about the governing body’s ability to function, tensions around the appointment of a CEO and concerns about institutional stability have placed NSFAS under public scrutiny. The facts, motivations and interpretations may continue to be debated by Parliament and the relevant oversight structures.
The governance lessons are already visible.
NSFAS is not an ordinary institution. It sits at the centre of one of the most important social commitments in democratic South Africa: widening access to higher education for students who may otherwise be excluded by financial circumstances. Its work touches students, families, universities, colleges, accommodation providers, service providers and the fiscus. When governance uncertainty emerges in such an institution, the risk is felt through delayed certainty, weakened confidence, and anxiety among those who depend on the system.
This is why governance in public institutions carries a particular weight. Structures matter, and so does trust.
At the centre of the current debate is the appointment of a CEO. In governance terms, this is one of the most consequential decisions a board can make. The chief executive is entrusted with translating strategy into execution, building organisational capability and ensuring that institutional purpose is carried through daily operations. In complex entities, particularly those administering billions of rand and serving vulnerable beneficiaries, the appointment carries strategic, operational and ethical significance.
A CEO appointment should therefore be governed by process, criteria and institutional interest, providing the discipline within which board judgement must be exercised.
When such a decision becomes contested, the question extends beyond the preferred candidate. It becomes a test of whether the governance process can hold under pressure, whether disagreement can be managed within structures, whether members can differ strongly while preserving the authority of the institution and whether those charged with governance can keep purpose above preference.
Boards exist to contain disagreement responsibly. Disagreement can strengthen governance when it is anchored in evidence, process and good faith. A board that never disagrees may appear compliant while remaining weak in judgement. The difficulty arises when disagreement begins to threaten institutional cohesion. At that point, governance must do more than record votes. It must protect continuity, legitimacy and confidence.
The NSFAS situation also brings into focus the delicate relationship between board authority and ministerial oversight. Public entities operate within a layered accountability environment. Boards are charged with governing the entity, exercising fiduciary responsibility and making decisions within their statutory mandate. Executive authorities carry oversight responsibilities, policy interests and accountability to Parliament and the public.
Both roles matter.
The strength of the system depends on clarity, restraint and respect for lawful boundaries. A weakened board's role can destabilise the entity. Perceived overreach can affect confidence in the process. Deteriorating communication between the board and political principals can turn governance into a contest that distracts from institutional purpose.
This is one of the harder governance tensions in public entities. The executive authority has a legitimate interest in the performance and stability of the institution. The board has a duty to act independently and collectively in the best interests of the entity. These duties should reinforce each other, as the institution becomes vulnerable when they appear to compete.
Board composition and quorum raise another important lesson. A board may technically meet quorum requirements and still face questions of confidence, cohesion and continuity. Legal functionality matters, and governance effectiveness requires sufficient continuity to deliberate, exercise judgement and maintain stakeholder confidence.
Resignations, especially in moments of institutional tension, carry consequences beyond the number of seats vacated. They create questions about why members leave, whether internal processes are under strain and whether the remaining board can continue with the necessary authority and legitimacy. These questions may not always have simple answers, but they must be taken seriously.
In institutions such as NSFAS, continuity is not an administrative preference. It is a governance necessity.
Students experience governance through the payment of allowances, the confirmation of tuition funding, the availability of accommodation and the certainty that their studies will not be disrupted. Universities and colleges experience it through planning, cash flow and administrative coordination. Families experience it through hope, anxiety and dependence on a system that must work.
This is where governance becomes deeply human.
A board dispute may occur in meeting rooms, correspondence and legal interpretations. Its consequences can travel far beyond those spaces. When institutional uncertainty grows, those furthest from the source of the dispute often carry the heaviest burden. This is why public-interest governance requires constant awareness of beneficiaries.
The reported concerns around acting leadership, system weaknesses and possible irregular payments illustrate a further dimension of governance instability: one that often sits alongside operational strain, control weaknesses and unresolved institutional design problems. Extended acting arrangements can blur accountability, fragmented systems can make errors and abuse harder to detect, and unstable oversight can weaken the momentum required for corrective action.
By the time a crisis becomes visible, the organisation may appear suddenly unstable, although the foundations had been weakening over time.
This is why boards must pay attention to early signals and interpret them before they harden into a crisis. Unresolved vacancies, repeated acting appointments, delays in key decisions, board resignations, disputes over authority and weak systems may each be explained individually. Taken together, they may reveal a deeper governance condition.
The NSFAS matter also reminds us that governance is tested most severely when authority becomes contested. Fiduciary duty, independence and oversight are easier to affirm when structures are calm. The real test comes when pressure rises, interests diverge and decisions carry political, financial and social weight.
In those moments, governance requires discipline. Members must distinguish between personal preference and institutional interest. Executive authorities must exercise oversight in a manner that strengthens confidence. Boards must protect process without becoming defensive. All parties must remember that public institutions exist for a purpose larger than those who occupy positions within them.
The broader lesson for boards is therefore significant.
Governance is tested by more than corruption, financial collapse or regulatory failure. Authority exercised under pressure, appointments made under scrutiny, disagreements handled within process, oversight experienced as lawful restraint and continuity protected during instability all reveal the quality of governance.
Public trust depends on more than the formal existence of governance structures. It depends on whether those structures can function when they are most needed.
Boards should therefore ask themselves difficult questions before instability takes hold:
The NSFAS developments should not only concern those involved in higher education. They should concern anyone interested in public-sector governance, institutional resilience, and the protection of social purpose.
When governance becomes contested, the institution must not become secondary. The ultimate test of governance is whether authority, oversight and accountability can operate together in service of the purpose for which the institution exists. For institutions entrusted with public resources and public hope, governance cannot be allowed to drift into contest without discipline. Stability is not a luxury. It is part of the mandate.
Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), Cert.Dir (IoDSA) and an Academic.
Image: Supplied
* Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), Cert.Dir (IoDSA) and an Academic.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
BUSINESS REPORT