Statement By : National People's Assembly For Development

                                                                                           17 sept 2025

Rebutting Misleading Claims on the Appointment of the Director-General of Social Development

In recent days, public commentary has sought to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the appointment of the Director-General (DG) of the Department of Social Development. A Daily Maverick article in particular suggested that the Minister acted outside of Cabinet processes and in defiance of governance rules. This narrative is not only misleading, it is directly contradicted by official documentation from the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) and by the provisions of the Public Service Act.

On 26 March 2025, the Minister of Public Service and Administration, issued a formal letter to the Minister of Social Development confirming that Cabinet had concurred with the appointment of the DG. The letter clearly states:

“At its meeting of 26 March 2025, Cabinet concurred with the appointment … for a term of five years … The appointment shall be with effect from a date as agreed to between yourself and the appointee.”

This official communication makes it unambiguous: the appointment was considered and approved at the highest level of government, in accordance with established Cabinet processes.

Critics have argued that the DG’s proximity to retirement age makes the five-year contract irregular. Yet Section 8(3) of the Public Service Act states that employees on contract are not regarded as permanent employees, and therefore the retirement age does not apply. Furthermore, Section 16(3) provides that a Head of Department (HOD) is deemed to retire only at the end of a contract period.

This means that the law explicitly allows for fixed-term contracts that extend beyond the retirement age, provided they are approved by the relevant authorities.

The DPSA not only concurred with the appointment but also outlined the contractual obligations, including security clearance and performance agreements, in line with the Public Service Regulations of 2016. This concurrence confirms that due process was followed and that governance requirements were met.

The Daily Maverick’s portrayal of the appointment as a unilateral act by the Minister ignores the facts. It disregards Cabinet’s role, the DPSA’s concurrence, and the clear provisions of the Public Service Act. This is not investigative journalism, it is a damage control narrative gone wrong, one that risks eroding public trust by presenting speculation as fact.

South Africans deserve accurate reporting, especially on matters of governance. Appointments at this level shape service delivery, stability, and transformation. They should be assessed on competence, compliance, and impact, not distorted by narratives that unfairly target legitimate processes.

The appointment of the DG of Social Development was lawful, transparent, and grounded in Cabinet approval, legal provisions, and DPSA oversight. To claim otherwise is to mislead the public and undermine governance institutions.

As a country, we must insist on journalism that informs rather than inflames, that reflects fact rather than fiction, and that upholds the principles of accountability and fairness for all.

By  :National People's Assembly For Development