South Africa's Board Dissolution Epidemic: A Symptom of Deeper Governance Malaise

IOL News

17-07-2025

Board dissolutions are symptoms, not solutions. Without fundamental reforms to how we select, oversee, and hold accountable both board members and their political principals, South Africa's governance crisis will only deepen.
South Africa's public institutions are haemorrhaging credibility as ministers wield the dissolution axe with alarming frequency.
From Transport Minister Barbara Creecy's dissolution of the Road Accident Fund board amid "governance and operational issues" to Higher Education Minister Blade Nzimande's dramatic dismantling of the NSFAS board over chronic payment failures, the pattern is unmistakable: our state-owned entities are failing spectacularly.
The sheer volume of board dissolutions reads like a governance disaster checklist. Basketball SA faced dissolution calls after nearly bungling the U18 African Championships, with R5-million in liabilities against just R36 000 in the bank.
Sports Minister Gayton McKenzie dissolved the boxing board, creating what observers called "a vacuum" in the sport. The list extends to SA Tourism, multiple Gauteng provincial boards, and the perpetually troubled PRASA.
This is not accountability; it is crisis management masquerading as decisive action. When dissolution becomes the default response to institutional failure, it signals a fundamental breakdown in governance oversight. Nzimande's dissolution of the NSFAS board epitomises the deeper malaise.
The minister cited the board's inability to implement basic recommendations, failure to submit correct annual reports, and, most damningly, consistent inability to pay student allowances on time.
The South African Union of Students called the dissolution "long overdue," describing NSFAS leadership as "some of the most inept and useless people to ever live". Yet where was ministerial oversight when these failures were festering? When opposition parties called for Nzimande's resignation, he defiantly declared: "I will not resign, I am not appointed by them". This encapsulates the accountability deficit plaguing our system.
These dissolutions reveal a troubling power dynamic where ministers dissolve boards but rarely face consequences for their oversight failures. With South Africa's Government of National Unity under strain and voter turnout declining from 89% in 1999 to 58% in 2024, public faith in governance institutions is eroding. The question isn't whether these boards deserved dissolution- many did.
The question is why they were allowed to fail so catastrophically under ministerial watch. When the Road Accident Fund board was dissolved, why wasn't the transport minister held accountable for allowing "governance and operational issues" to fester?
When NSFAS chronically failed to pay student allowances, leaving thousands stranded, why did Minister Nzimande escape censure while his board faced the axe?
The pattern suggests that board members serve as convenient scapegoats for broader systemic failures. Ministers appoint boards based on political aspirations rather than competence, provide minimal oversight, and then dissolve them when public pressure mounts. This creates a perverse incentive structure where political principals escape accountability while appointed boards bear the consequences of institutional collapse.
The dissolution epidemic reflects not decisive leadership but a fundamental abdication of ministerial responsibility.
Consider the audacity: ministers who failed to prevent these institutional meltdowns position themselves as the solution through dissolution, while the very cadre deployment system that created these failures remains untouched and ready to produce the next wave of incompetent appointees.
Furthermore, these dissolutions disrupt institutional memory and continuity. When boards are repeatedly dissolved and reconstituted, organisations lose valuable experience and knowledge. The perpetual cycle of destruction and rebuilding wastes resources and undermines long-term strategic planning. Citizens suffer as essential services deteriorate while institutions lurch from crisis to crisis.
The cost of this governance failure is measured not just in financial terms but in the erosion of public trust and institutional effectiveness. Each dissolution announcement becomes a damning indictment of the minister's failure to govern, yet mysteriously transforms into evidence of their decisive action, a grotesque inversion of accountability that would be laughable if the consequences were not so devastating for ordinary South Africans.
South Africa needs board appointments based on competence, not political will. We need ministers who provide proactive oversight rather than reactive dissolutions. Most critically, we need consequences for political principals who preside over institutional collapse.
Until we address the systemic governance failures that necessitate these dissolutions, we will continue this expensive cycle of institutional destruction and rebuilding, while citizens suffer the consequences of perpetual state failure.
Board dissolutions are symptoms, not solutions. Without fundamental reforms to how we select, oversee, and hold accountable both board members and their political principals, South Africa's governance crisis will only deepen.