NYDA audit only starts tomorrow, four months after whistleblower complaints
Parliament's women, youth and disabilities committee heard the forensic team was appointed on 2 October and meets for the first time on 16 October, while the NYDA's annual report is still not tabled.
The forensic investigation into the National Youth Development Agency has not yet begun. Parliament’s portfolio committee on women, youth and persons with disabilities heard on Thursday that the service provider, Shivani Risk Advisory and Forensic Services, was appointed on 2 October 2026, that a first meeting set for 9 October was postponed, and that the first meeting is now scheduled for 16 October. The appointment runs for four months.
The committee met to adopt its budget review report, following engagements with the Commission for Gender Equality on 8 October and the department on 12 October. It was furnished with 19 documents overnight, including the terms of reference for the NYDA investigation, and members will read them over the constituency period. The chair said the committee will then call the Auditor-General, the NYDA and the department to discuss the audit.
According to the terms of reference presented to the committee, the investigation must determine whether the allegations are substantiated, partly substantiated or unsubstantiated, identify possible fraud, corruption, financial misconduct, maladministration, lack of oversight and unethical conduct, assess compliance with legislative requirements and recommend corrective action. It covers governance, supply chain, financial management, human resources, sexual harassment in the workplace and whistleblower protection. Deliverables include an inception report within ten days, an investigation plan, bi-weekly progress reports, an interim report, a final forensic report and disciplinary, civil and criminal referral recommendations.
The NYDA’s annual report has not been tabled. The minister wrote to the Speaker on 27 September giving reasons for the delay, and the letter was referred to the Speaker and noted on 1 October. A second letter, dated 13 October, corrects the department’s annual report: one additional target was not achieved, so the department met 43 of 56 targets, or 77%, rather than the 79% first reported. The committee noted the error, the multiple versions of the report and the late addendum, and said the quality of the department’s annual report is poor, with tables misaligned and figures in the wrong places.
The committee recorded that the department spent 99.4% of its allocated budget, with an under-expenditure of about R7.5 million, and that the trend continued into the first quarter of the new financial year. The department moved from a clean audit to an unqualified audit, and the committee questioned the reliability of reported performance information, citing weaknesses the Auditor-General identified in performance information controls and a lack of supporting evidence for some reported achievements.
The committee also raised the department’s reliance on consultants: 116 consultants on 16 projects for R3 million in the year under review, against 114 consultants on 64 projects for R5.7 million the year before. It said the department should not outsource the performance review of its own staff. On senior management pay progression, the department supplied a schedule showing 30 senior managers at levels 13 to 16 received notch increases totalling just over R1 million, with the top three payments at R100,000, R67,000 and R28,000, some of it back pay. The committee asked how rewards were justified given the department’s regression and the fiscal constraints.
On the Commission for Gender Equality, the committee noted that it tabled on time and achieved 20 of 27 targets, but that the Auditor-General raised concerns about the credibility of its information. The CGE received an allocation of R97.5 million, which rose to R98.52 million with revenue received, and overspent by R5.53 million.
The committee flagged the slow pace of the Bills before the department, including the Disability Bill, and said it has not been furnished with the reviewed national gender policy framework despite a review being reported in the previous financial year. It also noted a pending court case brought by Wise for Africa and asked what the implications are.
The committee’s programme will be amended when members return after the constituency period and the elections. A special meeting is planned with the National Council on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide, with the committee’s legal advisers invited, to consider the court challenge.
The committee adopted its budget review report after making corrections, including replacing a line stating the department is doing well in implementing the Auditor-General’s recommendations, which the chair said was not factual given the audit regression. The full proceedings are published by Parliament of South Africa (YouTube) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgm24hscUk8.
