IN CONVERSATION WITH GREY MAFUMBU

The Creative Passport Interviews Grey Zionlion Mafumbu

The Creative Passport sits down with Grey Zionlion Mafumbu, an outspoken advocate for Township and Rural Creatives, for a wide-ranging conversation about the state of South Africa’s arts, culture and creative industries.

In the interview, Mafumbu reflects on the persistent exclusion of township and rural creatives from funding, infrastructure, opportunities and decision-making structures, arguing for greater dignity, economic justice, ownership and representation for artists from these communities.

The conversation also tackles some of the most pressing institutional and policy issues facing the sector, including the performance of Minister Gayton McKenzie, the current state of the National Arts Council (NAC) and National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF), the role of the National Heritage Council (NHC) and National Lotteries Commission (NLC), the 18 sector clusters, parliamentary oversight, and the future of South Africa’s Cultural and Creative Industries.

Mafumbu also shares his vision for a less politicised and more inclusive creative sector, one where artistic experience, sector knowledge and professional expertise are valued, where institutions are accountable, and where increased investment in the creative economy can translate into jobs, infrastructure, education and meaningful opportunities for young people.

This is a conversation about representation, accountability, transformation and the future of South Africa’s creative sector.

What drives you to advocate for Township and Rural Creatives 

It is the belief that I must be a voice for those whose voices have been ignored, excluded or deliberately overlooked.

For many years, I have witnessed the incredible talent that exists in our townships and villages. South Africa has taken its music, visual arts, traditional dances, Pantsula, craft, storytelling and many other forms of creativity to the world through the talent of people who come from these communities. Many of the artists who have helped to put South Africa on the global cultural map did not come from institutions, they came from townships and rural villages.

Yet, despite this contribution, many township and rural creatives remain underpaid, excluded from funding opportunities, denied access to proper facilities and resources, and poorly represented within institutions that are supposed to serve the sector.

That reality made me realise that our silence can sometimes become more dangerous than the exploitation itself. My advocacy is therefore not simply about opposing institutions. It is about challenging a system that has for too long benefited from the talent of township and rural creatives while giving them less than they deserve.

I am saying that the time has come to end the practice of using talented artists from townships and villages, paying them less, exploiting their creativity and taking advantage of their intellectual property. That generation is coming to an end.

We are a generation of Township and Rural Creatives who understand the value of our talent, our intellectual property and our cultural knowledge. We will not continue to sell our creativity cheaply, nor will we accept being used as subjects of development while decisions about our futures are made without us.

We want meaningful access to opportunities, funding, infrastructure and resources. Most importantly, we want to be properly represented and have a meaningful voice within the government institutions and structures that determine the future of the creative sector.

My advocacy is therefore about dignity, economic justice, recognition, ownership and representation. I believe township and rural creatives must not only participate in South Africa's creative economy—we must have a meaningful stake in shaping it.

We have contributed enough. We have created enough. We have sacrificed enough. Now we must also benefit, lead and determine our own narrative.

Overall comment on Minister Gayton McKenzie’s tenure

My overall view of Minister Gayton McKenzie’s tenure in the Sport, Arts and Culture portfolio is that the sector has not experienced the transformation that was expected.

I see Mr McKenzie as a politician who entered government through a political arrangement in which the Patriotic Alliance became part of the governing coalition. His appointment to Sport, Arts and Culture raises questions about how seriously the portfolio is valued, particularly considering his background and the limited experience he had in the administration of the sports, arts and culture sector before becoming Minister.

My concern is that, instead of taking sufficient time to understand the Department, its institutions, funding models and the historical challenges facing the sector, the Minister appears to have become involved in existing institutional and political battles. Some of these battles existed long before he became Minister.

 There are individuals within and around institutions who have been involved in positional and personal conflicts for years, and my concern is that the Minister has, at times, been drawn into these battles rather than addressing the structural problems affecting the sector.

The sector has continued to suffer during his tenure. In particular, township and rural creatives remain largely excluded from many opportunities and funding mechanisms. These communities have been excluded for far too long by the same systems and senior management structures that have historically controlled access to opportunities.

Instead of first studying these systems and then introducing meaningful reforms, the Minister has appointed people into important and strategic positions whose knowledge and understanding of the sector can be questioned. This becomes particularly concerning when institutions continue experiencing problems around funding, administration and governance.

The Minister should be asking why funding programmes such as the Ministerial Grant and other funding mechanisms continue to face controversy and concerns about maladministration, and why solicited funding opportunities appear repeatedly to benefit the same groups of people.

For me, the issue is not whether the Minister enjoys the political power that comes with being a Minister. The issue is whether that power is being used to transform the sector, improve institutions and expand opportunities for artists, athletes and cultural workers, particularly those in township and rural communities.

At this stage, I believe the Minister's performance must be judged against those responsibilities rather than political battles and political visibility.

On Creatives and athletes taking political positions

I will never condemn an artist or athlete simply because they choose to become involved in politics or support a political party. Artists and athletes are citizens, and they have the same democratic rights as everyone else.

My concern begins when political-party mandates are brought into the arts and sports sectors themselves.

The arts sector already has enough divisions. If political parties become the basis through which artists organise and mobilise, we risk creating a situation where artists spend more time defending political parties and political leaders than defending the sector itself.

Artists have different political ideologies, religions, beliefs and political affiliations. Those differences are part of our society, but they should not become the foundation of how we organise the creative sector.

If the argument is that the arts and creative sector needs its own representation within government, there are constitutional and democratic mechanisms through which that can be pursued.

 We can request that the President appoint leadership with a strong understanding of the sector and the necessary skills to represent its interests, without necessarily turning that leadership into representatives of competing political parties.

Politics is naturally competitive. Political parties compete for power, influence and votes.

The nature of the arts should be different. Art has the ability to unite people, create dialogue, promote social cohesion and bring together people who otherwise disagree.

We therefore need artists who can challenge government regardless of which political party is in power.

If artists become aligned so strongly with political parties that they can no longer criticise those parties or their leaders, we weaken our ability to hold government and institutions accountable.

I therefore support artists being politically active as individuals, but I do not support turning the arts sector into a battlefield between political parties.

Our first loyalty should be to the development, protection and transformation of the creative sector.

On the Current state of the NFVF

The current state of the National Film and Video Foundation is extremely disappointing.

There are ongoing concerns around internal battles, positional interests and political agendas that, in my view, have little to do with the actual development of the South African film industry.

The NFVF should be concentrating on developing filmmakers, creating employment, supporting productions, developing young filmmakers and ensuring that South Africa has a sustainable and competitive film industry.

Instead, the institution has experienced leadership instability and internal challenges.

My position is that the NFVF should be placed under administration so that the institution can be stabilised and its core mandate restored. 

I also support bringing back the suspended CEO with immediate effect, subject to the proper legal and administrative process, if the circumstances justify that step.

The Minister should also consider the dissolution of the current board if there is sufficient evidence that the board is no longer capable of providing effective governance.

The priority should not be who controls the NFVF.

The priority must be:

Who is developing the South African film industry?

Who is creating opportunities for filmmakers?

Who is creating jobs?

Who is opening opportunities for township and rural filmmakers?

Who is ensuring that public funding reaches the people it is intended to serve?

That is where the Minister and the NFVF should focus.

On the Current state of the National Arts Council

The National Arts Council has experienced serious positional, governance and political battles. 

My position is that the institution needs stability and should be placed under administration if that is necessary to restore proper governance, accountability and service delivery.

I say this with the greatest respect and concern for the institution because the NAC is an important institution for South African creatives.

If officials, management and the board are genuinely concerned about the sector rather than the power that comes with their positions, then the institution should be asking a very basic question:

How can every rand available to the NAC have the greatest possible impact on South African artists?

For example, why does a relatively small institution such as the NAC require more than 20 board members while having comparatively limited operational capacity?

The money spent on a large governance structure and associated administrative costs must be examined carefully. 

Those resources could potentially support special projects in township and rural communities—communities where the NAC still does not have a meaningful physical presence or dedicated special programmes.

This is not an argument against governance. It is an argument for proportionate, effective and affordable governance.

We must ask whether the money being spent on governance structures could produce greater value if directed towards artists, infrastructure, training, touring, employment and special projects in underserved communities.

My view of Lebogang Mogoera

I want to make it clear that I am not supporting Minister Gayton McKenzie's decision to dissolve the NAC Board simply because I have a positive view of the current leadership.

My assessment of Mr Lebogang Mogoera comes from my direct interactions with him.

I am happy with his leadership skills, his willingness to learn and his ability to engage with the artistic concerns of the sector rather than looking at every issue purely from an administrative perspective.

I have been in meetings with him where discussions were extremely tense and serious matters were debated. We have not always agreed, and there have been moments where we have agreed to disagree.

 However, what I have observed is a willingness to listen, engage and look for solutions.

I see him as a solution-driven CEO and administrator who appears to understand that the purpose of the NAC is ultimately to serve South African creatives.

In the short period since his return to the institution, I have also observed the NAC operating and delivering on outcomes within expected timeframes. 

The institution is operational, and from what I have observed, staff and management appear to be working towards a common direction.

That does not mean that everything at the NAC is perfect. It means that leadership should be judged by what it is doing for the institution and the sector, rather than by political loyalties.

Let us leave the politics aside

My appeal to everyone involved in the NAC debate is simple:

Let us leave the political battles and positional battles aside and ask what is best for South African creatives and for the NAC as an institution.

If there are administrative costs that can be reduced without compromising proper governance, then let us reduce them.

If money currently being spent on a large governance structure can legally and responsibly be redirected towards special projects in township and rural communities, then let us have that conversation.

If the NAC does not have dedicated programmes in many of these communities, then that should be a priority.

The South African creative sector does not need another institutional power struggle.

We need institutions that work.

We need funding that reaches artists.

We need opportunities in township and rural communities.

We need accountable leadership.

We need efficient institutions.

And we need creatives who are prepared to hold every government and every institution accountable, regardless of political affiliation.

What is your take on the current state of the National Heritage Council (NHC)?

My view is that the National Heritage Council is failing the heritage sector in many ways, particularly when it comes to meaningful financial support for heritage organisations.

When one looks at the amounts being allocated to heritage organisations for heritage projects, in many cases it is more like transport fare than meaningful project funding. The NHC appears to be focusing more on quantity than quality and impact. An amount such as R120,000 cannot even properly support a meaningful heritage event in some small rural villages, yet organisations are expected to deliver projects that create real educational and social impact.

I also believe the NHC needs to reconsider the extent to which it conducts heritage events itself instead of empowering organisations in townships and rural areas that already possess significant knowledge of local heritage. Heritage is not only about monuments, museums or sites selected by government. Heritage is also our people's way of living.

The best way to preserve and celebrate heritage is therefore to invest in township and rural heritage organisations that can educate the current generation about our culture, languages, music, traditions, indigenous knowledge and other elements of our living heritage.

The NHC needs to focus more strongly on its legislative mandate and avoid becoming another institution that behaves like an event company. There should be a stronger institutional help-desk and outreach system that goes directly into rural and township communities to listen to the custodians of heritage.

Instead of repeating the same programmes every year, the NHC should be asking: What are communities losing? What heritage is disappearing? What knowledge is not being transferred to the younger generation? And how can funding preserve it?

I would like to see the NHC become an institution that empowers heritage custodians rather than one that centralises heritage activity.

What are your  views on the current state of the National Lotteries Commission (NLC)?

The continued delay in National Lotteries Commission funding calls is a serious concern for civil society organisations, particularly organisations working in disadvantaged communities.

The Township & Rural Creatives Freelancers Network notes with growing concern the continued absence of a new public funding call by the NLC.

The last major open funding call was the 2024/2025 Call for Applications, which opened on 2 December 2024. Since then, there has been no new public funding call announced for the 2025/2026 financial year, creating increasing uncertainty about whether and when further open calls will be issued.

This raises legitimate questions from civil society organisations about the allocation and utilisation of available funding budgets. If open funding calls are not being issued over extended periods, the sector deserves transparency about how available budgets are being managed, whether funds are being committed through alternative mechanisms, and what measures are being taken to ensure that communities do not lose access to grant support.

The NLC has an important developmental role. Funding delays do not only affect organisations on paper; they affect jobs, community programmes, artists, sportspeople, young people and vulnerable communities that depend on these programmes.

The NLC needs to provide greater clarity, transparency and predictable funding opportunities so that organisations can plan and communities can benefit.

8. What is your take on the 18 Sector Clusters launched last year by Minister Gayton McKenzie and DSAC?

My honest view is that the 18 sector clusters were a political and institutional mistake rather than a meaningful legacy project for the creative sector.

From my perspective, the initiative appeared to be influenced by the Minister's conflict with CCIFSA and the desire to weaken or replace an existing sector structure after discovering that some people opposing him were associated with it. Instead of creating genuine legacy projects that would empower artists, the department created structures that have not delivered the impact expected from them.

I believe this was bad advice from DSAC officials, and the Minister should have been advised to focus on building sustainable institutions and programmes rather than creating structures that could become instruments in institutional or political battles.

The central question is: What tangible legacy have these 18 clusters created?

If millions of rand are being spent or allocated around structures that are not functioning effectively, one has to ask whether that money could have been used differently. That money could have contributed to building arts centres, supporting arts schools, funding township and rural organisations, or funding 32 credible arts organisations at approximately R1 million each to create jobs, social cohesion and measurable community impact.

The sector does not need structures created to fight another structure. It needs functional institutions, funding, infrastructure, jobs, training and opportunities.

The 18 clusters should therefore be assessed objectively: their expenditure, membership, activities, outputs, beneficiaries and measurable impact should all be made transparent.

Artists need an artistic vehicle that empowers them—not structures that become part of political or institutional battles.

What is your take on the performance and role of Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and Culture regarding oversight of DSAC and its entities?

My honest view is that the Portfolio Committee has an important constitutional oversight responsibility, and it must use that responsibility more effectively.

The Committee should not merely listen to allegations, receive presentations and hold discussions. Where there are credible allegations of wrongdoing, maladministration, corruption or abuse of public resources, the Committee should demand answers, call for evidence, make appropriate recommendations and, where necessary, push for proper investigations.

Many artists are asking a simple question: What is the use of continuously talking about corruption if there are no meaningful consequences?

Parliamentary oversight must not become a talk show.

The Committee must hold the Minister, DSAC officials and the entities reporting to the department accountable within the law. Where evidence points to wrongdoing, there must be proper investigation and appropriate action—not simply another meeting.

Artists and civil society need Parliament to be a genuine oversight mechanism, not a place where concerns are recorded and then forgotten.

The Committee should also strengthen oversight of funding decisions, procurement, appointments, governance, expenditure and programme implementation across DSAC and its entities.

What is your dream or vision for the Cultural and Creative Industries in South Africa?

My dream is to see a non-political arts and cultural sector where artists are recognised for their artistic experience, expertise and contribution—not simply for political connections or irrelevant qualifications.

I want to see people with genuine artistic experience serving on the boards of arts and cultural institutions. Board appointments should bring together artistic expertise, governance competence and sector knowledge, rather than being driven primarily by political considerations.

I also want to see more artists entering universities, gaining formal qualifications where they choose to, and then bringing their artistic and professional experience back into DSAC and its entities. We need a stronger relationship between academic institutions, working artists and government institutions.

There must be less political interference and fewer political appointments in the creative sector.

Most importantly, South Africa needs to significantly increase its investment in the arts, culture and creative economy. My vision is for an arts and creative-sector budget of at least approximately R25 billion, directed towards job creation, arts schools, cultural infrastructure, community arts centres, production, touring, training and sustainable creative enterprises.

We have millions of young people who need opportunities. The creative sector can create jobs, develop skills, strengthen social cohesion and preserve our cultural identity.

My vision is simple: stop treating arts and culture as an afterthought. Treat the creative economy as an economic, educational and social-development sector.

South Africa does not lack artists or creative talent. What we lack is a funding and institutional system that matches the size, talent and potential of the

The Creative Passport is an independent platform focused on Arts, Culture and the Creative Industries. Readers are encouraged to follow, comment and engage constructively.

HOW TO FOLLOW THE CREATIVE PASSPORT

RECEIVE POSTS BY EMAILS