PESP 7 OUTCOMES ARE OUT
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE BENEFICIARIES, YET THE NAC QUESTIONS MUST NOT DISAPPEAR
By Thami akaMbongo Manzana
First, congratulations to all the PESP 7 beneficiaries. For many artists, organisations and creative workers, this announcement represents more than a funding outcome. It represents an opportunity to create work, employ people, pay artists, sustain organisations and contribute to South Africa's cultural and creative economy.
Congratulations must also go to the National Arts Council (NAC) for keeping its word and releasing the PESP 7 outcomes on 14 August 2026, as communicated to the sector. In a funding environment where delays and uncertainty have become a source of enormous anxiety, meeting a publicly stated deadline deserves to be acknowledged.
But now that the outcomes are out, perhaps we should do something equally important:
We should go back to the questions.
Yesterday's urgent sector meeting, convened at approximately 5pm on 14 August, was about updating the sector on PESP 7. The invitation was circulated after 4pm, giving recipients less than an hour to make arrangements to attend.
Perhaps many who joined were hoping to hear if the PESP 7 outcomes would atill be announced or postponed.
Now that the outcomes are public, however, the meeting itself deserves closer examination.
This is not an attack on the NAC, its Council, management or any individual. It is an attempt to document what was said, what was not answered, and what questions remain.
History has no blank pages.
We need to archive these moments.
One day, if the NAC finds itself before another court, if another labour dispute emerges, if another strike takes place, or if Council and management once again find themselves publicly at odds, we should be able to look back and say:
"We raised these questions when the warning signs were already visible."
And, importantly, the NAC is welcome to respond to this article. If we have misunderstood anything, please correct us. If there are documents that clarify these matters, publish them. If there are explanations we have missed, educate the sector.
That is how accountability should work.
Who Was Actually Representing Council and Management?
The meeting opened with remarks by Council Member Dr Zolani Mkiva, who handed over to Princess Cebehle Dhlamini.
But one question immediately came to mind:
Who exactly was in the meeting from the NAC Council and management?
That may sound like a small administrative question. It is not.
The Creative Passport has previously published an article asking whether the NAC Council, following the recent legal battles surrounding its composition, can work together to restore stability and public confidence in the institution.
The question becomes even more important when a meeting is presented as an engagement between the NAC and the sector.
It was indicated during the meeting that the Council Chairperson, Mr Eugene Botha, and Acting CEO, Mr Lebogang Mogoera, were unable to attend.
But who else was there?
Which Council members were present?
Which members of management were present?
Was DSAC represented?
And, most importantly, was the meeting officially authorised and representative of the NAC as an institution?
I personally raised this question during the meeting, but the response did not clearly identify the Council and management representatives present.
That creates unnecessary room for speculation.
It is important to emphasise that the labels #TeamMinisterGaytonMcKenzie and #TeamAgainstMinisterGaytonMcKenzie are analytical labels used by The Creative Passport. They should not be interpreted as suggesting that every person involved in the court matter necessarily shares a particular political motivation.
The court papers identify different groups of Council members in the dispute. That history is already part of the public record.
Precisely because there has been litigation, it would have been an excellent opportunity for the NAC to demonstrate a united institutional front to the sector.
Imagine if the sector had seen the Chairperson, Acting CEO, Council members and senior management sitting together, answering questions together and communicating one clear institutional position.
That would have sent a powerful message:
The NAC is bigger than its internal disputes.
Unfortunately, that opportunity appears to have been missed.
And we must ask why.
Not to create another war, but to prevent another one.
PESP 7 Administration Costs and the Appeal Question
The meeting indicated that the NAC received approximately R165.8 million for PESP 7, with approximately R7.129 million allocated to administration, while only a small percentage was allocated to appeals.
This immediately raises questions.
How much money has been allocated to administering PESP from PESP 1 to PESP 7?
How much has the NAC historically spent on personnel, administration, systems, panels, compliance processes and other costs associated with PESP?
And what percentage of the total PESP allocation has historically gone towards administration?
The sector deserves a consolidated picture.
This is not about suggesting that administration is unnecessary. A programme of this scale obviously requires administrative capacity.
But the principle is simple:
If public money is allocated for a programme, the public should be able to follow the money.
It is also interesting that PESP 7 saw the NAC advertise additional positions to assist with the programme.
That raises another legitimate question: what administrative resources were used to manage PESP 1 – 6, and how were those costs funded?
The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and Culture should be encouraged to look at the complete financial history of PESP, rather than examining each round in isolation.
And then there is the question of appeals.
If an applicant has been declared unsuccessful, the appeal mechanism is not a luxury. It is an important part of procedural fairness.
Why is such a small proportion allocated to appeals?
How was that amount calculated?
What happens if the volume of appeals exceeds the allocated amount?
And why was there no clearly communicated appeal allocation in the earlier PESP rounds?
These are questions worth answering before the sector moves on.
The NAC's "Cool-Off Period" - Where Is It Written?
Perhaps one of the most concerning issues raised during the meeting was the explanation surrounding the cool-off period.
The sector was told that applicants who receive NAC funding for three consecutive years must undergo a one-year cool-off period.
If that is the policy, then a simple question follows:
Where is it written?
If applicants are being disqualified, excluded or disadvantaged because of a rule, that rule must be clearly contained in the applicable guidelines, policy or funding framework.
It cannot be something applicants only discover after submitting an application.
And this is where the issue becomes even more complicated.
If the rule is that applicants must take a one-year break after three consecutive years of funding, then the sector needs to understand how this has been applied historically.
Because there appear to be organisations and applicants who have received NAC support for more than three consecutive years.
So which rule applies?
Were there exceptions?
Were those exceptions formally approved?
Was the cool-off rule introduced recently?
Does it apply retrospectively?
Does it apply to all funding programmes?
Does it apply to organisations, individuals or both?
These questions are not accusations.
They are basic governance questions.
And if the answer is that there is no such restriction in the published guidelines, then the NAC needs to explain precisely what authority it relies upon to apply it.
You cannot expect applicants to comply with rules that are invisible to them.
Transparency requires that funding criteria be clear before applications are submitted, not explained after applicants have been rejected.
Who Chaired the PESP 7 Adjudication Panels?
Another unanswered question concerns the chairing of the adjudication panels.
The NAC appointed members of the PESP 7 Adjudication Panel, and there were questions about whether panel members were also serving as chairpersons during the process.
Ordinarily, one might expect the Council to have a defined governance role in overseeing the process.
But given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the NAC Council, including the recent legal dispute and subsequent developments, the question becomes:
Who actually chaired the seven disciplinary adjudication processes?
Were Council members present?
If so, which Council members?
Were all seven disciplines treated in the same manner?
If not, why not?
And what governance framework was used to determine who had authority to chair or oversee those processes?
Again, these are not accusations of wrongdoing.
They are questions about process integrity.
Because once funding outcomes are challenged, the first thing applicants and the public will want to know is whether the process was conducted according to the rules.
The Bigger Question: What Is Happening Inside the NAC?
Perhaps this is the real story.
PESP 7 is not only about who received money and who did not.
It is also a test of whether the NAC can demonstrate that it has emerged from its recent governance crisis with stronger systems, clearer accountability and greater institutional unity.
The sector has witnessed disputes between Council members.
We have witnessed court proceedings.
We have witnessed ministerial intervention.
We have witnessed uncertainty around the status of the Council.
We have witnessed tensions between governance and administration.
The danger is that everyone becomes so relieved that the outcomes are finally released that we forget to ask whether the institutional machinery behind those outcomes is functioning properly.
That would be a mistake.
Congratulations to those who received funding.
But congratulations must not silence scrutiny.
If anything, successful implementation of PESP 7 should give the NAC the confidence to answer difficult questions.
We Must Archive This Moment
The arts sector has a notoriously short institutional memory.
We complain when something goes wrong, protest, issue statements and hold meetings and then move on.
Years later, when the same problem returns, somebody says:
"This has never happened before."
History tells us otherwise.
That is why The Creative Passport believes these conversations must be documented.
Not because we want the NAC to fail.
Quite the opposite.
We need a strong, credible and transparent National Arts Council.
We need Council and management to understand their respective roles.
We need the Minister and DSAC to exercise proper oversight without undermining institutional independence.
We need artists and organisations to understand the rules governing public funding.
And we need Parliament to exercise meaningful oversight over the money entrusted to these institutions.
Most importantly, we need the sector to stop treating legitimate questions as attacks.
A question is not an attack.
Scrutiny is not sabotage.
Accountability is not hostility.
Sometimes asking difficult questions is actually an act of institutional protection.
So, once again:
Congratulations to every PESP 7 beneficiary.
Congratulations to the NAC for releasing the outcomes on the promised date.
Now let us do the other part of our responsibility as a sector:
Let us interrogate the process.
Let us ask where the money went.
Let us ask what rules were applied.
Let us ask who made the decisions.
Let us ask who chaired the panels.
Let us ask who represented Council and management.
Let us ask where the cool-off rule comes from.
Let us ask how appeals will work.
And let us ask whether the NAC Council and management are genuinely working together or whether the institutional conflict we have witnessed is merely entering another chapter.
The NAC is invited to respond.
The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee is invited to take note.
DSAC is invited to engage.
And the sector is invited to read, question, challenge, correct and contribute.
Because one day, when the next court papers are filed or the next institutional crisis arrives, we should not have to say:
"Nobody warned us."
We did.
And we are documenting it.
History has no blank pages.
.jpeg)
Comments