THE NAC BOARD IS BACK. BUT HAS THE WAR JUST BEGUN?
Gayton McKenzie’s first legal setback raises uncomfortable questions about power, loyalty, governance and the future of South Africa’s arts funding institution
By Thami akaMbongo Manzana
There is a moment in every political and institutional battle when the noise stops.
No press conference.
No victory lap.
No angry statement.
No dramatic social-media post.
Just silence.
And in the case of the National Arts Council (NAC), that silence is becoming louder than any statement could possibly be.
Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture Gayton McKenzie lost the first round of his legal battle over the dissolution of the NAC Council.
Let us be precise.
This is not the final judgment on whether the Minister's decision to dissolve the Council was ultimately lawful. The Gauteng High Court has, however, suspended the dissolution and ordered the Council to be reinstated pending the judicial review. The Minister has also been prohibited from appointing a replacement Council while that review is pending.
In other words:
The Council is back.
And suddenly, the institutional chessboard looks very different.
The NAC itself announced the reinstatement on 7 August 2026, with the Council members again appearing on the institution's website.
But where is DSAC?
Where is the Minister?
Where is the public explanation?
Will there be an appeal?
Will the Department wait for the review to be heard?
What exactly is the government's position following this ruling?
These are not unreasonable questions.
They are questions that the public particularly the creative sector whose money and livelihoods are affected by decisions at the NAC deserves to have answered.
THE COURT HAS SPOKEN. SO WHY THE SILENCE?
The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture has been remarkably quiet following the judgment.
That is interesting.
Because when government believes it has acted correctly, it normally has something to say.
And when government believes a court has misunderstood its position, it normally explains that too.
So what is happening here?
Is DSAC studying the judgment?
Is the Minister considering an appeal?
Has legal advice been sought?
Is the Department satisfied with the order?
Or is this simply a temporary silence before the next legal move?
There is nothing wrong with government taking time to consider its options.
But silence creates a vacuum.
And in that vacuum, speculation grows.
For an institution responsible for public money, public culture and public accountability, communication should not be treated as an optional extra.
The creative sector deserves clarity.
#TeamAgainstMinisterGaytonMcKenzie
TWO CAMPS. ONE NATIONAL ARTS COUNCIL.
The court papers make for fascinating reading.
They effectively reveal two sides to this dispute.
For purposes of this discussion, we can call them:
#TeamMinisterGaytonMcKenzie
and
#TeamAgainstMinisterGaytonMcKenzie
These labels are mine for analytical purposes. They should not be understood as suggesting that every person named in the court papers necessarily shares the same political motivation or position.
According to the court papers provided for this dispute, the applicants challenging the Minister's decision included:
Zolani Mkiva
Jewel Mashao
Pamela Evidence Ndlovu
Henry Vusumzi Leeuw
Lesiba Mothoa
Celenhle Thembayena Dlamini
Michael Edwin Worship
Themba Ndulini
Adv Thobile Komazi
Queen Neo Mononela Mopeli
On the other side, the court papers identify:
Eugene Botha
Clint Brink
Simon Clarke
Dr Laura De Harde
Zak Gordon
Hardon Gunn-Saile
Tau Masemola
Omphemetse Mokgosi
Siphosethu Mtamzeli
Tracey Perumal
Bongani Tembe
Charni-Lee Adams-Kruger
And then there is another name that raises another question:
Stephanie D'Silva.
Her name does not appear in the court papers in the same way as the other Council members listed above, yet she has continued to appear on NAC institutional material.
So what is her status?
Was she absent from the proceedings?
Was she not part of the litigation?
Is she still a Council member?
Was there another legal or institutional reason for her position?
This is precisely the kind of question that the NAC should answer rather than leaving the sector to speculate.
THE CHAIRPERSON AND THE DEPUTY: AN INSTITUTIONAL SPLIT?
Then comes perhaps one of the most politically interesting features of this saga.
The NAC Chairperson, Eugene Botha, is associated with the Patriotic Alliance and has been publicly identified as having a legal relationship with Minister McKenzie. His appointment as NAC Chairperson itself previously attracted political scrutiny.
His Deputy Chairperson, Princess Celenhle Thembayena Dlamini, appears among those challenging the dissolution.
Read that again.
The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson appear on opposite sides of this institutional battle.
What does that tell us about the internal dynamics of the NAC?
Was there already a serious disagreement inside Council before the Minister dissolved it?
Were there different interpretations of governance?
Were Council members divided over management?
Or did the Minister's intervention itself create a deeper institutional fracture?
These are not merely personality questions.
They go to the heart of governance.
AND THEN THERE IS RACE
I know what some readers will say.
"Why bring race into this?"
Because South Africa is a country where race and power have never been completely separated.
And because Minister McKenzie himself has repeatedly placed questions of race, identity and representation into public political discourse, it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that race never matters.
Looking at the two groups identified in the court order, one cannot ignore the racial and demographic composition of the individuals involved.
But let us be careful.
Race does not tell us who is right.
Race does not tell us who is wrong.
Race does not establish motive.
The question is different:
Does the composition of these opposing groups reveal anything about the broader politics of representation and power within South Africa's cultural institutions?
That question deserves investigation.
Not slogans.
Not Twitter fights.
Evidence.
LOYALTY: THE WORD THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY
There is another word that has become increasingly difficult to ignore when discussing Minister McKenzie's political leadership:
LOYALTY.
McKenzie has spoken publicly and repeatedly about loyalty in political and organisational contexts.
So here is the uncomfortable question.
What happens when people appointed to public institutions stop being loyal to the political authority that appointed them and instead become loyal to the institution's legal obligations?
Should Council members be loyal to a Minister?
Or should they be loyal to the NAC Act, the institution they govern and the public interest?
Because these are not necessarily the same thing.
A Council is not supposed to be a political fan club.
A Minister is not supposed to own a Council.
And public institutions cannot function properly if loyalty to an individual becomes more important than loyalty to law.
This is where the NAC saga becomes bigger than Gayton McKenzie.
It becomes a test of South African public-sector governance.
IF THE MINISTER WINS THE FINAL BATTLE, WHO PAYS THE PRICE?
The current court order is not the final verdict.
Eventually, the judicial review will have to be determined.
And that brings us to another uncomfortable question.
If the Minister ultimately succeeds, what happens to the people who challenged him?
Will they ever again be considered for appointments to DSAC entities while McKenzie remains Minister?
Will their names be quietly removed from future consideration?
Will those perceived to have supported the Minister find themselves occupying more influential positions across the cultural sector?
Or will appointments be based strictly on competence, transparency and due process?
There is absolutely no evidence that any individual will be punished for participating in this court battle.
But the question is worth asking because perceived political retaliation is itself a governance concern.
The only way to eliminate that suspicion is through transparent appointment processes.
THE NAC STAFFING QUESTION
Then we get to another battlefield:
management.
Remember Vincent Mashale?
He had been acting as CEO of the NAC during the Council's previous period.
With the Council's reinstatement, he is now back in his substantive role as Company Secretary.
Then there is the management structure.
Julie Diphofa.
Reshma Bhoola.
Lebogang Mogoera.
The acting positions.
The recruitment processes.
The disputes.
The staff tensions.
The complaints about management.
The questions around bonuses.
None of these issues disappeared because the Council was reinstated.
If anything, they may now return to the centre of the institutional conversation.
THE BONUSES WERE PAID BUT WHAT ABOUT THE APRIL DEDUCTIONS?
According to information received by The Creative Passport, the outstanding bonuses have been paid. But another dispute remains - staff members who participated in the strike are still challenging salary deductions made from April.
The employees were not paid for the days they were on strike. The unresolved question is whether all the deductions were made lawfully and in accordance with applicable labour agreements, policies and procedures.
This raises an uncomfortable governance question.
Will the reinstated Council which was itself involved in the institutional disputes surrounding staff, management and the bonus matter now have any role in determining the outcome of the employees' salary deduction dispute?
If so, how will any potential conflict of interest be managed?
Will there be an independent labour process to determine whether the deductions were lawful? Who ultimately has the authority to make that determination - management, the Council, or an independent mechanism?
These are not merely internal HR matters. They involve employees' salaries and the governance of a public institution.
The question is therefore simple:
Can the same institutional structure that was part of the previous dispute now be trusted to impartially resolve what remains of it?
The NAC needs to answer that question.
WHO WILL APPOINT THE CEO AND CFO?
The NAC had advertised positions for a permanent CEO and CFO.
Now the Council is back.
So what happens to those recruitment processes?
Will they continue?
Will they be reviewed?
Will the reinstated Council take responsibility for completing them?
Could new candidates be interviewed by a Council that had itself been temporarily removed from office?
And who ultimately decides?
The Minister?
The Council?
The management?
The recruitment panel?
The NAC Act and applicable governance framework should provide the answer.
But the public deserves to know how that framework is going to be applied.
AND THEN THERE IS LEBOGANG MOGOERA
This is where we must be particularly fair.
There are people who may have their own political interpretation of the current Acting CEO, Lebogang Mogoera.
Some may perceive him as closer to the Minister's side.
That perception should not become fact simply because it is repeated.
My own view is different.
From an administrative perspective, Mogoera appears to have been one of the people trying to keep the NAC functioning through an extraordinary period of institutional instability.
That does not make him untouchable.
It does not exempt him from scrutiny.
But scrutiny must be evidence-based.
The question should not be:
"Whose person is he?"
The question should be:
"Has he performed his duties properly, lawfully and in the interests of the NAC?"
That is the standard that should apply to everybody.
THE PESP 7 TIME BOMB
And now we arrive at the issue that will affect thousands of creatives.
PESP 7.
The NAC's official PESP 7 call states that applications opened on 4 May 2026, closed on 29 May 2026 and that outcomes are scheduled for 14 August 2026.
That date is now just around the corner.
So what happens?
Does the reinstated Council simply walk back into office and continue from where it was interrupted?
Does it review anything?
Does it have a role in the final approval process?
Could the court order affect the timeline?
Will the outcome announcement happen on 14 August?
And, most importantly:
Will applicants receive decisions based on the same process that was underway before the Council was dissolved?
These are not theoretical questions.
For many artists, organisations and cultural workers, PESP funding can mean employment.
It can mean whether a production happens.
Whether artists are paid.
Whether technicians work.
Whether a company survives.
This is public money.
The process must therefore be beyond reproach.
THE CHINA EXCHANGE QUESTION
Then there is the China Exchange Programme.
The NAC had indicated an outcomes date of 31 July 2026.
That date has already passed.
So what happened?
Was the outcome finalised?
Was it approved?
Was it delayed?
If delayed, why?
And now that the Council has been reinstated, does it have any role in that process?
Could decisions already made be revisited?
Could participants be affected?
Again, transparency is the answer.
AND THEN THERE IS THE 2026 ANNUAL FUNDING OUTCOMES
Perhaps the most complicated question of all.
The reinstated Council was dissolved before completing the 2026 NAC Annual Funding Call process.
So what happens to the work that was done before dissolution?
Does the Council simply continue where it stopped?
Does it review decisions?
Does it reconsider recommendations?
Can it lawfully overturn decisions made by management or assessment structures during its absence?
Could applicants who were rejected challenge the process?
Could successful applicants suddenly face uncertainty?
And who has the final authority?
These questions cannot be answered through political instinct.
They must be answered through the NAC's governing legislation, approved policies, delegations and proper governance processes.
THE CREATIVE PASSPORT IS ASKING THESE QUESTIONS TOO
On 6 July 2026, The Creative Passport Online Media Publication wrote to NAC Management seeking clarity on a number of issues affecting the institution and the creative sector, including matters relating to funding outside the Open Call Funding processes.
We are not asking these questions because we want a fight.
We are asking because public institutions must be questioned.
The NAC has been given an opportunity to respond.
The deadline (10 August 2026) for the response has been communicated.
And The Creative Passport intends to publish a follow-up report with the information available to us.
Because journalism should not be about protecting institutions from uncomfortable questions.
It should be about protecting the public's right to know.
THE REAL LOSER COULD BE THE CREATIVE SECTOR
Here is the uncomfortable truth.
While politicians fight.
While lawyers argue.
While Council members take opposing positions.
While management structures change.
While Ministers make decisions.
While Councils are dissolved and reinstated.
Artists wait.
A theatre company waits.
A dancer waits.
A musician waits.
A writer waits.
A community arts centre waits.
A young creative waiting for their first opportunity waits.
And while everybody else plays institutional chess, the sector pays the price.
This is why the NAC saga cannot simply be reduced to:
Gayton versus the Council.
It is much bigger.
It is about whether South Africa's most important arts funding institution can operate independently, transparently and professionally.
It is about whether political authority understands the difference between oversight and control.
It is about whether Council members understand the difference between governance and politics.
It is about whether management understands that public administration comes with public accountability.
And it is about whether artists can trust the institution that distributes money that ultimately belongs to the public.
THE QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ASKING NOW
Will the Minister appeal the interim order?
If not, why not?
If yes, on what grounds?
When will DSAC publicly communicate its position?
What is the legal status of the reinstated Council?
What is Stephanie D'Silva's current status?
What happens to the 2026 Annual Funding Outcomes?
What happens to the China Exchange Programme?
Will PESP 7 outcomes still be announced on 14 August 2026?
Will the reinstated Council review processes undertaken while it was dissolved?
What happens to the CEO and CFO recruitment processes?
What happened to the management and staff disputes?
Will Council members who challenged the Minister continue to participate without fear of political consequences?
Will Council members perceived to be aligned with the Minister receive greater political favour?
And perhaps the most important question:
Can the NAC now govern without turning every institutional disagreement into another political battlefield?
THE COURT MAY HAVE REINSTATED THE COUNCIL. BUT CAN IT REINSTATE TRUST?
That is the real story.
The court can reinstate a Council.
It cannot automatically restore confidence.
It can suspend a ministerial decision.
It cannot repair institutional relationships.
It can order people back into office.
It cannot make them work together.
That part is up to them.
The NAC now finds itself in an extraordinary position.
A Council returns after being dissolved.
Management remains.
Questions remain.
Funding decisions remain.
Legal proceedings remain.
Political tensions remain.
And the sector is watching.
Very closely.
Minister Gayton McKenzie has often presented himself as a politician who is not afraid to take difficult decisions.
Now comes another test.
Can he accept an uncomfortable court outcome with the same confidence with which he makes uncomfortable decisions?
Can DSAC communicate openly?
Can the reinstated Council rise above factionalism?
Can management operate without fear?
Can Council members disagree without being treated as enemies?
Can public servants administer without political interference?
Can artists receive funding without wondering who is politically connected to whom?
Those are the questions.
And no press release can make them disappear.
The court has given the NAC Council another chance.
What they do with that second chance will determine whether this becomes a story about one Minister's legal defeat or the beginning of a much bigger fight over who really controls the arts in South Africa.
For now, one thing is certain:
The Council is back.
The questions are still here.
And The Creative Passport will keep asking them.
.jpeg)
Comments