Uncategorized
By Mlungisi Ndlovu
As a committed advocate for fair labour practices, sound governance and constitutional values in public administration, I feel compelled to offer my independent opinion on the recent appointment of the Chief Financial Officer by the KwaZulu-Natal department of education under the leadership MEC Sipho Hlomuka.
This opinion is offered in my personal capacity and is grounded in legal precedent, constitutional rights and principles of good governance. I aim to address concerns raised over the CFO’s prior resignation under precautionary suspension and affirm the legitimacy and integrity of the appointment.
Background Context
It is a matter of public record that the CFO (Yali Joyi) previously served in another department or public institution and resigned while under precautionary suspension. No disciplinary hearing was concluded. No finding of guilt was recorded. Despite this, questions have arisen about whether the individual should have been considered for appointment.
Legal Perspective
Our legal system is based on the foundational principle that every individual is innocent until proven guilty. This principle does not only apply in criminal law, but extends to employment law and administrative justice.
No person should be disqualified, defamed, or denied opportunity based on unresolved allegations or suspicions. As held in Mahlangu v PRASA [2016] ZALCJHB 548: “Precautionary suspension is not a finding of guilt, and resignation ends the employment contract.”
Mtati v KPMG [2017] ZALCJHB 273: “Disciplinary processes cannot continue post-resignation unless there are criminal charges.”
The implication is clear: without a concluded disciplinary process and finding of misconduct, the individual remains legally and ethically employable.
The Constitution, particularly Section 195(1), mandates that public service appointments must be based on ability, objectivity and fairness. This was echoed in the Barnard v SAPS [2014] ZACC 23 case, which emphasised that fairness, not prejudice, must guide hiring decisions.
Nowhere in our labour laws or Public Service Act does a resignation under investigation amount to permanent disqualification from future employment. The lack of any disciplinary record or criminal conviction means there is no legal obstacle to the CFO’s appointment.
Ethical and Governance Considerations
From a governance perspective, we must ask:
Was the recruitment process fair, open, and transparent?
Were the appointee’s qualifications and experience evaluated objectively?
Was there any legal finding barring this individual from public service?
If the answer to these questions supports the integrity of the process — as I understand it does — then attempts to reverse or undermine the appointment are not based on law, but on speculation, prejudice, or political interference.
Final Opinion and Personal Reflection
In my personal capacity, I am satisfied that the appointment of the CFO was lawful, constitutional, and merit based.
There is no proven misconduct nor any legal or ethical ground to reverse it and the decision respects the rule of law, the right to fair labour practices (Section 23 of the Constitution), and the presumption of innocence.
Withdrawing this appointment without due process would set a dangerous precedent — one that undermines fairness and fuels a culture of fear and injustice.
As a society and as a public sector, we must be guided not by suspicion, but by truth, law and fairness.
I strongly support retaining the CFO in the position. I encourage stakeholders to respect the process, uphold the rule of law and allow the individual to perform their duties in service of learners, educators and the people of KwaZulu-Natal.
Mlungisi Ndlovu is the KwaZulu-Natal manager of the Public Servants Association. He writes in his personal capacity.
INSIDE EDUCATION