SHARE
The Gauteng Department of Education commissioned a comprehensive internal assessment intoreported cases of corruption, financial mismanagement, fraud, maladministration, procurement irregularities and governance failures affecting public schools in the province between 2023 and June 2026. The assessment was conducted through a review of official data available to the Department, with various directorates within the Department involved in the compilation of the data.
Under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECAA) (Act 11 of 2004), specifically Section 34, any person holding a position of authority in a government department who suspects or knows of corruption involving R100 000 or more is legally bound to report it to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), commonly referred to as the Hawks. This division of the SouthAfrican Police Service (SAPS) is mandated with the investigation of high-priority crimes, including organised crime, serious commercial fraud, and public corruption. The internal assessment is a preliminary review. Government departments are empowered by law to utilise internal units to vet officials, manage conflict-of-interest declarations, and evaluate early indicators of fraud. While internal assessments investigations focus on gathering evidence to institut immediate departmental disciplinary proceedings, they are separate from criminal liability. The Department cannot independently conceal or arbitrarily handle allegations and will thus adhere to a strict multi-agency, transparent framework mandated by national legislation, which requires the referral of our findings to specialised law enforcement.
Objectives of the assessment
The core objectives of the assessment span several key interlinked areas. The first is accountability and justice. Assessments and investigations transform allegations of bribery or fraud into concrete,actionable evidence. This ensures that individuals or organisations engaging in unlawful practices face appropriate criminal prosecution or disciplinary actions. The second objective of the assessment is the protection of the Department. Corruption severely erodes public trust and compromises governance. Assessments and investigations identify vulnerabilities in organisational systems, allowing the Department to implement stricter controls and prevent future exploitation.
The third is asset recovery. Corrupt practices divert public funds into private hands. This assessment is the starting point of the process of investigation that is expected to facilitate the recovery of stolen assets and financial losses. The fourth objective of the assessment is to deterrence. Publicly exposing corrupt networks and enforcing penalties helps deter future offenders by demonstrating that illegal enrichment will not be tolerated.
Findings of the internal assessment
Before outlining the findings of the internal assessment, it is important to define some key terms that we will be making reference to. Financial mismanagement refers to the careless, irregular or unlawful handling of school funds. Corruption refers to the abuse of entrusted authority for personal or sectional gain. Fraud refers to deliberate deception for unlawful benefit. Maladministration refers to poor, negligent or improper administration of public responsibilities. Procurement irregularity refers to the failure to follow lawful, fair and transparent processes when appointing suppliers or purchasing goods and services.
The report from the internal assessment records forty-one (41) serious matters involving principals, School Governing Body (SGB) members, finance officers, bursars, administrative staff, educators, general workers and service providers. These are individuals and structures entrusted with public money, learner welfare, infrastructure, nutrition, teaching resources and the daily functioning of schools.
Of the 41 cases recorded, 22 occurred in 2023, accounting for 54 percent of the total. In 2025, 13 cases were recorded, accounting for 32 percent. By June 2026, six new cases had already emerged, accounting for 14 percent. This indicates that while the numbers of recorded cases are fluctuating, the problem remains active. Corruption has not disappeared. It remains embedded in parts of the system. This persistence tells us that this is not a temporary problem, but a structural one.
The geographical spread of the recorded cases necessitates mention. The Johannesburg East District accounts for 24 percent of all recorded cases; the Ekurhuleni South District follows at 15 percent; Johannesburg Central District accounts for 10 percent; and Tshwane South District accounts for 7 percent. Combined, these four districts account for over 56 percent of all recorded cases. This indicates that the problem is not random but spread across multiple districts across the province.
Empirical data from the Johannesburg East District, which services communities such as Alexandra, Ivory Park, Tembisa and Rabie Ridge, reflects the scale of the problem. At one primary school, more than R1 million was allegedly misappropriated. At another primary school, approximately R230,000 was spent through irregular procurement processes. At an LSEN School, inflated payments exceeded market values by up to 500 percent. At a high school, more than R2.2 million was overspent across two financial years. These figures represent classrooms not repaired, books not bought, meals not served and learners not supported.
Identified areas of corruption, fraud, maladministration, financial mismanagement and procurement irregularities
The methods that are employed in the unlawful conduct are similar. They involve inflated invoices, duplicate quotations, unauthorised withdrawals, cash payments without supporting records, procurement without process and payments for goods that were never delivered.
Venue booking revenue has also emerged as a high-risk area. Schools often rent out halls, sports grounds, classrooms and open spaces for funerals, church services, community meetings and private functions. These generate income. Yet, there are repeated allegations that this money is often collected informally and not declared. A school cannot have parallel economies. Every rand entering a school must be captured in receipts, recorded and audited.
The Department is also deeply concerned about corruption linked to scholar transport. Scholar transport is an access-to-education intervention. It ensures that learners, particularly those from distant communities, rural areas and vulnerable settlements, can access school on time and safely. There are is prima facie evidence that some service providers misrepresent the quality, quantity and condition of vehicles used to transport learners. In some instances, service providers are contracted on the basis of a declared fleet size but operate with fewer vehicles than approved. This creates a gap between what the state pays for and what learners actually receive. But the consequences extend beyond economic considerations as this practice results in learners being overloaded into the few existing vehicles. Routes also become longer, resulting in late coming for learners, missing teaching and learning time. Furthermore, as drivers rush to shuttle as many learners as possible to compensate for fewer vehicles, incidents of speeding increase, as does fatigue on the part of the drivers. This heightens the likelihood of road accidents that may lead to injuries and fatalities.
The Department is also concerned about alleged theft involving physical school resources. Groceriesmeant for the National School Nutrition Programme, which benefits 1.6 million learners, are allegedly stolen, as is furniture, stationery, technical workshop equipment and building materials. This theft and misappropriation are not victimless as the consequences are immediate. A missing desk means a learner sits on the floor. A missing textbook means a learner falls behind. A missing meal means a learner is forced to study while hungry.
The Department is equally concerned by undeclared donations by schools. Many schools receive financial and non-financial support from churches, businesses, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), political representatives and communities. The resources include money, uniforms, furniture, food, building materials and educational tools. The assessment indicates that there are instances where these donations are not declared and therefore not reflected in financial records, creating hidden financial streams. Hidden financial streams weaken accountability and create opportunities for theft. A school cannot have parallel financial books or informal financial systems. By law, every donation must be declared, recorded and auditable.
Broader socio-economic implications
The findings of the internal assessment have significant implications for the education ecosystem in Gauteng. They also have direct consequences for the fate of historically disadvantaged communities in particular. Consider that the Johannesburg East District that has the highest number of reported cases is home to many quantile 1, 2 and 3 schools. These schools are faced with a compounding crisis of severe overcrowding, aging infrastructure and resource shortages. This systemic strain directly impacts the quality of education and learning conditions for thousands of learners.
Many of the communities in which the cases of unlawful conduct are recorded are characterised by high unemployment, overcrowding, poverty and social pressure. In these communities, schools are more than just educational institutions – they are social anchors. They provide meals, psycho-social support, protection and stability. When corruption, maladministration, fraud, procurement irregularities and theft strike in the schools within these communities, the damage is long-term and catastrophic.
Furthermore, it undermines the objective of the democratic government to redress injustices of the past whose vestiges can still be gleaned in the post-apartheid dispensation. As consistently argued by renowned educationist, Professor Mary Metcalfe, schools are central to community transformation and democratic development. This principle holds. When schools are weakened, communities are weakened. When schools are looted, social progress is delayed.
Interventions undertaken by the Department to date
Between 2024 and 2026, the Gauteng Department of Education has utilised available legislative instruments to deal with some of the challenges outlined in this statement. Various pieces of legislation empower the Department to intervene in public schools where acts of unlawfulness are identified and confirmed. These include the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996, as amended; the National Education Policy Act 27 of 1996, as amended; the Gauteng Schools Education Act 6 of 1995, as amended; the Governing Body Regulations for Public Schools, Government Notice 786 of 1997, as amended; and the Code of Conduct for Members of Governing Bodies of Public Schools, Government Notice 1182 of 2004 (enacted in terms of section 18a of SASA 84 of 1996, as amended). 3According to the provisions, the Head of Department may, on reasonable grounds, withdraw a function from a governing body. In cases of urgency, the Head of Department may act in terms of sub-regulation (1) without prior communication to such governing body, if the Head of Department thereafter (a) furnishes the governing body with reasons for his or her actions; (b) gives the governing body 30 days to make representations relating to such actions; and (c) duly considers any such representations received.
Additionally, a member whose conduct in relation to the governing body is prejudicial to the best interests of the school may be removed from office by the Head of Department. In cases of urgency, the Head of Department may act in terms of sub-regulation (1) without prior communication to such governing body and the member concerned, if the Head of Department thereafter (i) furnishes the governing body and the member concerned with reasons for his or her actions; (ii) gives the governing body and the member concerned a reasonable opportunity to make representations relating to such actions; and (iii) duly considers any representations within seven working days from receipt of such representations.
In 2024, a total of 12 public ordinary schools had their functions withdrawn, while 16 schools had SGBs where members were removed. In 2025, a total of 7 public ordinary schools had their functions withdrawn and 9 schools had SGBs where members were removed. As of the 28th of June 2026, a total of 7 schools have thus far had their functions withdrawn, while 12 schools have had SGB members removed. The geographical spread of the schools affected is even. All 15 districts, namely: Ekurhuleni North, Ekurhuleni South, Gauteng East, Gauteng North, Gauteng West, Johannesburg Central, Johannesburg East, Johannesburg North, Johannesburg South, Johannesburg West, Sedibeng East, Sedibeng West, Tshwane North, Tshwane South and Tshwane West, have had schools intervened at by the Department.
While reasons for the interventions by the Department are varied across all schools and SGBs, but overarching themes include failure to adhere to procurement processes which led to some members awarding contracts to themselves; making decisions without the approval of the SGB; causing the school to overspend based on fruitless expenditure; failure to follow the prescribed procedures when appointing the school’s service provider; payment of service provider without supporting documents; SGB chairperson being involved in receiving bribes; non-attendance to meetings; nepotism that was expressed in the appointment of family members as SGB educators and administrators, as well as appointing companies owned by families of SGB members to services to schools.
Other reasons include financial mismanagement; failure to conduct a handover; soliciting of a bribe from the acting principal in return for appointment to the principal’s post; irregular payment of transport allowance claims; opening an investment account without approval from the MEC; instructing delivery of Nutrition Programme food to a home address; selling admission space; violating the SGB Code of Conduct; making sexist remarks toward women; ineligibility to serve on the SGB, which requires that a member has a child registered at the school; and irreparable conflict within the SGB.
The Department takes these matters very seriously as they erode on the capacity of schools to function optimally, directly impacting the quality of teaching and learning. Financial mismanagement and related financial irregularities also impact greatly on learners as they are deprived of necessary equipment, infrastructure and other goods and services required to ensure school functionality and performance. In all cases where the Department intervened with the removal of functions or SGB members, the applicable laws were adhered to and due process was ensured, in line with the Constitution of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000, as amended.
Way forward and criminal liability
The Gauteng Department of Education will be instituting immediate interventions to deal with the findings of the internal assessment that we have concluded. In the process of this assessment, we have become aware of more systemic issues within the education sector. These demand attention from the Department and law enforcement agencies. 4As a starting point, we have launched an internal investigation into allegations of education sector officials who may be doing business with the state through proxies, family members or undeclared company interests. Public office must never be used as a private business opportunity. Section 8 of the Public Administration Management Act (PAMA) explicitly makes it a criminal offense for government employees and special advisors to conduct business with the state or serve as a director of a company doing so. Regulation 13(c) of the Public Service Regulations (2016) also bars employees from conducting business with any organ of state, except in strictly approved official capacities. Under the Department of Public Service and Administration’s (DPSA) Directive on conducting business with an organ of state, employees are explicitly prohibited from registering themselves or their companies on the National Treasury’s Central Supplier Database (CSD).
Secondly, the Department is strengthening its internal financial controls to improve oversight and ensure that school resources are used only for educational purposes. People who deal with school finances, including principals and members of SGBs, must be vetted. This will include the conducting of criminal record checks, financial background checks, conflict-of-interest declarations, qualification verification and competency assessments. The handling of school finances cannot be casual or weakly supervised. Large budgets, often running into millions of rands, are managed in environments where financial controls are sometimes inadequate, oversight is inconsistent and accountability mechanisms are vulnerable to manipulation.
Thirdly, scholar transport inspections, route verification, vehicle audits and compliance checks will be intensified. Any service provider found to have misrepresented vehicle numbers, overloaded learners, operated unroadworthy vehicles or manipulated scholar transport contracts will face immediate investigation, contract termination and referral to law enforcement for investigation and prosecution.
Finally, and most significantly, the Department will intensify cooperation with the SAPS, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks), the Gauteng Provincial Treasury, as well as departmental Labour Relations and Risk and Compliance units. As stated, government departments must investigate corruption by following a strict multi-agency, transparent framework mandated by national legislation.We will collaborate with and refer cases to external anti-corruption bodies that are legislatively mandated to investigate and prosecute corruption, fraud and unlawful activities.
Conclusion
The Gauteng Department of Education is committed to rooting out corruption within the provincial education ecosystem. Corruption is not simply a financial problem, it is also an ethical failure that reflects moral degeneration and a decline in societal values. Schools are a microcosm of society. They reflect the values, contradictions and moral condition of the communities around them. If a society normalises lawlessness, it will be reflected in schools will reflect it. If society tolerates corruption, schools will absorb it.
It is for this reason that we will continue to strengthen our recently launched initiatives, It Takes a Village to Raise a Child, a practical programme of social accountability. Communities and other stakeholders who are participating in the programme are not unaware of the unlawfulness occurring in our schools and should be part of the solution to addressing it. Education is a public good and parents, teachers, learners, churches, civic organisations, unions, business, law enforcement and government must unite to protect it.
INFO SUPPLIED.