Directors of SOEs that are not registered companies cannot be prevented from being directors. Outa wants to change that.
Civil rights organisation Outa is heading to court to ensure that state-owned enterprises (SOE) directors can also be declared delinquent.
The Public Finance Management Act protects most SOE boards, CEOs and CFOs from being declared delinquent directors.
Outa wants that changed, advocate Stephanie Fick, executive director for accountability at Outa, says: “We want the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) changed so that malfeasant accounting authorities at SOEs may be declared delinquent directors, even if the SOE is not a registered company.
“The law currently allows delinquent director actions against directors of registered companies, which excludes many SOEs. Changing the law will enable civil society to take such actions to hold individuals who mismanage and abuse SOEs to account.”
ALSO READ: Directors’ accountability for delinquency: is five years enough?
Companies Act does not apply to all directors of SOEs
Fick says the Companies Act, which enables delinquent-director actions, applies only to registered companies. The SOEs which are not registered as companies fall under the PFMA, where a “lacuna” exists in law which prevents their accounting authorities from being declared delinquent.
Some SOEs are registered companies and are referred to as state-owned companies (SOCs). However, Fick points out, accounting authorities of SOEs that fall outside the ambit of the Companies Act are automatically protected from delinquency actions.
“We believe this is unfair, as it limits actions to hold SOE management to account, effectively holding SOE accounting authorities to lower standards than those of SOCs.”
Outa’s action was filed on 20 August 2025 in the High Court in Pretoria. Fick made the founding affidavit.
“We are asking the court to declare sections 83(4) and 84 of the PFMA unconstitutional, because they impose a lower standard of accountability on the boards of the SOEs which are not registered as companies, compared to SOCs.
ALSO READ: The minefield of appointing a CEO for a state-owned entity
Government must amend PFMA for directors of SEOs to be held accountable
“Outa asks that the court allows parliament two years to amend the PFMA. However, pending that legal fix, Outa asks the court to order that section 162 of the Companies Act (which enables delinquency actions) applies to all accounting authorities of all public entities, regardless of whether they are registered as companies.
“If parliament fails to fix the law within two years, then Outa asks for the interim application of the Companies Act to continue to apply.”
The respondents are the minister of finance (responsible for the administration of the PFMA), the minister of trade, industry and competition (responsible for the administration of the Companies Act), the department of trade, industry and competition and the companies and intellectual property commission (CIPC).
Outa argues that there is a “gap” or, in legal terms, a “lacuna”, in the PFMA regarding delinquency and the organisation’s case aims to fix that lacuna. Section 83(4) of the PFMA provides that financial misconduct may be grounds for dismissal or suspension, or “other sanction”.
Section 84 of the PFMA provides for the applicable legal regime for disciplinary proceedings. “The only sanctions for financial misconduct are dismissal, suspension, or undefined ‘sanctioning’,” Fick said in her affidavit.
“Under section 162 of the Companies Act, a court must (the court has no discretion) declare a company director delinquent if the director has failed to discharge a director’s duties under the Companies Act,” Fick says.
ALSO READ: Reform needed for SOEs, say experts
Why does Outa want the PFMA changed?
Fick says Outa believes that the different and lower standard for accountability provided by the PFMA compared to the Companies Act is unreasonable, as it limits actions for accountability.
“It also limits civil society action against corrupt SOE heads. If the government fails to hold malfeasant board members, CEOs and CFOs of SOEs to account, civil society wants the tools to do this.
“Specifically, the application will focus on the fact that the remedy of declaring a director of a state-owned entity registered under the Companies Act delinquent is available to public interest litigants such as Outa, whereas there is no equivalent remedy against accounting authorities of public entities that are not registered under the Companies Act,” Fick says.
“This distinction is unjustifiable and violates the constitutional rights of equality and access to courts, as well as the constitutional values of accountability and transparency that public entities are required to hold.”
This loophole means that individuals involved in financial misconduct in SOEs that are not companies can simply move on to other senior roles in government entities, with no consequence or public recourse.
ALSO READ: Directorship should be a regulated profession – Institute of directors
Compromised directors recycled through SEOs and departments
Fick points out that compromised officials are repeatedly recycled through government departments and entities. By fixing this gap in the law, Outa aims to provide civil society with another tool to hold such individuals to account and protect the public purse.
In May 2020, Outa won a high court order which declared former South African Airways (SAA) chair Dudu Myeni a delinquent director for life, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in April 2021.
Fick points out that this action was possible because SAA is a registered company, which falls under the Companies Act. SAA is not meant to be funded by taxpayers but has received repeated bailouts over the years due to financial mismanagement. This case set a precedent, the first delinquency action against an SOC director and the first brought by civil society.
“Had Myeni been an accounting authority of an SOE not registered as a company, this remedy would not have been available to Outa. Most likely, she would not have been held accountable for her gross abuse of office and breach of her fiduciary duties during her tenure at SAA and for the enormous damage she caused,” Fick says.
ALSO READ: Outa guns for city boss over Usindiso building fire
Helen Botes could be next to be declared delinquent director
Fick adds that Outa’s delinquency case against the former Joburg Property Company CEO, Helen Botes, filed in the High Court in Johannesburg in August 2025 over her failures that contributed to the fatal Usindiso fire and her role in Covid-19 procurement scandals, is possible because JPC is a registered company.
Outa also found significant corruption at the Services Sector Education and Training Authority (Services Seta) and the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). However, none of these entities are SOCs, which means that delinquency actions cannot be brought against them.
“If the Services Seta and NSFAS were SOCs, the public (and Outa) would have recourse under the Companies Act, but under the PFMA, the public has none.”
Outa is represented by advocate Niël du Preez, SC and advocate Sonika Mentz, instructed by attorney Andri Jennings of Jennings Inc.
