Public Protector says there's a significant regulatory vacuum governing oversight visits by MPs
Minister In The Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni. Picture: Gallo Images / Frennie Shivambu
Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni has been cleared of allegations that she unlawfully blocked members of parliament from conducting an unannounced oversight visit to South Africa’s Directorate for Conventional Arms Control (DCAC), with the Public Protector finding there was no evidence she instructed officials to deny the MPs access.
This brings to an end a high-profile executive ethics investigation by Public Protector Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka. It stemmed from a complaint by members of Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Defence (JSCD), who accused the minister of improperly interfering in Parliament’s constitutional oversight responsibilities.
Parliament must develop clear rules – Gcaleka
Gcaleka has concluded that the aborted visit exposed a significant legal gap in how Parliament regulates oversight visits by individual MPs to security-sensitive government facilities, recommending that Parliament urgently develop clear rules.
The complaint arose after JSCD members conducted an unannounced oversight visit to the DCAC at the Armscor building in Pretoria on 17 February 2025.
According to the MPs, they arrived to investigate concerns about regulatory problems affecting South Africa’s defence industry after industry representatives complained that the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) had not met since April 2024.
The MPs alleged that after they met acting DCAC director Sipho Peter Mashaba, Chief of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) General Rudzani Maphwanya arrived and questioned how they had gained access to the Armscor facility.
They claimed Maphwanya instructed Mashaba not to engage with them and insisted they could not proceed without written authorisation from the minister of defence.
Allegations against Ntshavheni
The MPs further alleged Mashaba told them he had received a phone call from Ntshavheni instructing him not to meet them or allow the oversight visit to continue.
They then lodged an executive ethics complaint, arguing Ntshavheni had unlawfully interfered with Parliament’s oversight powers despite her ministerial portfolio being unrelated to the DCAC’s day-to-day operations.
The report found the key claim, that the Minister in the Presidency ordered officials to block the MPs, could not be substantiated.
Mashaba, whose alleged statement formed the foundation of the complaint, later denied under oath that Ntshavheni had instructed him to prevent the visit.
The minister had consistently maintained she was unreachable while the incident unfolded and only returned calls after the matter had already been resolved.
Maphwanya told investigators he independently decided the visit could not proceed because no prior notification had been given and because of security protocols governing the Defence Headquarters at the Armscor building.
He said he never contacted Ntshavheni before making that decision.
Gcaleka found this version was corroborated by multiple witnesses and aligned with the chronology of events.
“The probabilities favour the conclusion that no improper instruction was issued by Ms Ntshavheni,” she stated in the report states.
Instead, investigators found the decision was made “at an operational level by officials on the ground”.
A key feature of the investigation was the tension between Parliament’s constitutional oversight powers and legislation governing classified defence information.
The Public Protector accepted Ntshavheni’s argument that, although she chaired the NCACC, she had no legal authority to unilaterally authorise or refuse access to classified information.
Under the National Conventional Arms Control Act, such decisions must be taken collectively by the committee itself.
Security-sensitive facility
The report also accepted that Defence Headquarters is a security-sensitive facility where access protocols differ from those applying to ordinary government departments.
Investigators noted that the oversight visit later proceeded successfully on 12 May 2025 after prior notification had been given, suggesting there was no institutional attempt to frustrate parliamentary oversight.
The complainants strongly challenged Gcaleka’s preliminary conclusions.
They argued investigators failed to resolve contradictions between witness accounts, particularly Mashaba’s alleged statement on the day of the incident and his later sworn denial.
The MPs also argued the investigation placed excessive emphasis on the absence of formal oversight procedures rather than addressing the constitutional question of executive meddling.
They maintained that MPs have historically conducted unannounced oversight visits independently and warned against allowing procedural uncertainty to weaken Parliament’s oversight role.
However, Gcaleka concluded that while those broader constitutional questions deserved attention, they did not establish misconduct by Ntshavheni.
Although she cleared Ntshavheni of breaching the Executive Ethics Code, she pointed to a significant regulatory vacuum governing oversight visits by individual MPs.
Evidence from Speaker Thoko Didiza confirmed Parliament has already begun developing rules to regulate both announced and unannounced oversight visits, particularly to security-sensitive installations.
The Public Protector recommended that the National Assembly expedite that process to avoid similar disputes in future.
