Gugu Mkhize Dismissed

The dismissal of Insurance Sector Education and Training Authority (INSETA) CEO Gugu Mkhize by the Accounting Authority marks a significant development and positive example of how Government entity boards should conduct themselves when holding errant executives to account for their mismanagement of State institutions and taxpayers’ money.

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse’s (OUTA) has also applied long-running efforts to hold Ms Mkhize to account, largely through its previous board who were unwilling or disabled by internal disagreement and political interference, to proceed with a formal independent investigation into her conduct.

Following a number of investigations into irrational decisions and questionable contracts, OUTA has consistently questioned Mkhize’s fitness to lead INSETA and challenged the circumstances surrounding her reappointment for a further five-year term.

While OUTA regards her dismissal as an important step towards restoring accountability, it says the bigger question remains unanswered: how was Mkhize reappointed to lead an institution responsible for substantial public funds when serious concerns about her previous performance and the appointment process had already been raised?

Advocate Stefanie Fick, OUTA’s Executive Director for Accountability, says the dismissal is a significant development, but it cannot be the end of the process.

“This is an important step forward for accountability at INSETA. OUTA has been raising concerns about the leadership and governance of this institution for years, and we are pleased to see that action has finally been taken,” says Fick.

“We must commend the current board on its decision to take this decisive action; however, removing one individual does not fix the system that allowed these problems to develop. We are also pleased to see that formal charges will also be brought against Ms Mkhize and that others who were working with her to further highly suspicious decisions will also be investigated”, says Adv Fick. “We need to understand how someone with a concerning performance record could be reappointed to lead a public institution for another five years.”

Why this goes beyond one CEO
INSETA is responsible for supporting skills development and training in South Africa’s insurance and related sectors.

It manages funds intended to help people gain qualifications, access training and improve their employment prospects.

When an institution responsible for developing skills is poorly managed, the consequences extend beyond its boardroom. Students risk losing financial support, training opportunities are disrupted, and money intended to develop South Africa’s workforce may not reach those who need it.

This is why OUTA believes the appointment of competent, suitably qualified and ethical leaders to public institutions is not simply an administrative requirement. It is fundamental to protecting public funds and ensuring that institutions deliver on their mandates.

Why OUTA feels its court challenge should continue
In December 2025, OUTA instituted legal proceedings in the Pretoria High Court to review and set aside Mkhize’s reappointment by Higher Education and Training Minister Buti Manamela.

OUTA argues that the appointment process was procedurally flawed and that proper consideration was not given to Mkhize’s previous performance and the governance concerns at INSETA.

A central concern is the sequence of events surrounding the appointment and the responsibility placed on the accounting authority to investigate suitability after the appointment had already been made.

“How can a Minister appoint someone to run a public institution and leave it to the accounting authority to investigate their suitability afterwards? That is precisely the problem we want the court to address,” says Fick.

“The purpose of background checks, performance assessments and proper appointment procedures is to prevent unsuitable appointments, not to investigate them once the damage has been done.”

OUTA maintains that Mkhize’s dismissal does not remove the need for the court to examine whether the Minister complied with the law when making the appointment.

The case is no longer simply about whether Mkhize should remain in office. It is about ensuring that future appointments to public institutions are subjected to proper scrutiny before they are finalised.

A successful challenge could reinforce the legal safeguards designed to prevent unsuitable appointments, political favouritism and governance failures across public institutions.

“We are continuing this case because we want to prevent a repeat of what happened at INSETA. Public appointments must be based on competence, integrity and compliance with the law,” says Fick.

“If the appointment process is flawed, the consequences can extend far beyond one institution. The public deserves assurance that the people entrusted with managing public money have been properly vetted and appointed through lawful processes.”

Serious financial questions remain unanswered
OUTA’s concerns about INSETA have never been limited to the appointment of its CEO.

The organisation has repeatedly raised questions about financial management, procurement, transparency and oversight at the authority.

Over the past few years, OUTA has requested information from INSETA to pursue its investigations into procurement irregularities and the appointment of service providers at high costs and questionable procurement practices.

At every turn, our requests for information were stalled and delayed, leading to many requests having to be directed to the Information Regulator and the preparation of papers for court interventions.

In July 2026, OUTA published findings from its preliminary investigation into INSETA’s Insurance Sector Student Fund (ISSF), which identified an extraordinary increase in the fund’s budget from approximately R20 million to R442.8 million in the 2024/25 financial year.

The investigation raised serious questions about the fund’s administration, procurement processes and expenditure, alongside concerns about students experiencing delays in receiving financial support.

These are substantial funds intended to support skills development. When expenditure increases on this scale, the public is entitled to know how the money was allocated, who benefited, and whether the intended students received the support they were promised.

OUTA has called for a full investigation into the expenditure and procurement decisions associated with the fund, and other procurement decisions during Ms Mkhize’s tenure, including access to financial records to establish how the money was allocated and spent.

“These are not just administrative failures on paper. When governance breaks down, students can be left without the financial support they were promised, while public money is placed at risk,” says Fick.

“The dismissal of the CEO does not answer the questions we have raised about INSETA’s finances. Those questions still need answers, and any wrongdoing uncovered must have consequences.”

Accountability must not end with dismissal
OUTA believes Mkhize’s dismissal presents an opportunity for INSETA to begin rebuilding public confidence in its leadership and governance.

However, the organisation maintains that the broader concerns raised through its investigations must still be properly addressed.

This includes ensuring that procurement and financial management concerns are independently investigated, that public funds are properly accounted for and that any evidence of unlawful conduct is referred to the appropriate authorities.

OUTA will consider the continued pursuit of its legal challenge against the Minister, investigating governance concerns and monitoring developments at INSETA.

“Dismissal is an important consequence, but it cannot be the only outcome when serious governance concerns have been raised,” says Fick.

“We need institutions that appoint the right people from the outset, boards that exercise proper oversight and Ministers who can account for the decisions they make and are pleased that the new INSETA Board is setting the right example for how oversight should be exercised, whilst also thwarting political interference in their decisions to take action.”

“The real victory will be ensuring that the same failures cannot simply happen again under a different CEO.”