A day of heated debate and accusations marred the Portfolio Committee on Small Business Development’s virtual meeting, as members clashed over the adoption of a report recommending candidates for the newly established Office of the Small Enterprise Ombudsperson.
Image: Gerd Altmann/Pixabay
A DAY of heated debate and accusations marred the Portfolio Committee on Small Business Development’s virtual meeting, as members clashed over the adoption of a report recommending candidates for the newly established Office of the Small Enterprise Ombudsperson.
The session, which was meant to streamline support for small businesses, instead devolved into a battleground of partisan politics, procedural disputes, and allegations of manipulation.
The meeting began with a presentation by the Auditor-General of SA (AGSA), led by Kumari Naicker, deputy business unit leader, and Tshidiso Thipe, senior audit manager. Their briefing focused on proactive reviews of the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD) and the Small Enterprise Development and Finance Agency’s (Sedfa) 2025/26 strategic and annual performance plans.
However, the AGSA’s insights were met with sharp criticism from Committee Members.
The DA’s Shara Singh, voiced her dissatisfaction, saying: “I complain about the lack of precision in the information provided in the report. It is too general.” She questioned whether the AG’s Office was satisfied with how the Department had implemented its recommendations from the prior year.
She further pressed for clarity on measurable targets related to government priorities such as supporting small businesses and job creation — two apex objectives that seemed conspicuously absent or inadequately addressed in the report.
The ANC’s Christopher Malematja echoed these concerns, seeking “clear targets and proposed strategies for addressing non-alignment” with national goals. He emphasised the need for specific indicators targeting previously disadvantaged groups, including those living with disabilities.
Meanwhile, the EFF’s Babalwa Mathulelwa demanded detailed reports on two contentious issues: the Presidential Awards programme and equipment handovers to cooperatives, citing irregularities worth millions. Her request underscored growing scepticism about the transparency and accountability of funding mechanisms within the DSBD.
Amid calls for greater oversight, the R500 million Spaza Shop Fund emerged as another flashpoint. Several Members, including Singh and the DA’s Hendrik Kruger, insisted on a comprehensive report detailing disbursements and monitoring mechanisms.
The MK Party’s Mokgaetji Mafagane remarked: “Given the many challenges, I find it hard to believe those issues have been resolved,” questioning the feasibility of the fund itself. Despite assurances from the chairperson, the ANC’s Masefako Dikgale, that the Department would provide updates, discontent simmered among Members who felt sidelined in critical discussions.
Adding fuel to the fire, the invitation extended solely to the Chairperson for the upcoming G20 summit ignited further discord. Mathulelwa accused the Department of using financial constraints as an excuse, arguing: “We are not limited by financial constraints because we have flights allocated to each MP.”
She vowed to attend regardless, accusing leadership of stifling democratic participation. Committee secretary King Kunene clarified protocol but failed to quell dissent, highlighting underlying tensions between institutional processes and individual Member expectations.
The most explosive segment of the meeting revolved around the draft report on the appointment of the Small Business Ombudsperson. Established under the National Small Enterprise Amendment Bill signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa on July 18, 2024, this office aims to assist small enterprises navigate bureaucratic hurdles. Yet, the process of recommending suitable candidates descended into acrimony.
Mafagane suggested ranking candidates according to their interview scores, proposing the inclusion of wording identifying the top candidate as “the highest ranking interview candidate with an untainted record”. This sparked immediate pushback.
Kruger reminded the committee of his party’s stance, asserting: “The DA cannot decide before members consult their caucuses.” He further declared: “We do not support the first two candidates because they are not fit for purpose.”
Accusations flew thick and fast. Mathulelwa levelled serious charges against the chairperson, alleging deliberate score manipulation to favour certain candidates. “You deliberately added 10 points to the ‘arrogant and corrupt Sonwabile Mancotywa’,” she said, demanding transparency. She also cited Section 59(1)(b) of the Constitution, which mandates open parliamentary proceedings, criticising the lack of live-streaming during interviews and deliberations. “What are you concealing from the public?” she asked.
Defending the process, Malematja praised the inclusivity of the report, particularly the inclusion of women candidates. He urged swift adoption, reminding members that ultimate vetting authority rested with the National Assembly and the Minister. “Let us push this process forward to benefit the people on the ground,” he said.
Despite attempts to broker consensus, procedural disagreements escalated. Singh reiterated her reservation about the list, while Mathulelwa called for a follow-up meeting to amend the report. “Where were those amendments?” she shouted repeatedly without permission, sparking verbal altercations with other members.
As tempers flared, the Chairperson declared the report adopted, with amendments to be incorporated later. This decision drew immediate objections. Mafagane stressed the importance of due diligence, urging caution against rushing the process. Meanwhile, the ANC’s Nkhensani Bilankulu argued that the report represented the collective work of the committee, dismissing claims of majority versus minority support. “Members are seen as a collective of the Committee,” she said.
Post-adjournment chaos ensued, with Mafagane, Mathulelwa, and the chairperson engaging in a heated exchange. Accusations of bias and procedural misconduct dominated the discourse. Singh lamented the adjournment mid-debate, saying: “I cannot vote for a report when members have not seen the final wording.” The chairperson countered, accusing her of mistrust, leading to a shouting match that underscored deep-seated fractures within the committee.
What was intended as a constructive step toward empowering South Africa’s small businesses ended in disarray. Allegations of favouritism, cries for transparency, and procedural wrangling overshadowed substantive progress.
As the nation looks to bolster its entrepreneurial ecosystem, the events of April 23 serve as a stark reminder of the challenges facing governance structures tasked with driving economic transformation. Whether the fractured committee can reconcile its differences remains uncertain, but the stakes for small businesses across the country could not be higher.