The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) is facing fresh uncertainty after the Pretoria High Court suspended the appointment of Professor Hlengani Mathebula as administrator and restored the scheme’s remaining board members.

The ruling comes after Higher Education and Training Minister Buti Manamela dissolved the NSFAS board and placed the institution under administration in May. At the time, Manamela said the decision was a legal intervention intended to protect the NSFAS and the students who depend on it. Parliament later questioned the minister about how the decision had been reached and what it meant for the scheme's future.

In a statement after Friday’s ruling, the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) said the court suspended Mathebula’s appointment and restored the seven remaining board members pending the final determination of the review application. 

OUTA said the court also found that the remaining board was quorate, despite the minister having previously stated that it was not.

The development puts the NSFAS back at the centre of questions about governance and leadership at a time when students continue to rely on the scheme for financial support.

The NSFAS has faced repeated concerns over its administration and governance. In May, Parliament’s portfolio committee on higher education and training described the latest administration as “deeply troubling”, noting that the NSFAS had had three administrators since 2018.

Committee chairperson Tebogo Letsie said the repeated interventions were intended to address persistent governance failures, non-compliance with legal recommendations and poor management of student allowances. 

For students, the problems extend beyond boardrooms and government decisions. NSFAS funding can determine whether a student is able to register, remain in accommodation, buy food, travel to campus or continue with their studies.

Recent events have shown how quickly administrative problems can affect students. In July, more than 93 000 University of South Africa students were affected by delays in receiving their Personal Care Allowance. The Department of Higher Education and Training said the NSFAS had transferred the funds to Unisa on 2 July but a system glitch at the university delayed the processing of some payments. The department said the technical problem was resolved on 6 July and outstanding payments were being processed.

The same engagement also brought attention to the wider difficulties faced by distance-learning students. Deputy Higher Education and Training Minister Yusuf Cassim raised concerns about the value of the R316 Personal Care Allowance and the discontinuation of data allowances for Unisa students. He said students should not have been subjected to payment delays.

The Unisa issue was followed by further concerns from students at other institutions. In July, Cassim met Mathebula to discuss funding delays, outstanding GAP investigations, allowance payments and appeals. The NSFAS reported that it had completed 2 361 GAP investigations and restored funding for those students from a caseload of more than 10 000. The department said NSFAS teams were sent to the Central University of Technology to assist students who had experienced delays in receiving allowances.

The concerns show why the latest court ruling matters beyond the question of who runs the NSFAS. For students who rely on financial aid, uncertainty around the institution can translate into uncertainty about their own education. At the same time, it would be unfair to suggest that every problem students experience is caused by the NSFAS.

The July, Unisa delays, for example, were linked by the department to a system problem at the university after the NSFAS had transferred the funds. What the incidents do show, however, is how complicated the funding system can become when the NSFAS and universities must coordinate payments, investigations and student information. The latest court ruling has also brought renewed attention to how the crisis developed.

OUTA says several NSFAS board members resigned during 2025 and that the minister was asked in January 2026 to fill vacant positions. According to the organisation, the vacancies remained unfilled before the minister eventually dissolved the board and placed the NSFAS under administration.

“The court judgment confirms much of what OUTA has been saying for months. This crisis was allowed to develop when it could and should have been addressed much earlier,” OUTA CEO Wayne Duvenage said.

OUTA has also raised concerns about Mathebula’s appointment. The organisation had previously questioned his suitability and pointed to findings relating to his time at the South African Revenue Service.

According to OUTA’s account of the judgment, the court found that the Nugent Commission findings were relevant to Mathebula’s appointment and that the minister either did not have the full picture before him or failed to properly consider the adverse findings. OUTA also says the court found that Mathebula had been facing disciplinary proceedings at South African Revenue Service when he resigned, despite telling the court he had not. “This was not an appointment where the minister could afford to get it wrong,” Duvenage said.

OUTA has used the ruling to renew its criticism of Manamela’s leadership of the higher education portfolio and has called on President Cyril Ramaphosa to reconsider the minister’s position. The calls come from OUTA and are separate from the court’s findings.

The minister has previously defended the decision to place the NSFAS under administration. When he appeared before Parliament in May, Manamela said the intervention was not a political fight with the board but a legal intervention intended to protect the NSFAS and students. Parliament’s committee said its priority was to see a stable NSFAS that worked for poor students who depended on the scheme to access post-school education.

The court process is not over either. OUTA said the court directed that the broader review be expedited, preferably before the end of November 2026.

For now, the restored board faces the task of taking responsibility for an institution that has undergone several leadership changes and continues to face questions about how it delivers services to students.

The latest developments do not mean that the NSFAS’s wider problems have been resolved. Instead, they add another chapter to a difficult year for the scheme, with governance disputes at the top occurring alongside complaints from students about delays in funding, allowances and appeals.

For students who depend on the NSFAS, the expectations are not complicated. They need funding decisions made on time, allowances to reach them by their due dates and clear answers when problems arise.

The NSFAS remains essential to expanding access to higher education in South Africa. But after repeated leadership changes and concerns about the administration of student support, the scheme faces another test to prove whether it can provide the stability and reliability its beneficiaries need.

The reinstated board may have another opportunity to govern the NSFAS but the bigger challenge remains the same — restoring confidence in an institution whose decisions affect whether students can continue their education.