As a Member of the Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature, I sit in portfolio committee meetings where the same issues are raised quarter after quarter. Departments are questioned, reports are tabled, and explanations are offered. Yet despite years of documented failures, very little changes. This is not because the problems are unknown. It is because oversight in Mpumalanga too often ends without consequences.
Oversight that does not result in corrective action is not accountability. It is administration without enforcement.
The Mpumalanga Department of Education’s Third Quarter Performance Report for the 2025/26 financial year is a case in point. On paper, the department reports an achievement rate of nearly 88%. In reality, that figure conceals deep weaknesses in planning, implementation, and consequence management.
Spending on capital assets remains alarmingly low, sitting at around 66% of the adjusted budget, despite well-documented infrastructure backlogs across the province. Even more concerning is that over 92% of the Education Infrastructure Grant has reportedly been spent, while only a small fraction of projects have reached practical completion. This disconnect between expenditure and delivery is not a technical oversight, it is a governance failure.
During portfolio committee engagements and oversight visits, unsafe schools, delayed repairs, and incomplete projects are repeatedly flagged. Storm-damaged classrooms remain unrepaired months later. Temporary structures continue to be used without basic services. These are not new discoveries; they are recurring findings.
What this reveals is a deeper problem within Mpumalanga’s system of governance. Departments are aware that poor performance will lead to further briefings, revised timelines, and additional explanations, but rarely to sanctions, disciplinary action, or leadership accountability. When failure carries no real cost, it becomes normalised.
Oversight without consequences becomes performative. It gives the appearance of control while allowing dysfunction to persist.
A capable provincial state cannot be built on reports alone. It requires consequence management that is firm, consistent, and visible. Officials who repeatedly fail to plan and deliver must face disciplinary action. Contracts that do not yield value must be reviewed and, where necessary, terminated. Political leadership must be held accountable when systemic failures are allowed to continue unchecked.
In Mpumalanga, learners and communities pay the price for this absence of consequences. Children are expected to learn in unsafe environments while budgets are spent without results. Parents are asked to trust systems that repeatedly fail them.
Oversight must be disruptive. It must compel change. Without consequences, it is not governance, it is governance failure.
Oversight Without Consequence Is Governance Failure in Mpumalanga
As a Member of the Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature, I sit in portfolio committee meetings where the same issues are raised quarter after quarter. Departments are questioned, reports are tabled, and explanations are offered. Yet despite years of documented failures, very little changes. This is not because the problems are unknown. It is because oversight in Mpumalanga too often ends without consequences.
Oversight that does not result in corrective action is not accountability. It is administration without enforcement.
The Mpumalanga Department of Education’s Third Quarter Performance Report for the 2025/26 financial year is a case in point. On paper, the department reports an achievement rate of nearly 88%. In reality, that figure conceals deep weaknesses in planning, implementation, and consequence management.
Spending on capital assets remains alarmingly low, sitting at around 66% of the adjusted budget, despite well-documented infrastructure backlogs across the province. Even more concerning is that over 92% of the Education Infrastructure Grant has reportedly been spent, while only a small fraction of projects have reached practical completion. This disconnect between expenditure and delivery is not a technical oversight, it is a governance failure.
During portfolio committee engagements and oversight visits, unsafe schools, delayed repairs, and incomplete projects are repeatedly flagged. Storm-damaged classrooms remain unrepaired months later. Temporary structures continue to be used without basic services. These are not new discoveries; they are recurring findings.
What this reveals is a deeper problem within Mpumalanga’s system of governance. Departments are aware that poor performance will lead to further briefings, revised timelines, and additional explanations, but rarely to sanctions, disciplinary action, or leadership accountability. When failure carries no real cost, it becomes normalised.
Oversight without consequences becomes performative. It gives the appearance of control while allowing dysfunction to persist.
A capable provincial state cannot be built on reports alone. It requires consequence management that is firm, consistent, and visible. Officials who repeatedly fail to plan and deliver must face disciplinary action. Contracts that do not yield value must be reviewed and, where necessary, terminated. Political leadership must be held accountable when systemic failures are allowed to continue unchecked.
In Mpumalanga, learners and communities pay the price for this absence of consequences. Children are expected to learn in unsafe environments while budgets are spent without results. Parents are asked to trust systems that repeatedly fail them.
Oversight must be disruptive. It must compel change. Without consequences, it is not governance, it is governance failure.