Brazen bias: NAC rigging the system to appoint Julie and Reshma.

The National Arts Council (NAC) is allegedly being manipulated to shield, favour and permanently appoint two deeply controversial officials, Julie Diphofa and Reshma Bhoola

Diphofa served as an acting CEO of the NAC and Bhoola is currently serving as acting CFO. Together, they ran the NAC, a public entity that receives hundreds of millions in taxpayer money every year to support artists, creatives, and cultural practitioners across the country.

Last year they were suspended on numerous allegations. During that suspension, the NAC halted the recruitment process for the permanent CEO and CFO positions. According to the NAC Chairperson, Eugene Botha, the positions could not be advertised while the two women were under suspension because "it would be unfair to them."

Eugene Botha justified this and said:

"The positions could not be advertised while the individuals concerned were under suspension and a disciplinary process was underway. That is a straight forward governance and legal position, not a strategic manoeuvre. The suspension was lifted when the process concluded without adverse findings," Botha told The Public Dispatch.

When The Public Dispatch pressed Botha on whether Diphofa and Bhoola were being guaranteed the positions, he said:

“Ms Diphofa and Ms Bhoola have not been guaranteed anything. The suggestion that their permanent appointment is a foregone conclusion is incorrect and irresponsible. They are eligible to apply for the positions they have been performing in an acting capacity, as any qualified candidate would be. The idea that individuals who have performed a role competently should be automatically disqualified from applying for it permanently is not a governance principle recognised under any framework we are aware of.”

According to insiders, the entire recruitment process was suspended not for legal reasons but to clear the path so that Julie and Reshma could be conveniently available as the preferred candidates

A well-placed source said: "The Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture, Gayton McKenzie, personally ordered their suspension, but the NAC initially refused. They only acted after heavy pressure from Parliament. Even then, it was a blatant tick-box exercise, the pair kept their tools of trade and full access. As soon as their suspension was lifted in December, the CEO and CFO positions were immediately advertised. This is nothing but window-dressing. The positions are clearly reserved for them and the recruitment process is a mere formality.”

"The NAC has no business whatsoever protecting the job prospects of officials under investigation by deliberately sabotaging the filling of critical vacancies. Their duty is to the public and to artists not to babysit their preferred candidate. This is nothing but favouritism dressed as governance," the source continued.

Double-Dipping on executive recruitment: Paying twice for the same job

Despite having a fully functioning HR department, the NAC hired an external recruitment firm to manage the CEO and CFO appointments. When asked to explain this, Botha said:

"The NAC has not outsourced the recruitment process for its CEO and CFO. However, due to current capacity constraints within the HR department as well as the complex nature of the CEO and CFO recruitment process, the NAC has appointed a recruitment firm to assist with certain aspects of the recruitment process. The NAC HR department is playing a role in the recruitment process."

Another source said: "The taxpayers are paying the salaries of HR staff to manage recruitment. But they are also paying an external agency to do the same job. This is not capacity building but financial waste. If the internal HR department is incapable of doing its job then why does it exist?"

The legal reality

Section 38(1)(c)(ii) of the PFMA requires the accounting authority to prevent fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Paying twice for the same service, once through salaries and once through placement fees is the definition of expenditure that "would have been avoided had reasonable care been taken."

Section 86 of the PFMA establishes direct criminal liability for accounting officers or authorities who willfully or negligently fail to comply with their financial duties.

If public money was spent on external contractors to secure a predetermined employment outcome for favored internal executives, the board is not just guilty of poor management, they are flirting with statutory financial misconduct

Diphofa's record: Unapproved appointments, a strike, and over 400 signatures calling for her head

• Under Diphofa’s leadership as acting CEO, the Presidential Employment Stimulus Programme (PESP) spiralled deeper into controversy. As early as 2022, the Portfolio Committee on Sports Arts and Culture had already expressed concerns about the programme’s administration.

• In 2025, Diphofa appointed her colleague, Puleng Lesala to a position without following any HR processes. No advertisement. No competitive process. No transparency.

When questioned about it she said:

"The position was authorised by me, as interim CEO. Puleng is an astute professional with 17 years of experience. This position did not need to be advertised, as it was an internal temporary secondment to the project management role to fulfil a specific functional requirement. The position has been filled on a temporary basis."

That explanation is not a governance principle but an abuse of delegated authority. Advertising posts is not optional for public entities. It is required by law. The Public Service Act, the PFMA, and Treasury Regulations all exist precisely to prevent this kinds of insider appointment.

Again, Botha stepped in to protect Diphofa:

"This matter was examined as part of the CDH forensic investigation. The investigation did not find evidence of conduct warranting disciplinary or further action on this specific matter. The board accepted those findings. We are not in a position to relitigate a concluded forensic process in the pages of a newspaper."

• Earlier this year, NAC employees went on strike because of unpaid bonuses. amongst other things. They pointed directly at Diphofa and Bhoolaas the reason they never received those bonuses. They described the NAC as being in a dire state, primarily because of her leadership. More than 400 artists and employees signed a petition calling for her suspension.

But once again, Botha shut them down and said:

"A petition, however many signatories it carries, is not evidence of wrongdoing. The appropriate mechanism for investigating allegations of this nature is an independent forensic process, not public pressure. Such a process was in fact conducted by Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. That investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Ms Diphofa or Ms Bhoola. Council considers those findings authoritative. We will not suspend individuals on the basis of allegations that a formal investigation has already examined and not substantiated."

One investigation. Commissioned by the NAC. Accepted by the NAC. Used by the NAC to close every door of accountability.

The R65 Million that moved in the dark

At this point, you need to understand who Bhoola is and what she has already done.

• In November 2021, while artists were at their most vulnerable, battling the economic devastation of Covid-19 and the shutdown that came with it, Bhoola quietly moved R65 million from the NAC's ABSA account to the Corporation for Public Deposits

She did this behind the CEO's back. When she was caught, she did not deny it. In Parliament, she was protected by then-Chairperson Celenhle Dlamini. To this day, it remains unclear who authorised the transfer of those millions.

The matter is now in the hands of the Public Protector. When The Public Dispatch asked Botha about this, he said:

"The NAC has received correspondence from the Office of the Public Protector and is engaging with that process through the appropriate channels. We are cooperating fully and responding within the prescribed timeframes. It would not be appropriate to disclose the specific content of that engagement while the process is ongoing."

The bottom line

The NAC exists to support South Africa’s artists, not to serve as a personal fiefdom for a protected inner circle. The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, the Auditor-General, the Public Protector, and Parliament must intervene immediately.