Letsie accused of bias, intimidation over R100m disclosure

Tebogo Letsie, chairperson of the portfolio committee on higher education and training, has been accused of bias and intimidation, and a formal complaint has been laid with parliament’s speaker.

This comes after a Construction Education and Training Authority (Ceta) supply chain manager who reported alleged procurement irregularities exceeding R100m accused Letsie of focusing on her disciplinary case instead of the allegations she reported.

Tumiso Mphuthi, who describes herself as a whistleblower and who was honoured at the 2025 BluePrint Free Speech awards, said she first raised her concerns internally with the Ceta board, the department of higher education and training and the minister before approaching parliament.

“Despite numerous follow-ups, my reports were ignored, and no meaningful intervention followed. It was only after these efforts had failed that I approached parliament,” she said.

Although the committee acknowledged receipt of her disclosure, she was never informed of any investigation, hearing or referral relating to the allegations, she said.

Despite numerous follow-ups, my reports were ignored, and no meaningful intervention followed – Tumiso Mphuthi, self-described whistleblower

On January 17, 2025, Mphuthi submitted a protected disclosure to the portfolio committee, raising concerns about alleged supply chain management irregularities, governance failures and procurement processes at Ceta. Her disclosure implicated senior officials, including CEO Malusi Shezi.

She alleges that instead of prompting parliamentary oversight into the allegations, she became the focus of disciplinary proceedings at Ceta.

Mphuthi, who returned to work in March after being suspended while disciplinary proceedings continued, alleges that since her return, Letsie has repeatedly questioned why she remains employed at Ceta.

She also questioned why, in her view, attention had shifted from the alleged procurement irregularities to her employment status. “Why were the procurement irregularities I reported ignored, yet my disciplinary matter has become a subject of interest?” she asked in her complaint.

The complaint also centres on Facebook posts and comments allegedly made by Letsie about her disciplinary matter.

Although her name was not mentioned in the original post, Mphuthi alleges members of the public identified her in the comments and that Letsie continued engaging on the matter. She further alleges that comments, including one stating she “deserves to be fired”, created a reasonable perception that he had already formed a view on her disciplinary process.

Mphuthi is asking parliament to investigate whether Letsie’s conduct breached its code of ethical conduct, determine whether his comments created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and consider whether he should recuse himself from future parliamentary processes involving her.

Letsie rejected the allegations and disputed Mphuthi’s characterisation of herself as a whistleblower. “By definition, a whistleblower is a person who reports fraud, corruption or other unlawful conduct by providing credible information and evidence, generally in the public interest,” he told the Sowetan.

“A person who raises allegations only after disciplinary action has been instituted against them cannot automatically be regarded as a whistleblower.”

Letsie said the committee considered Mphuthi’s complaint in January 2025 and referred it to the department of higher education and training because the committee does not have forensic investigative powers “or the institutional capacity to conduct criminal or forensic investigations itself”.

He added that Mphuthi had also lodged a complaint with the public protector and that the committee had responded after receiving correspondence from that office. “It is therefore entirely incorrect to suggest that the committee did nothing. Such claims are not supported by the facts,” he said.

Letsie also denied that the committee had interfered in Mphuthi’s disciplinary process, saying it had allowed the internal proceedings to run their course.

He said his correspondence with the Ceta administrator sought clarity on why Mphuthi had returned to her position as supply chain manager after being found guilty of gross negligence while disciplinary processes had not yet been fully concluded.

“These are legitimate governance questions that fall squarely within the committee’s oversight responsibilities,” he said.

Regarding the Facebook posts, Letsie said he had not yet seen Mphuthi’s complaint to parliament and would respond through the appropriate channels. “I also do not recall making a social media post stating that ‘she deserves to be fired’.

“However, I do maintain, as a matter of principle, that any employee who has been found guilty of gross negligence may legitimately face dismissal, depending on the applicable disciplinary framework.”

Sowetan contacted the department of higher education for comment but it had not responded by at the time of publication.

Reggie Ngcobo, spokesperson for the speaker, confirmed receipt of the complaint and said “it will be attended to through parliamentary processes”.

Sowetan