The decision by the Gauteng government to reassign several officials who were suspended pending the outcomes of investigations into allegations of misconduct has been met with public scepticism in some quarters.
This reaction stems from a growing cynicism towards systems perceived as ineffective, often allowing the accused to evade consequences and perpetuating a culture of impunity.
The reaction ranged from accusations of political protection to claims of institutional weakness. Yet much of this public outrage has been driven more by perception than by an informed understanding of administrative law, labour relations, and governance principles that must guide such decisions.
Beneath the controversy lies a far more substantive issue of how institutions, both public and private, should lawfully and ethically manage investigations involving senior leadership while safeguarding due process, organisational stability, and the integrity of investigative processes.
The Gauteng government’s decision is therefore not merely a political move but should rather be viewed as a critical case study in public accountability, procedural fairness, and administrative rationality.
At its core, this decision underscores why due process is not an optional bureaucratic formality, but a foundational pillar of legitimate governance. How organisations treat senior officials under investigation speaks directly to their commitment to the rule of law, the protection of rights, and responsible leadership principles.
The decision to return these officials to duty, albeit in reassigned roles, should not be interpreted as exoneration or leniency.
Rather, it reflects a deliberate adherence to established labour and public service guidelines, particularly the 60-day directive outlined in the senior management service handbook and the public service regulations.
Indefinite precautionary suspensions, especially when fully paid, present both ethical and operational dilemmas. They place individuals in a state of professional limbo, potentially infringing on principles of fairness, and create financial and administrative inefficiencies for the organisation. More critically, they risk normalising a culture in which leaders can be sidelined for extended periods without resolution, undermining institutional credibility and morale.
The 60-day rule serves to safeguard against these risks by requiring that investigations progress with reasonable urgency. If formal disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded within this period, the suspended official must be allowed to resume duties.
This does not terminate accountability; instead, it ensures that investigative processes are time-bound, structured, and procedurally defensible.
While there are allegations made against the officials there is no guilt finding. Therefore a balance needs to be struck between protecting the investigation while extracting value for money from the officials by ensuring that they continue to contribute to the running of the administration in the province.
Reassigning senior officials to alternative roles during ongoing investigations is a practical administrative measure. Such precautionary transfers mitigate the risk of interference with investigative processes.
Due process is not merely a legal technicality; it is a cornerstone of ethical leadership, institutional legitimacy, and sustainable organisational performance.
Adherence to the rules ensures that each case is decided on its own merits and that accountability when served is both deserved and undisputable. Following labour laws makes it less likely that defendants will get away on technicalities, especially when it comes to senior executives, who often possess significant resources, legal knowledge and influence.
You cannot build a culture of compliance by violating the rulebook. Ultimately, the value of due process lies in the capacity of an organisation to balance justice with practicality.
By ensuring that investigations are timely, fair and procedurally sound, organisations can demonstrate that accountability and fairness are not competing priorities, but mutually reinforcing principles.
The Gauteng government remains committed to fighting corruption and maladministration through various measures put in place to prevent corruption, e.g. lifestyle audits, forensic investigations, declarations of interests in meeting and indeed the establishment of the Gauteng Ethics Advisory Council, an independent, civil society-led body.
- Ntshangase is a communicator in the office of Gauteng premier
