Suspended state housing CEO under investigation over governance failures

Allegations against Azola Mayekiso include irregular expenditure and conflicts of interest

The public protector is investigating suspended NHFC CEO Azola Mayekiso over numerous allegations. (Picture: THAPELO MOREBUDI)

The public protector has launched an investigation into suspended National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC) CEO Azola Mayekiso after allegations of governance failures and irregular expenditure at the state entity.

The probe focuses on claims of an irregular appointment process, failure to disclose business interests and improper conduct during Mayekiso’s tenure. It also places “the former board chair” — without identifying the person — under scrutiny for alleged operational interference and undue control over the CEO.

Among the allegations being examined are:

  • Mayekiso failed to disclose her involvement in 28 companies and directed NHFC consulting work to the Development Bank of Southern Africa while attempting to secure a R1bn funding facility; and
  • Trips by Mayekiso and the former board chair to the US and London at a cost of almost R1m delivered no tangible benefit to the NHFC.

According to the complaint, Mayekiso was appointed CEO in March 2023 after being unemployed for three years and allegedly lacked public sector experience. It is further claimed the NHFC adopted remuneration guidelines issued by the department of public enterprises, enabling significant salary increases, despite being a schedule 3A entity.

Mayekiso’s total remuneration is alleged to have exceeded R5m, including a performance bonus of 125%, while other executives reportedly received bonuses of 85%. The former CFO was later suspended, allegedly after refusing to authorise questionable transactions and declining a request for the NHFC to fund a New York trip linked to a self-promotional article involving the CEO.

The public protector’s investigation also cites claims that Mayekiso failed to declare a relationship between her business interests and Werksmans Attorneys, despite overseeing the firm’s appointment to the NHFC legal panel and later using its services in the dismissal of the CFO.

Further allegations against Mayekiso include:

  • the organisation of an imbizo at a cost of more than R500,000 shortly after her appointment, with no measurable benefit to the entity;
  • insisting the NHFC cover business-class flights and accommodation costing more than R200,000 for a delegate to accompany President Cyril Ramaphosa to China; and
  • interfering in procurement processes, appointing preferred bid committees and seeking to influence IT tenders, amid claims her husband had launched a cloud-computing business.

Staff complaints include allegations that Mayekiso:

  • created a hostile work environment;
  • was disrespectful to employees; and
  • frequently raised her voice at staff.

In August last year, the NHFC’s chief information officer resigned with immediate effect, citing an “intolerable and uncaring” working environment, which she said had adversely affected her health. Her resignation letter raised concerns about:

  • poor communication by the CEO;
  • disregard for procurement and Treasury regulations;
  • non-transparent executive appointments; and
  • the undermining of her role through exclusion from management processes.

The public protector’s probe comes a month after the NHFC board placed Mayekiso on precautionary suspension with full pay and benefits. She was served with a notice of contemplated suspension on November 6 and formally suspended on November 17, pending investigations into alleged serious misconduct.

The board said her continued presence at the workplace posed a risk to the integrity of ongoing investigations. The allegations cited include:

  • abuse of authority;
  • failure to comply with lawful instructions; and
  • actions that frustrated board-led investigations.

In response Mayekiso rejected the grounds for her suspension, describing the board’s actions as unjustified and punitive.

“The contemplated action is without substance or a justifiable basis in law, policy or fact and if implemented will be unfair and oppressive,” she said. She added that if the matters under investigation had been ongoing since 2024, it was unclear why her presence was only now considered a risk.

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Comment icon