Minister Cleared of Wrongdoing
What Happened?
In late 2025, two South African ministers faced complaints filed in Parliament’s Ethics Committee.
- Gayton McKenzie, Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture, was accused by Athol Trollip of ActionSA of giving conflicting statements about the “Mokoena‑gate” issue.
- Ganief Hendricks, Deputy Minister of Social Development, was criticised by MP Alexandra Abrahams for remarks he made about hunger and social grants.
Both ministers appeared before the committee, explained their side, and were ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing.
Gayton McKenzie and the Mokoena‑gate Saga
The Complaint
Trollip claimed McKenzie first said he had ordered an investigation into midfielder Teboho Mokoena’s eligibility during a 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifier. Later, in a parliamentary answer, McKenzie stated that no formal probe had been launched by his department. Trollip argued this was misleading and hurt public trust.
McKenzie’s Response
McKenzie told the committee that the South African Football Association (SAFA) – not his department – carried out the investigation because SAFA operates under FIFA rules. He said he simply referred to SAFA’s findings when speaking publicly and believed the matter was closed after reviewing their report.
Committee’s Verdict
The Ethics Committee accepted McKenzie’s explanation. It found his parliamentary reply truthful and noted that his public comments were based on SAFA’s investigation, not a separate departmental probe. No intention to mislead was found.
Ganief Hendricks and the Hunger Comment
The Complaint
Abrahams objected to Hendricks’ July 2025 statement that South Africa would have “zero hunger” if social grants were used to buy food. She felt it downplayed the real food‑insecurity crisis facing many families.
Hendricks’ Defence
Hendricks said his comment was taken out of context. He explained that the word “if” was crucial: he meant that if everyone who qualified for grants actually claimed and used them for food, hunger could be avoided. He added that some vulnerable people do not apply for the grants they are entitled to.
Committee’s Verdict
The committee noted Hendricks had clarified his remarks and concluded there was no intent to mislead Parliament. It cleared him of any ethical breach.
Why These Decisions Matter
- Accountability: The Ethics Committee’s reviews show that ministers can be questioned, but they also get a fair chance to explain themselves.
- Public Trust: Clear rulings help maintain confidence that leaders are held to standards while protecting them from unfounded accusations.
- Lesson for Leaders: Both cases highlight the importance of precise wording and being ready to back up statements with facts.
Conclusion
The Ethics Committee’s findings cleared Minister Gayton McKenzie and Deputy Minister Ganief Hendricks of wrongdoing after separate complaints. McKenzie’s reference to SAFA’s investigation was deemed honest, and Hendricks’ “if”‑conditional remark was judged as a misunderstanding rather than an attempt to mislead. These outcomes reinforce the idea that public officials must be careful with their words, but they also deserve a fair hearing when questions arise.
