The Democratic Alliance has handed further evidence to the Public Protector as it seeks to broaden an existing investigation into Sport, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie over alleged political patronage, conflicts of interest and the use of public resources.
DA Sport, Arts and Culture spokesperson Leah Potgieter said the party submitted a supplementary complaint on Thursday, asking Public Protector Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka to investigate new allegations concerning appointments of people linked to McKenzie’s Patriotic Alliance (PA) and the composition of the minister’s delegation to the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
The complaint is an expansion of an earlier submission made by the DA in July.
The original complaint centred on McKenzie’s appointment of the 2025/26 Mzansi Golden Economy (MGE) adjudication panel and spending associated with South Africa’s participation in the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
The DA alleges that three of the six members of the MGE panel were active PA members when they were appointed, including PA national spokesperson Steve Motale.
The panel was responsible for assessing applications for funding from a programme involving almost R110 million.
The party now wants the Public Protector to examine what it says is a wider pattern.
According to Potgieter, the DA’s latest evidence identifies at least 19 people with links to the PA who have been appointed to boards and directorates of public entities falling under the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture.
The institutions named include the National Arts Council (NAC), National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF), National Library of South Africa (NLSA) and Robben Island Museum, among others.
The appointments have already attracted public scrutiny.
An investigation reported in August identified at least 19 people linked to the PA who had been appointed to boards and directorates within McKenzie’s portfolio.
The positions include institutions involved in the administration, governance and funding of public arts, cultural and sporting programmes.
The DA says some of the appointees also serve on more than one board, raising questions about possible conflicts of interest and whether individuals have sufficient independence from the political structures with which they are associated.
The allegations are particularly significant because several of the entities under McKenzie’s department have themselves faced governance and management challenges.
However, an appointment of a person who belongs to a political party does not by itself establish an ethical breach.
The question for the Public Protector would be whether the appointments were made for improper political purposes, whether proper processes were followed and whether they created conflicts with the minister’s constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
McKenzie has previously defended the appointments, arguing that there is no law preventing members of a political party from serving on public entity boards.
The second part of the DA’s supplementary complaint concerns South Africa’s participation in the 2026 FIFA World Cup in Mexico and the United States.
The department disclosed in July that the overall programme expenditure amounted to R30.945 million.
That figure included R7.865 million for official trips and travel-related expenditure, R6.707 million for a 2010 legends exhibition match, R3.362 million for suites, R3.011 million for spectator tickets and R10 million for fan-engagement, cultural and legacy activities.
The department said the official government delegation comprised 18 people, while the wider programme involved artists, cultural participants, fans, journalists, influencers, podcasters and other participants. It put the total number of people travelling to Mexico and the US at 151, excluding the service-provider team.
The DA’s latest complaint focuses specifically on the minister’s political office.
Potgieter alleges that many of the 18-member official delegation were drawn directly from McKenzie’s political office.
The party has submitted a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) request for further records concerning the delegation and says it will submit the information to the Public Protector once received.
This is potentially important because the dispute is no longer simply about the size of the World Cup bill. It raises a separate question about who was selected to travel, in what capacity and under what rules.
The DA alleges that McKenzie travelled with his Chief of Staff, Private and Appointment Secretary, spokesperson and two ministerial support staff, in addition to the ministerial support allowed under the Ministerial Handbook.
A previous Press Council finding involving a separate McKenzie travel controversy confirmed that the Ministerial Handbook permits ministers to travel abroad with two support staff.
It also found that an earlier report had incorrectly characterised other officials who were in Paris for separate activities as having accompanied McKenzie.
The DA is asking the Public Protector to expand the investigation into whether McKenzie’s conduct breached the Executive Members’ Ethics Act and Executive Ethics Code.
The Executive Ethics Code requires members of the executive to perform their duties diligently and honestly and in a manner consistent with the integrity of their office. It also prohibits them from using their positions to enrich themselves or improperly benefit another person, and from exposing themselves to situations involving a risk of conflict between their official responsibilities and private interests.
The Constitution similarly requires members of Cabinet not to expose themselves to situations involving a risk of conflict between their official responsibilities and private interests, and prohibits them from using their positions or information entrusted to them to improperly benefit another person.
The Public Protector’s role, therefore, will not simply be to establish whether PA members were appointed or whether public money was spent.
The central questions are whether the minister acted improperly, whether proper processes were followed, whether political considerations improperly influenced official decisions, and whether anyone received an improper benefit as a result.
The latest complaint comes after McKenzie faced questions from Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and Culture over political affiliations and conflicts of interest at entities under his department.
According to the DA, McKenzie told the committee last week:
“There is nobody there that is there because of politics.”
The DA says the Public Protector should now test that statement against the documentary evidence it has submitted.
The issue is particularly relevant to the NAC, where political affiliations and governance have become a recurring subject of parliamentary scrutiny.
The DA’s allegations also come against the backdrop of earlier complaints involving McKenzie.
In January, the party approached the Public Protector over the minister’s decision to withdraw South Africa’s submission to the 2026 Venice Biennale after an independent selection process had been completed. The DA alleged that McKenzie had improperly interfered with the selection process.
The July complaint then added the MGE panel appointments and World Cup spending to the Public Protector’s workload.
The Public Protector’s office previously confirmed that the July complaint was at the assessment stage, meaning the submission had been received but an investigation had not necessarily yet been opened.
McKenzie has rejected the suggestion that the R31 million represented money spent on himself or a small group of political allies.
In a detailed statement released in July, the minister said the R30.945 million was a programme expenditure and not a personal travel bill.
He said his own costs amounted to just over R1 million and that the expenditure covered a much wider programme involving government officials, artists, cultural participants, fans, media and other participants.
The department also said private sponsors funded some participants and that a final reconciliation of sponsorship contributions was still being completed.
The department’s figures show that R7.865 million was allocated to official trips and travel-related expenditure, rather than R31 million being spent solely on the 18 officials.
The minister has maintained that the programme was implemented through approved departmental processes and was subject to the Public Finance Management Act, Treasury regulations and National Treasury cost-containment measures.
The PA has also rejected the DA’s earlier Public Protector complaint, describing it as politically motivated and without evidence. PA spokesperson Steve Motale said McKenzie had answered questions put to him in Parliament and had not avoided scrutiny.
The supplementary complaint does not amount to a finding against McKenzie.
The Public Protector must first determine whether it has jurisdiction and whether the information supplied provides sufficient grounds for an investigation.
Its spokesperson previously said that, if the assessment establishes sufficient information and jurisdiction, the matter can be allocated to an investigator.
The new evidence nevertheless broadens the political and ethical questions surrounding McKenzie’s tenure.
At its centre is a question that goes beyond the DA’s allegations of “cadre deployment”: were decisions made in the interests of the department and the public, or were political relationships allowed to influence access to public positions, funding and resources?
That is ultimately the question the Public Protector will have to test against the documentary record.