The National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF) has rejected allegations that projects could have been inserted into, removed from or altered on the final list of beneficiaries under the controversial Presidential Employment Stimulus Programme (PESP6).
Busisiwe Hoho from NFVF insisted that their electronic application system and approval controls made such a scenario impossible.
The denial comes amid allegations from people familiar with the PESP6 process that some projects appeared on approval lists despite panel members allegedly saying they had never seen or assessed them.
“The NFVF’s application process is supported by AGMS system (Praxis). All applications are processed using the GMS. GMS stamps and dates applications as they are received form applicants. There are no manual applications that are accepted,” said Hoho.
She said that such an occurrence was effectively impossible because of the controls built into its application system.
“It is impossible to have such as each application is GMS stamped and dated once it enters the system,” she said.
The response represents one of the clearest institutional denials yet of allegations surrounding the integrity of the PESP6 approval process.
But it also provides new detail about the complicated chain through which applications moved from submission to final approval.
Panel members were allegedly expected to verify the final list
According to Hoho, Advisory Panel members were not simply involved in an initial assessment before losing sight of the applications.
“The list is shared with the panel members throughout the process until it goes to the Council for final approval,” she explained.
She said panel members were required to verify that projects appearing on the final list were projects they had actually assessed.
The final verification, according to the foundation, involved the PESP Project Manager, the Acting Head of Operations and the chairperson of each panel stream.
She insisted that no list of projects was submitted directly to Council without first going through an Advisory Panel.
The revelations are significant because African Global Skills Academy (AGSA), the NFVF’s Programme Management Company, was involved in the process.
Hoho insisted that AGSA did not have the power to manipulate the final beneficiary list.
“They had access for purposes of drafting the outcome letters. They had no control as the list is already approved by the NFVF Council for publication at this point,” she said.
This distinction is central to the controversy.
AGSA had access to the final approved list, but the NFVF insists that such access came after Council had already made the final decision and was limited to the preparation of outcome letters.
“The Advisory Panel members make recommendations to the NFVF Council, and then the NFVF Council makes the final approval. There was no contractual provision granting AGSA that authority,” she said.
She said that NFVF did not formally delegate decision-making powers to AGSA.
People familiar with the process have alleged that applications could first be assessed and passed by three Advisory Panel members before being sent to AGSA for due diligence.
Beneficiaries have separately alleged that AGSA officials conducting due diligence asked questions extending beyond basic compliance verification, including questions about applicants’ experience and history in the film industry and why they had applied for the full amount available under their funding tier.
Some beneficiaries have further alleged that AGSA officials made recommendations concerning project staffing and funding amounts.
These allegations are significant because the NFVF itself has confirmed that AGSA did not possess final decision-making authority over applications.
The foundation has also confirmed that the Advisory Panel made recommendations to Council, with Council retaining the final authority to approve or reject funding.
She said that no additional requirements were introduced.
She rejected the suggestion that applicants were assessed against requirements that were not contained in the original PESP6 call.
She maintained that applicants were assessed against the criteria originally published.
But she said that they have not investigated allegations that AGSA applied requirements outside those criteria.
“No allegation been submitted to the NFVF in relation to your question currently,” Hoho said.
That position means the allegations concerning AGSA’s due-diligence practices have not, according to the NFVF, been subjected to a formal investigation.
She also rejected allegations that applicants who had previously been approved were subsequently disqualified by AGSA.
She said: “To ensure that the funding was spread as widely as possible and to ensure even handedness in the process, applicants who had not previously benefited from PESP were prioritised by the Advisory Panel members during the assessment process.”
“However, this did not mean that applicants who had previously benefited from PESP were excluded. Their applications were still assessed in accordance with the applicable criteria and funding guidelines, and those that met the requirements were considered for funding,” she continued.
The distinction is important because it suggests that an applicant who had previously benefited from PESP could be unsuccessful without necessarily having been disqualified by AGSA.
The Foundation said it has not received complaints against AGSA or requests to review AGSA.
The NFVF’s response has put a comprehensive version of its PESP6 approval safeguards on the public record.
It says applications are electronically captured, Advisory Panels assess them, panel members remain involved throughout the process, the PESP Project Manager, Acting Head of Operations and Panel Chairpersons verify the lists, Council makes the final decision, and AGSA cannot add, remove or substitute projects.
But the allegations have now reached a point where the documentary trail becomes critical.
The NFVF’s assertion that an unassessed project could not have reached Council can ultimately be tested against the Praxis/GMS records, individual panel scores, recommendations, due-diligence reports and the final Council-approved list.
For now, the NFVF has provided a categorical denial.
It has also acknowledged that AGSA was involved throughout the submission, adjudication and recommendation process and had access to the final list for the preparation of outcome letters.
The outstanding issue is therefore not simply whether AGSA possessed the formal power to approve or reject an application.
It is whether the process operated exactly as the NFVF says it did and whether AGSA’s due-diligence findings ever materially influenced applications after Advisory Panels had assessed them.
That is where the evidence, rather than assurances, will ultimately settle the dispute.