A bitter clash is unfolding between social development minister Sisisi Tolashe and her predecessor, Lindiwe Zulu, over DSDTV — an in-house communications channel that is claimed to have saved the department of social development (DSD) millions.
The platform, now suspended and under investigation, has become the latest flashpoint in a department beset by financial controversies.
Tolashe told parliament last week that DSDTV, launched in July 2023 under Zulu, was introduced without a business plan, operated for nearly two years without proper monitoring, and had been characterised by the questionable appointment of various service providers.
She said the auditor-general had uncovered the “potential mismanagement of public funds on DSDTV”, prompting her to suspend the channel pending a formal investigation into it.
The suspension came after a Sunday Times exposé of DSDTV’s wasteful spending, including a controversial R3m trip to a UN event in New York.
Two months after that report, former communications head Lumka Oliphant — a key driver behind DSDTV — was suspended over alleged mismanagement of the integrated justice programme and unauthorised expenditure on DSDTV. She was later dismissed without a disciplinary hearing.
Zulu has responded angrily, accusing Tolashe of misleading parliament and casting doubt on the integrity of the advisers involved in the project from the outset.
“I don’t want to be accused of interfering or trying to rule from the grave, but what the minister said is disturbing,” Zulu told the Sunday Times.
“I know that procedures and protocols were followed every step of the way from day one. Those very same advisers who were involved at the start are still there today. Why have they changed their stories? Did they advise the minister wrongly?”
Oliphant has accused Tolashe of lying to parliament.
Those very same advisers who were involved at the start are still there today. Why have they changed their stories?
— Lindiwe Zulu, former social development minister
“It’s clear that Sisisi Tolashe has [had] to sustain the lie,” Oliphant told the Sunday Times.
“She is doing it by lying to parliament and compromising herself in the process. Parliament needs to summon all of us, including myself, and [peruse] every document about DSDTV.”
At the heart of the fight is whether DSDTV — an over-the-top (OTT) digital platform providing free video, photographic and news content — was properly justified and monitored, or whether it became an unchecked project funded by public money.
Responding to parliamentary questions from ActionSA MP Dereleen James, Tolashe said no cost-benefit analysis had been done to justify DSDTV or assess its performance.
“To date, no monitoring and evaluation has been done to quantify the reach, value-for-money, effectiveness and efficiency of DSDTV since it was launched,” she told parliament.
James asked the DSD to account for spending on the platform and provide the business case.
Tolashe detailed the costs: R1.5m for hardware, R1m for the platform, R500,000 for live-streaming equipment, R1.04m to service provider Vula Connect in 2023/24 and R937,548 in 2024/25, and R1.1m to the Axab Group in the current financial year.
DSDTV was piloted in July 2023 by Zulu as a staff-driven initiative to communicate South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) notices and departmental news more efficiently. At the launch of the project, she said it was not meant to compete with mainstream media, but rather to complement it by providing it with free usable content.
“We are not in competition with mainstream media,” Zulu said. “Newsrooms are shrinking and broadcasting is expensive, and we are now able to tell our stories and send out information in a way that [allows the media to use it].”
The platform was credited with covering the Brics summit, international child repatriation cases, and other government events that were then disseminated by local and international media.
Zulu said the decision to introduce the platform was also motivated by the DSD’s reliance on the government communication & information system, which cost it R29m between 2020 and 2022 for content services. Much of this material was never broadcast. In contrast, DSDTV cost about R1m a year and used DSD staff.
“This is not a vanity project,” Zulu said. “It is an opportunity for us to communicate our mandate and message directly to our people. We will not block criticism or negative reports, and we are open to being used by NGOs and NPOs to showcase their work too.”
James said she had raised the matter because she was concerned about DSD priorities.
“Spending millions on a channel makes absolutely no sense when we have more pressing issues to attend to,” she said. “Rehab centres are being shut down, and there’s a dire need for social workers across the country.”
While the amounts spent on DSDTV are modest compared to other DSD scandals, the issue has become politically charged.
Recent controversies include R100m for gender-based violence (GBV) programmes that were redirected without proper oversight, the alleged misappropriation of R536m from social grants between 2012 and 2022, and R215m in irregular expenditure incurred by the Gauteng DSD in 2024/25 alone.
Documents seen by the Sunday Times indicate that earlier draft responses prepared for Tolashe supported DSDTV’s approval and business case, but that these were replaced with the final parliamentary version noting the absence of a business plan.
Acting DSD communications head Sandy Godlwana dismissed the draft as “misleading” and said the leak was an attempt by officials “to cover their tracks”.
“No evaluation was conducted,” she said, adding that DSDTV was therefore suspended and under investigation. The probe into the platform was expected to be concluded before the end of the financial year in April 2026.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.