R18.5m payment rush raises questions over Eastern Cape education department

EASTERN CAPE – Questions are being raised over an R18.5 million payment account involving the Eastern Cape Department of Education after officials were instructed in a 4.11am email to urgently clear outstanding amounts owed to a company now owned by newspaper proprietor Sakie Sakhumzi Magele.

The documents, obtained and examined by IOL, show that the department’s account with Khumzi Investments contained R18.485 million in outstanding invoices as of June 2025.

However, the payment instruction has attracted attention because a substantial portion of the balance was not yet overdue when senior officials were told to ensure the outstanding payments were concluded within four days.

The 4.11am email

The email was sent on 26 June 2025 to 100 senior officials in the Eastern Cape Education Department.

It instructed managers to deal with outstanding payments to Khumzi Investments and report back by the following Monday.

The urgency is central to the story.

The department’s reconciliation showed that of the R18,485,154.69 outstanding, only about R4.9 million was more than 120 days old.

Another R8 million was in the 30-day category, while R2.76 million was recorded as current and therefore not yet due.

That raises an important procurement and financial-management question:

Why was the entire outstanding account treated as an urgent payment when more than half of it was relatively recent or not yet due?

The available reporting does not establish that the payments were unlawful. However, the timing and manner in which the account was escalated warrant scrutiny.

What the Khumzi reconciliation shows

The spreadsheet, titled “Khumzi Recon”, reportedly covered 167 invoices issued between October 2019 and June 2025.

The invoices were spread across 48 directorates and categories.

The figures were:

• Total invoiced: R25.635 million
• Already paid: R7.150 million
• Outstanding: R18.485 million
• More than 120 days old: R4.9 million
• Current: R2.76 million
• 30 days: R8.01 million

The numbers show that the R18.5 million was not one single payment or one invoice.

It was the accumulated balance of hundreds of transactions across several years.

Khumzi’s business with the department surged

Perhaps the most striking financial statistic is the growth in Khumzi’s invoicing.

During the whole of 2024, the company reportedly issued 29 invoices worth approximately R2.54 million.

But in just the first five months and six days of 2025, it issued 114 invoices worth R20.9 million.

That represents roughly eight times the value invoiced in the whole of 2024, despite covering less than half a year.

From a financial-analysis perspective, this sudden acceleration is arguably more significant than the R18.5 million outstanding balance itself.

It raises questions about:

• The contracts behind the increased spending.
• The procurement processes used.
• The services delivered.
• The approvals supporting the invoices.
• Whether budgets were properly authorised.
• Why expenditure accelerated so dramatically.

Some invoices had no order numbers

The investigation also found that 12 invoices worth R1.63 million reportedly carried no order number.

Six of those invoices dated back to 2019 and were still unpaid when the reconciliation was prepared.

A further 11 invoices predating 2022, worth approximately R1.58 million, remained outstanding.

This does not, by itself, prove wrongdoing.

But purchase orders and other procurement controls exist to ensure that government expenditure can be traced to properly authorised goods or services.

Where invoices lack expected procurement references, questions about authorisation, verification and accountability naturally become more important.

Where was the money being spent?

Khumzi billed multiple areas of the education department.

According to the investigation, the invoices covered areas including:

• Assessments and examinations.
• Youth and special programmes.
• E-teaching and learning.
• Facilities management.
• Infrastructure.
• School nutrition.
• Internal auditing.

Much of the spending related to accommodation and travel.

The largest exposure was reportedly associated with the office of the MEC, which had an account of approximately R3.64 million, of which about R3.52 million remained outstanding.

The office of the head of department accounted for another approximately R547,000.

Khumzi and the newspaper industry

The story has gained additional significance because Khumzi Investments’ sole director, Sakie Sakhumzi Magele, subsequently became involved in the ownership of several prominent Eastern Cape newspapers.

These include Daily Dispatch, The Herald, The Rep, Talk of the Town and Go! & Express.

The newspaper transaction took effect on 1 May 2026 through Ubuntu Media Holdings.

This creates an unusual intersection between government contracting and media ownership.

It also raises questions about the importance of transparency where a person with substantial government business becomes the owner of influential media titles.

Questions around the newspaper transaction

IOL reported that Ubuntu Media Holdings was registered on 20 February 2026 as a shelf company.

Its name was changed to Ubuntu Media Holdings on 30 April 2026, the same day Arena Holdings staff were informed about the transaction.

Magele became a director on 5 May 2026, four days after the newspaper titles had already changed hands.

The other directors included Arena Holdings chief executive Pule Molebeledi and attorney Johannes Hermanus Peyper, whose law firm represents Magele.

The structure has attracted attention because Molebeledi was reportedly the sole director of Ubuntu Media Holdings during the period when the transaction was concluded and took effect.

Earlier government payments also under scrutiny

The R18.5 million account is not the first time Khumzi’s dealings with the Eastern Cape Education Department have attracted scrutiny.

IOL reported that Sunday Times previously reported Khumzi receiving R39.8 million from the department in April 2021.

That amount reportedly included R22.1 million for accommodation for teachers assisting with extracurricular activities and R17.7 million for training courses.

The history makes the latest reconciliation particularly important from an accountability perspective.

Maasdorp is also under investigation

The department’s head, Sharon Maasdorp, is herself the subject of an investigation.

IOL reported that Eastern Cape Premier Oscar Mabuyane asked the Public Service Commission in December 2025 to investigate allegations raised by Education MEC Fundile Gade.

Those allegations reportedly included alleged interference in procurement processes, irregular disciplinary action and other governance issues.

The investigation also examined an allegation involving a service provider allegedly linked to Magele.

The commission’s report was submitted to Mabuyane, but its findings had not been made public at the time of IOL’s report.

These are allegations and should not be treated as established findings.

Magele’s legal response

Magele did not provide substantive answers to the questions put to him by IOL.

Instead, his attorney, Hector Schoeman of Peyper Attorneys, warned that legal proceedings could be instituted if the publication contained inaccurate, false, misleading or defamatory allegations or relied on unlawfully obtained confidential information.

IOL said it subsequently gave Magele further opportunity to respond.

According to the publication, no answers were ultimately provided to questions concerning Khumzi’s contracts, the escalation in invoicing, invoices without order numbers, Magele’s relationship with Maasdorp and his shareholding in Ubuntu Media Holdings.

The distinction is important: a failure to respond is not evidence that the allegations are true.

The procurement question is bigger than R18.5 million

The most important issue emerging from the investigation is arguably not the R18.5 million itself.

It is the question of how public money moves through government procurement systems.

A properly controlled procurement environment should allow officials, auditors and oversight institutions to determine:

1. Who approved the expenditure?
2. What contract authorised it?
3. What goods or services were delivered?
4. Was the work competitively procured?
5. Was there sufficient budget?
6. Were invoices properly matched to purchase orders?
7. Were services independently verified?
8. Were payments made according to agreed terms?

Where those questions cannot be answered clearly, the problem becomes one of governance.

The eightfold increase deserves scrutiny

The dramatic increase from R2.54 million invoiced in 2024 to R20.9 million in the first part of 2025 deserves particular attention.

The increase could potentially have legitimate explanations.

A new contract, expanded services, major travel requirements or additional departmental programmes could all result in higher expenditure.

But the correct way to establish that is through contracts, procurement records, invoices, delivery documentation and approval trails.

That is precisely why public procurement systems require documentation.

What happens next?

The Eastern Cape Education Department and relevant oversight bodies face a series of questions about the Khumzi account.

The most important will be whether the expenditure was properly procured, whether services were delivered as invoiced and why senior officials were instructed to urgently address an account containing substantial amounts that were not yet overdue.

The Public Service Commission’s investigation into Maasdorp may also become important if its findings are eventually made public.

At the same time, the emergence of Magele as a newspaper owner creates a separate public-interest issue concerning the relationship between government contracting, private business and media ownership.

The bottom line

The R18.5 million payment rush does not, on the evidence currently available, establish corruption or unlawful conduct.

What it does reveal is a government account containing a large number of invoices, a dramatic increase in expenditure, invoices without order numbers and an unusually urgent instruction to senior officials to clear the outstanding balance.

Those facts justify closer scrutiny.

The central question is therefore not simply where did the R18.5 million go?

It is whether every rand was properly contracted, authorised, delivered, verified and paid through the required public-finance controls.

That is the question that government records, auditors and oversight institutions must ultimately answer.