Public Protector exonerates Mashatile, Creecy of interference in SAA CEO appointment

A Public Protector investigation has found that allegations Deputy President Paul Mashatile and Transport Minister Barbara Creecy improperly interfered in the process to appoint new South Africa Airways (SAA) CEO John Lamola were not substantiated.

The investigation also found that allegations that Mashatile and Creecy breached clauses of the Executive Ethics Code by acting in a manner inconsistent with their positions – by using their positions or any information entrusted to them to enrich themselves and by using information received in confidence in the course of their duties other than in connection with the discharge of their duties during their involvement in the recruitment and selection of the SAA CEO – were also not substantiated.

Read: SAA’s profit mirage exposed as bailout disguised as share capital

The Public Protector investigation followed a complaint lodged by the Democratic Alliance (DA) in February 2025.

Public Protector Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka said in the investigation report that the appointment of Lamola as SAA CEO followed a recruitment process, including shortlisting, interviews, and competency assessments.

She said the SAA board recommended three appointable candidates to Creecy, who as executive authority lawfully exercised her independent judgment in making the final appointment.

Gcaleka said Lamola met all the required criteria, and his appointment considered his leadership, experience, and continuity.

“Cabinet approval confirmed the process, which was lawful, procedurally fair, and consistent with governance and constitutional principles,” she said.

Gcaleka added that the involvement of Mashatile as Leader of Government Business and Creecy as the executive authority and shareholder in the SAA “was not inconsistent with their positions”.

Read/listen:
SAA explains accounting irregularities and its decision to help FlySafair
SAA’s ‘latest scandal’: John Lamola named CEO [Feb 2025]
Gcaleka waiting in the wings as Mkhwebane given marching orders [Sept 2023]

DA national spokesperson Willie Aucamp, in a statement issued in February 2025, expressed concern that Creecy was “reportedly set to recommend Lamola, the worst-performing candidate, for the crucial SAA CEO role, despite the board’s recommendation of Allan Kilavuka, the highly qualified and experienced current CEO of Kenya Airways”.

Aucamp claimed at the time that the decision to side-line Kilavuka, along with the highest-scoring candidate Philip Saunders, in favour of Lamola, who ranked the lowest in independent competency assessments, raises serious concerns about the integrity and transparency of the process.

Saunders joined SAA as chief commercial officer in August 2019 and was appointed interim SAA CEO in July 2020 by the then Department of Public Enterprises.

Aucamp added that the DA was also deeply troubled by allegations that Mashatile and Creecy held private interviews, outside of the formal selection process, at the Deputy President’s official residence.

“This apparent attempt to manipulate the outcome in favour of a politically connected candidate undermines due process and mocks the principle that appointments in state-owned enterprises [SOEs] should be based solely on merit, not political affiliation,” he said.

Read: Kenya Airways to add flights as Iran war drives occupancy to 99%

Aucamp said that further complicating matters included a media report about interactions between SAA chairperson Derek Hanekom and Creecy and claims that Creecy called Hanekom on 27 October requesting the board to change its recommendation that had been communicated to her in a letter dated 18 September.

He said Hanekom reportedly asked if he could bring the matter before the SAA board, which apparently led to a special board meeting being convened that same week but the board refused Creecy’s request. Both Creecy and Hanekom at the time denied that any instructions were  given.

Gcaleka said the engagements were to enable Creecy to make an informed executive decision within the bounds of the SAA board’s shortlist and was not in breach of the Executive Ethics Code.

She said the final appointee, Lamola, was part of the board’s recommended appointable candidates and was appointed in concurrence with Cabinet as required by the National Guide and therefore there was no breach of clause 2.3(d) of the Executive Ethics Code.

Listen/read: SAA debt-free but not problem-free just yet [Oct 2024]

“The evidence before the Public Protector does not demonstrate that either the Deputy President or the Minister used confidential information other than for the discharge of duties, as it was used for the purpose it was meant for, therefore there was no breach of clause 2(3)(e) of the Code.

“On the totality of the evidence, no proof could be found that the Deputy President and the Minister acted in a manner that is inconsistent with the Constitution or the Code during the appointment process of Prof Lamola,” she said.

“The allegation that they improperly influenced the appointment or acted in conflict with section 96(2)(b) of the Constitution is not substantiated.

“Accordingly, there is no basis to conclude that clauses 2.3(c), (d) or (e) of the Code were breached,” Gcaleka added.

Listen/read: The Dark Prince: Inside Paul Mashatile’s web of power and patronage