Failing to manage disciplinary processes within prescribed timeframes is about more than simply failing to secure value for taxpayers’ money. Every day that a disciplinary case involving a public servant remains unresolved is another day that the state is using taxpayers’ money to pay suspended officials who are at home. Every rand spent on the salary of a suspended official who is not performing any duties is a rand that could otherwise have been directed towards service delivery. In addition, when a suspended official is sitting at home, essential functions are either not performed or responsibilities are delegated to already overburdened colleagues or performed by acting appointees at additional cost. This creates significant operational weaknesses within the public service, with substantial financial and administrative consequences. The public administration is already constrained by limited capacity and prolonged disciplinary delays not only impose unnecessary costs on taxpayers but undermine the efficiency, effectiveness and institutional capacity of government departments. Alarming numbers Responses to parliamentary questions on precautionary suspensions illustrate the extent of this challenge. Public service & administration minister Inkosi Mzamo Buthelezi stated that by July 2025 there were 147 precautionary suspensions in national departments and about 230 across provincial departments. On average, public servants had been on suspension for about 258 days in national departments and 245 days in provincial departments. These suspension periods far exceed the prescribed timeframes in which disciplinary cases are expected to be finalised in the public sector. In the fourth quarter of the 2025/2026 financial year, some departments recorded exceptionally long suspension periods. For example, the Gauteng department of human settlements reported suspension durations exceeding five years. In the police, suspension cases ranged from seven days to as many as 997 days, which is almost three years. These figures highlight the persistent inability of departments to finalise disciplinary processes within reasonable time, placing a financial burden on the state and weakening institutional performance. Two sides of failure This inability to finalise disciplinaries within reasonable and prescribed timeframes manifests in two ways. On one hand, some suspended employees exploit delays or employ so-called “Stalingrad tactics” to prolong disciplinary processes while continuing to receive their salaries. Typically, a public servant enters a disciplinary process and then uses various procedural tactics to delay its conclusion. An employee may repeatedly report sick, fail to attend hearings, or rely on representatives who do not appear, all of which contribute to unnecessary postponements. Delays are also often tolerated without adequate justification or effective intervention. Where disciplinary processes are allowed to drag on for months or even years without valid reasons, accountability should not rest solely with the suspended employee. Managers and those tasked with steering these processes must also be held accountable for failing to ensure disciplinary matters are concluded on time. Often officials facing disciplinary cases move within the three spheres of government institutions, or even between departments, before their cases are concluded.There is a concerning trend in the public sector that public servants who are subject to disciplinary proceedings often utilise the period of suspension together with the “engineered” delays in finalising cases to secure employment elsewhere within state institutions. Often officials facing disciplinary cases move within the three spheres of government institutions, or even between departments, before their cases are concluded. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the “revolving door” problem. It allows officials who may be facing serious allegations of misconduct to move between departments, meaning their disciplinary cases often fall away and are never concluded, helping them dodge accountability. This practice not only makes a mockery of the disciplinary management process but undermines the integrity and credibility of the entire public service. Towards accountability The committee is encouraged by ongoing efforts to address these gaps through an established centralised system for verifying disciplinary outcomes. The department of public service & administration is working towards compelling departments to consult a central register to verify dismissals and resignations that occur while disciplinary processes are pending. In this system, departments would be obliged to consult the register before appointing any individual to a position in the public service. The register is expected to serve as an important accountability mechanism by helping to close the “revolving door” that allows officials facing disciplinary action to move between departments or spheres of government without scrutiny. It is also expected to strengthen oversight and improve compliance with prescribed disciplinary timeframes by enabling better monitoring of cases across the public service. If effectively implemented, it could play a significant role in promoting accountability, protecting the integrity of the public administration system and preventing the recycling of misconduct in government institutions.In addition to the central register, the department has introduced several measures aimed at improving the management of disciplinary cases in the public service. In a response to a parliamentary question, the minister indicated that a number of binding mechanisms are already in place to promote compliance with the proposed maximum duration of suspensions. These include the disciplinary code & procedures for the public service and chapter 7 of the senior management service handbook. Another mechanism, the ministerial directive on discipline management, prescribes that departments conduct regular reviews of precautionary suspensions. Importantly, failure to comply with these requirements may result in disciplinary proceedings being invalidated. These measures are intended to ensure that suspensions remain justified, are not unnecessarily prolonged and that departments manage disciplinary processes with greater urgency, consistency and accountability.According to the minister, the department, through its public administration ethics, integrity & disciplinary technical assistance unit, has also implemented a strategy aimed at addressing disciplinary bottlenecks and recurring case backlogs across government. In its annual performance plan 2025/2026 the department outlined several key interventions. These include a review of the disciplinary code to align it with current labour legislation. It is not in dispute that public servants accused of misconduct are entitled to procedural fairness. However, fairness cannot be interpreted to mean indefinite or unreasonable delays.Proposed reforms include the introduction of virtual hearings, the enforcement of stricter timelines and the clarification of procedural roles and responsibilities to improve the turnaround times for disciplinary cases. Another intervention focuses on identifying departments with persistent disciplinary backlogs and providing them with direct technical support. These include case tracking, targeted interventions and assistance aimed at expediting the resolution of disciplinary matters. Moreover, the department is providing training initiatives to strengthen internal disciplinary capacity within departments and improve the ability of officials to manage cases effectively and within prescribed timeframes. Importantly, these timeframes are also enforceable through the provisions of the Public Service Act, which places responsibility on heads of department for the efficient management and administration of their departments. This includes maintaining discipline, promoting sound labour relations and ensuring the proper use and care of government property. The act further makes clear that noncompliance with legislation, regulations and directives constitutes misconduct. Heads of department therefore have both the authority and the responsibility to take disciplinary action against managers who fail to comply with these obligations or who allow disciplinary processes to become unreasonably delayed. These measures represent important and welcome steps towards improving accountability and discipline management within the public service. Rules but no urgency It is thus clear that there is no shortage of policies and directives governing the management of disciplinary cases in the public sector, but that these frameworks are still not being enforced with the necessary urgency and consistency. During a recent meeting of the portfolio committee on public service & administration the minister made a pointed observation that the core challenge is not a lack of legislation but rather a lack of appetite within departments to enforce consequence management effectively. With that, the minister underscored that the public service is not deficient in policy language on ethics, discipline or accountability. Instead, the critical gap lies in consistent enforcement against both those who abuse disciplinary processes and those who enable such abuse through inaction or poor management. This includes not only public servants who remain on precautionary suspension for extended periods, but also managers within the system who fail to comply with prescribed rules, timeframes and accountability mechanisms designed to ensure timely and effective disciplinary outcomes. It is not in dispute that public servants accused of misconduct are entitled to procedural fairness. However, fairness cannot be interpreted to mean indefinite or unreasonable delays. It is a principle that must apply equally to the employee facing allegations, the affected department responsible for service delivery, and ultimately the public, whose resources continue to be spent while cases remain unresolved. An already stretched public service cannot afford to sustain prolonged paid suspensions. More importantly, citizens bear the cost in the form of reduced or delayed services when government fails to resolve disciplinary matters efficiently and restore full operational capacity. Paid suspensions therefore require tighter management. If there is genuine commitment to building a professional, ethical and capable state, discipline, accountability and consequence management cannot remain aspirational principles in abstract policy language. They must be practised consistently. • De Villiers, a DA MP and national spokesperson, chairs parliament’s portfolio committee on public service & administration.