During a recent parliamentary interrogation, the NFVF council faced intense scrutiny over its legitimacy and handling of public funds, raising serious concerns about corruption and nepotism in South Africa’s film industry.
Several Board members of the African Film DAO were present at the recent parliamentary portfolio interrogation of the NFVF (National Film and Video Foundation), where the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC) was called to account. The meeting revealed what many in the film industry have previously highlighted: a council appointed without legitimacy, a revolving door of CEOs, and a disturbing silence around conflicts of interest and nepotism.
Members of Parliament were visibly enraged that of the 13 appointed council members, only three bothered to attend. Questions quickly surfaced about how this council was constituted in the first place. By law, DSAC is required under the NFVF Act to publish a shortlist of candidates for public scrutiny. They did not.
Instead, DSAC ran a second call for council nominations after receiving 108 submissions in the first round, and another 79 in the second. Nine of the 13 appointed council members were drawn from that second call — raising questions about why the first round was effectively discarded.
The ANC was right to question this. They also highlighted the absurdity of an illegitimate council appointing an illegitimate CEO, noting that the NFVF has been plagued by acting CEOs who resign under unclear circumstances.
The council chairperson has already resigned, alongside two other members. The EFF cut to the point: “Do not assume we know this,” they told the NFVF, demanding explanations that were never given. They also asked how long the adjudication panels have been serving. Once again, answers were evaded by the COO.
Meanwhile, the Patriotic Alliance raised concerns about how many “coloured” people have been funded. The terminology makes me cringe, but I understand the point: representation matters.
And the numbers suggest skewed allocation. One coloured woman filmmaker has reportedly received around R13 million in grants over three years, conveniently tied to an NFVF staff member. The optics are bad, and the conflict of interest worse. Yet Parliament barely scratched the surface of this deeper rot: nepotism, self-dealing, and corruption disguised as “support for the arts”.
Instead, the conversation remained bogged down in the merry-go-round of CEO reshuffles and the council’s legitimacy. While those issues are crucial, the operational decay and the inner mechanics of funding allocation is where the real corruption festers. Parliament must follow the money.
The deputy chair of the NFVF council assured Parliament that the next acting CEO would be appointed internally. While many assume the COO is being positioned for the role, much of the sector strongly opposes this. Concentrating more power in an already dysfunctional operational structure will only accelerate the NFVF’s decline.
Other concerns raised focused on the NFVF’s neglect of regions outside Gauteng, the Western Cape, and KZN. The COO attempted to justify this imbalance, but the committee was unconvinced. As a woman of colour from the Western Cape with a strong background in screenwriting, I know firsthand that even within this province, funding is concentrated in the hands of a small, select group of filmmakers — leaving the majority of voices excluded from opportunities to make feature films.
As the African Film DAO, a blockchain-based organisation, we advocate for transparency and fairness in how public funds are allocated. Blockchain technology ensures that every transaction is traceable, verifiable, and free from manipulation. If DSAC entrusted even 5% of the NFVF budget to the African Film DAO, we would prove it can be done differently. We would not only produce award-winning projects with Hollywood mentorship but also show a model of accountability that leaves no room for corruption.
The NFVF is meant to empower storytellers. Instead, it is being hollowed out by dysfunction and insider dealing. Parliament has opened the door. Now, it must walk through it, with the courage to demand not just legitimacy in leadership, but transparency in the money trail itself.
The Portfolio Committee was clear: the NFVF is not making the circle bigger, but instead keeping public funds in the hands of a select few. While the NFVF argues that its R160 million budget is insufficient, the industry is rightly skeptical about entrusting it with more money.
Until the organisation cleans house, rooting out corrupt staff and dismantling insider networks — additional funding will only deepen inequality. What filmmakers need is not a bigger budget mismanaged in the same way, but a genuine widening of access so more voices can produce feature films.
* Weaam Williams is an award-winning filmmaker, co-founder of African Film DAO and African curator and consultant for the LA-based distribution company Entertainment Technologists.
