LIGHTHOUSE SAGA: Probe clears publisher at centre of DBE textbook catalogue row

Lighthouse Publishers, the small publishing firm at the centre of one of South Africa’s most heated recent education controversies, has been cleared of all wrongdoing related to the new Foundation Phase textbook catalogue by an independent investigation commissioned by the Department of Basic Education (DBE).

This was the outcome delivered by DBE Director-General Mathanzima Mweli in a presentation to school governing body associations and unions on Thursday.

The presentation records the findings of an investigation into the textbook catalogue carried out by independent investigators Rakoma and Associates.

Under the heading “Investigation Findings on Lighthouse Publishers”, the presentation states: 

“No evidence of fraud, favouritism, manipulation or evaluation irregularities was identified. The investigation found that all allegations relating to Lighthouse Publishers were not substantiated.”

The independent report concluded that Lighthouse Publishers should retain its share of the new textbook catalogue.

Lighthouse director Georgia Groome told Daily Maverick on Thursday that they had not been informed of the investigation outcome after being interviewed by Rakoma and supplying the requested information.

“We have received no communication from the DBE,” said Groome. 

The presentation also states that an audit opinion from the Auditor-General of South Africa (Agsa) and two additional legal opinions, from the DBE’s internal legal services and an external senior counsel, advocate Chris Erasmus, substantially upheld the fairness and legality of the wider catalogue process.

How Lighthouse became the target

When the new Foundation Phase textbook catalogue was announced in April, it was with the intention that provincial education authorities would order materials from it in time for the 2027 school year. The catalogue has not been updated for 14 years.

The process ground to a halt, however, with the publication on 28 April of a News24 report headlined “Company with no publishing history gets lion’s share of R1,6 billion publishing tender”. 

The reporting, which partly drew on the opinions of anonymous publishing insiders, suggested that the fact that a new and untested entrant on the catalogue – the tiny Lighthouse Publishers – had beaten out many established players, including multinational publishing houses, might be suspicious.

Within hours, Basic Education Minister Siviwe Gwarube released a statement saying she noted the report “with serious concern” and had asked the National Treasury to investigate.

Over the following days, News24 published further reports casting doubt on Lighthouse Publishers’ tax and BBBEE status, while also reporting on the suggestion that legacy publishers who had won a smaller share of the catalogue than expected might have to implement retrenchments as a result. 

Daily Maverick’s investigation into the matter, published on 10 May, noted that competition around this catalogue is cutthroat, as it is the major remaining source of revenue for educational publishers in this country.

Our investigation found no evidence that Lighthouse had cheated, been favoured, or breached any of the terms of reference issued by DBE for submissions for consideration for the catalogue. 

Our investigation also recorded the opinion of an independent expert to the effect that the successful Lighthouse educational materials were pedagogically of high quality and sound design.

Lighthouse told Daily Maverick this week that the intervening months had caused “real emotional, professional and financial harm” to its directors and managers due to the questioning of their “credibility and integrity”.

Groome said: “This entire saga has overshadowed our achievements and those of our contributors. It has taken away the opportunity to celebrate the success of our first catalogue submission.”

The textbook catalogue process has been in limbo since April while it was subjected to scrutiny by DBE Internal Audit, Agsa, Rakoma and Associates, the DBE’s legal services and external senior counsel.

The leaked presentation suggests that while these processes identified several weaknesses in the DBE’s administration and governance of the catalogue, they found something quite different from the corruption or favouritism that had been widely suspected in the wake of the controversy stirred by the original reporting.

Some flaws in process, but fair evaluation

The shortcomings in terms of the catalogue process identified by Agsa included the absence of a formalised policy governing the catalogue; weaknesses around declarations of interest; insufficiently clear rules around rescreening; and the lack of specific provisions dealing with publisher experience and capacity.

But several potentially serious concerns were resolved in the DBE’s favour, according to Mweli’s presentation.

On the screening of materials, for instance, Agsa concluded that the process had been “consistently applied to all submissions, thereby achieving fairness”.

On concerns that the DBE had failed to assess publishers’ experience and capacity, the department explained that this was deliberate: the evaluation was intended to judge the quality and curriculum compliance of the materials themselves through an anonymous process, rather than privilege established publishers based on their track record.

Agsa accepted that explanation, while recommending that future policy make the rationale explicit.

Similarly, on tax compliance, an issue repeatedly raised in relation to Lighthouse, Agsa accepted the DBE’s position that a company’s tax status is not static and that provincial education departments would be required to verify compliance at the point of actual procurement.

In the case of Lighthouse specifically, the presentation records that Rakoma found that:

• The timing of the company’s registration did not contravene the terms of reference;

• There was no requirement for physical office premises;

• Although the company itself had no publishing history, its team had relevant educational expertise; and

• There was no evidence of a conflict of interest or preferential treatment arising from the involvement of early-grade literacy specialist Penelope Groome.

The investigators found the evaluation of Lighthouse’s materials was anonymous and consistently applied, and recommended that the company remain on the catalogue.

They did identify possible risks around Lighthouse’s ability to execute future large-scale orders, given its status as a new company. But Rakoma also found that these factors were not requirements under the terms of reference on which publishers had been evaluated, and therefore “do not constitute irregularities”.

Rakoma’s overall conclusion:

“The textbook evaluation process was applied consistently and achieved fairness across publishers.”

The investigators recommended that the DBE introduce a binding policy and standard operating procedures for future catalogues, strengthen submission controls, tighten mandatory compliance checks, and disclose pricing and scoring methodologies more clearly upfront.

Legal opinions back catalogue

The two legal opinions summarised in Mweli’s presentation upheld the integrity of the broader catalogue process.

DBE Legal Services examined whether the department had been legally entitled to use its National Catalogue model rather than a conventional competitive tender process.

It concluded that the department had rational and documented reasons for doing so, and that its continued reliance on a National Treasury deviation approval dating from 2017 was “reasonable and legally defensible”.

Advocate Erasmus subsequently produced a 27-page opinion evaluating the process against section 217 of the Constitution, the Public Finance Management Act, and Treasury regulations.

According to Mweli’s presentation, Erasmus found that the catalogue process fell within legally permissible “exceptional circumstances” and remained “fair, transparent, competitive and cost-effective”.

His opinion also found “no evidence of unlawful procurement or unjustified irregular expenditure”.

The absence of a dedicated catalogue policy did not, Erasmus concluded, invalidate the existing process. His overall conclusion was that the National Catalogue process was “legally defensible, compliant with procurement principles, and should continue with the support of a dedicated policy framework”.

Mweli’s presentation concluded by describing the DBE’s “current position” as follows:

“The Foundation Phase National Catalogue (Grades 1–3) has been given a green light by the outcome of the investigations, namely the AGSA, the Independent investigation firm, DBE Legal Services legal opinion as well as the External Senior Counsel legal opinion.”

Gwarube maintains suspension

Minister Gwarube announced on Wednesday, however, that the new catalogue would remain suspended and provinces should instead procure materials for the 2027 school year from the old catalogue.

Her statement said the independent investigation had identified “material problems that cannot be ignored”.

Lighthouse said it was “frustrated and disappointed” by the suspension, “not just for us as an emerging company, but for the contributors who took a real leap of faith in this project, and who dreamed of seeing our books become a reality after the catalogue was released in April”.

In response to questions from Daily Maverick, Gwarube’s spokesperson, Lukhanyo Vangqa, said Gwarube had received Rakoma’s final report several days earlier. 

“The report found a number of flaws in the way in which the Foundation Phase catalogue was handled. These included issues of non-compliance, governance failures and risk of irregular expenditure to provinces,” said Vangqa.

Because Rakoma was not a law firm, Vangqa said, “the recommendations flowing from its findings need to be legally tested”.

He added: “It is for that reason that the minister elected not to make the report public, but to seek the services of senior counsel through the State Attorney”.

Given that Mweli’s presentation suggests that two separate legal opinions have already been received, including one from an external senior counsel, it is unclear why further legal input is felt necessary.

The DBE did not respond to detailed questions from Daily Maverick.

Lighthouse, meanwhile, says the uncertainty has not altered its plans.

“We’re not going anywhere,” said Groome. 

“We started this in June 2024 because we know that we have the expertise to deliver quality products, and that hasn’t changed.” DM