TLALI TLALI |Mandate, money and accountability - What the government website debate really reveals

The debate about government websites is not simply a technology story. It is a governance story - and it demands a broader reflection and action.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Public debate about the quality, accessibility and performance of government websites is not only necessary, it is a hallmark of a functioning digital democracy.

When citizens, technologists and civil society hold the state accountable for how it delivers services online, that scrutiny should be welcomed.

Recent commentary on X (formerly Twitter) by a Software Consultant and FinTech Architect amplified this important conversation, referencing a publicly accessible dashboard that assessed the performance of 43 government websites.

The analysis raised legitimate concerns about digital inclusion, mobile access and user experience, and these are the concerns that SITA takes seriously.

However, for public discourse to be genuinely productive, it must be grounded in accuracy.

In this instance, several factual inaccuracies risk not only misleading the public, but more critically, obscuring where accountability truly lies and preventing a more meaningful national conversation about how government ICT is structured, funded and governed.

The first correction is this: of the 43 websites assessed in the referenced report, SITA is responsible for only nine.

The remaining 34 are managed by individual departments, provincial governments, or other entities entirely outside of SITA's operational remit. Broad conclusions that attribute the overall "state of government websites" to SITA, without this context, are not only inaccurate but are a distraction, intended or not, from the deeper structural questions that need answering.

The nine websites under SITA's management are:
1. The Government Communication and Information System (GCIS)
2. The Department of Communications and Digital Technologies
3. The Civilian Secretariat for Police Service
4. The Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID)
5.

The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture
6. The Department of Human Settlements
7. The Department of Science, Technology and Innovation
8. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
9. The South African Police Service (SAPS)

Among these, independent scoring placed two websites in "good" standing and five in "average" standing.

The remaining two, SAPS and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, returned no data, not because they are non-functional, but because security controls deliberately blocked automated extraction by third-party tools. In an era of escalating cyber threats and attacks on public infrastructure, this is not a failure; it is a feature.

UNDERSTANDING SITA'S MANDATE: ENABLER, NOT OWNER

Correcting the factual record, however, is only the starting point. The more substantive issue is a widespread misunderstanding of what SITA actually is, and what it is not.SITA is a digital government enabler. It is not a department. It is not a content owner.

It does not set policy. It does not determine what services go online, how they are designed, or whether they are zero-rated to reduce data costs for citizens. These decisions rest with individual government departments, in accordance with their own mandates, budgets and priorities.

Under the SITA Act, the Agency exists to provide information technology, information systems and related services to government departments, as requested.

The operative phrase is "as requested." SITA delivers according to a brief; however, it does provide advice, with the final decision residing with the government department. If a department does not commission an accessible, mobile-optimised website, SITA does not build one unilaterally.

If a department does not fund a zero-rating arrangement, SITA cannot impose one. The governance model is one of client-service provider, not of unilateral authority.

This distinction matters enormously, because much of the public criticism directed at SITA about services being "unavailable when websites fail," about grant portals being inaccessible, about health information being unreachable on low-cost devices - relates to platforms that are either not managed by SITA at all, or that reflect departmental decisions about scope and investment, not SITA's operational performance. Accountability is non-negotiable, which must be correctly apportioned.

THE FUNDING MODEL: A STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINT ON DELIVERY

Understanding how SITA is funded is central to understanding both its capabilities and its limitations - and yet it is perhaps the least understood aspect of the public debate.

SITA is a self-funding, self-sustaining entity classified as schedule 3A entity in terms of the Public Finance Management Act. It receives no government appropriation. It has never received a government bailout.

Every rand SITA spends is earned through services rendered to client departments. Revenue is only generated when departments commission and pay for services. This is not a minor administrative detail; it is a fundamental structural reality that shapes everything SITA can and cannot do.

The implications are significant. SITA cannot proactively upgrade or modernise a department's digital platform without a corresponding mandate and budget from that department.

It cannot invest in infrastructure improvements beyond what client revenue supports. It cannot unilaterally drive digital transformation across government, even where the need is obvious and urgent. Tasking and funding by government departments are critical.

This creates an inherent tension: SITA is frequently held publicly accountable for the overall state of government's digital services, yet its ability to act is directly constrained by whether departments choose to commission and fund improvements.

When departments underfund ICT, and prioritise other programs ahead of digital accessibility, the consequences manifest in the quality of public-facing platforms. Accountability for those consequences must sit with those departments, not with SITA.

This is not a defence of complacency. SITA has a responsibility to advise, advocate and lead where it can. It is doing so through its Citizen-First Modernisation Strategy, which includes enforcing Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Level AA accessibility standards on new developments, deploying AI-enabled interfaces, adopting Progressive Web Apps for mobile-first delivery, and migrating legacy systems to cloud environments for improved resilience and performance.

All platforms under SITA's management are monitored 24/7/365 through enterprise-grade systems.

But an awkward and yet necessary conversation, one that will actually improve the state of digital government in South Africa, must acknowledge the structural constraints of the current model.

PROOF OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE: THE G20 SOUTH AFRICA WEBSITE

When mandates are clear, governance is aligned, and funding is appropriately structured, SITA can and does deliver world-class digital platforms.

The official G20 South Africa website, which was developed and hosted by SITA stands as concrete evidence of this.

The website was built to stringent international standards for security, accessibility, performance and scalability.

In addition, the platform is fully responsive across mobile and desktop environments and serves a global audience. It is not an outlier. It is a blueprint demonstration of what becomes possible when the conditions for delivery are properly established.

THE BROADER CONVERSATION: TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM

The website performance debate, while in some respects narrowly focused, opens a door to a broader and more necessary conversation about the governance of digital government in South Africa.

The fact that 34 of the 43 websites analysed fall outside SITA's remit, and yet the public has limited visibility into who owns them, who funds their maintenance, and who is accountable for their performance, points to a transparency deficit that goes beyond any single entity.

It reflects a fragmented model of digital governance, one where accountability is unclear, investment decisions are siloed, and citizens are left without a clear point of recourse.

This conversation demands more transparency from all stakeholders, and this must include how digital public infrastructure is prioritised and funded.
If South Africa is serious about digital transformation, then the question of whether an entity like SITA should remain largely reactive and client-revenue-dependent, or whether it should be empowered and resourced to drive proactive digital governance, is one that must be placed on the policy agenda.

To this end, SITA has developed a position paper that will be shared with the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies on the repurposing of the Agency, noting the changed ICT landscape and other environmental factors.

CONCLUSION: EVIDENCE, ACCURACY AND STRUCTURAL HONESTY
SITA does not ask to be shielded from scrutiny. We ask only that the scrutiny be accurate, contextually informed and directed at the right accountable institutions.
The national conversation on digital government is valuable.

The concerns raised about digital inclusion, mobile access and service availability are real and urgent. But to move from diagnosis to solution, that conversation must engage honestly with the structural realities: the distributed nature of digital governance, the funding constraints that limit proactive delivery, and the urgent need for stronger coordination, transparency and accountability across all entities involved.

South Africa's digital future must be built on clear mandates, adequate funding, shared accountability and a clear national commitment to putting citizens first.

That is a conversation SITA is ready to participate in.

Tlali Tlali is the Head of Corporate Affairs at the State Information Technology Agency (SITA)