The crisis engulfing the Public Investment Corporation is no longer about one chief executive, board chair or minister.It is about who safeguards the more than R3 trillion that belongs to millions of South Africans.The question has become unavoidable.

The precautionary suspension of the PIC's chief executive, the resignation of six non-executive directors, protected disclosures to Parliament alleging political interference and an investigation by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority have pushed Africa's largest asset manager into its most serious governance crisis since the Mpati Commission.

The PIC invests the retirement savings of public servants.The funds do not belong to the government of the day.They belong to the people whose futures depend on prudent investment decisions and independent governance.

That is why the Mpati Commission called for stronger governance safeguards after exposing years of institutional failure.Its recommendations were not simply about correcting past mistakes.They were intended to reshape the PIC's governance architecture so that no office bearer, board or executive could make decisions without effective checks and balances.The crisis suggests that the balance remains unresolved.

Ministers must be able to hold public institutions accountable.Boards, however, have fiduciary duties that cannot be exercised only when they align with the wishes of the shareholder.If directors are unable to act independently, the purpose of having an independent board is diminished.

Equally, independence cannot become a shield against accountability.Public institutions entrusted with billions of rand must remain subject to rigorous oversight, transparent decision-making and meaningful scrutiny.The challenge is to ensure that oversight strengthens governance rather than undermines it.

None of this means boards should be above scrutiny. Accountability must be based on evidence, due process and transparent findings rather than the appearance of decisive action.Confidence in public institutions is built not only on outcomes but also on the fairness and credibility of the processes that produce them.

South Africa has seen too many public institutions weakened by instability, abrupt leadership changes and governance battles that distract from their core mandate.The PIC cannot become another example.

This moment should therefore be used to complete the governance reforms envisaged by the Mpati Commission rather than reopen old fault lines.A stronger board, clearer lines of accountability and greater institutional independence are not competing objectives.They are mutually reinforcing.

The individuals at the centre of the dispute will eventually change.The governance architecture they leave will endure.That is where the country's attention should remain.