This is a case study of how Tshwane University of Technology is implementing quality assurance of its academic programmes in accordance with the requirements of the Higher Education Quality Committee. The focus of the study is on the activities of the central quality unit, the Directorate of Quality Promotion (DQP) regarding the evaluation of its programme evaluations. This is akin to a question raised regarding parliamentary procedures, not long ago when the Auditor General appeared before the parliamentary committee on public accounts. The question was ‘Who is auditing the Auditor General?’ Before this question could be asked at TUT, a strategic decision was taken by the current director of the DQP regarding what the directorate needed to do in achieving leadership in this regard. An introductory description is made of the current curriculum development practices within the new educational dispensation. The statutory roles of the Department of Education, the South African Qualifications Authority&the Higher Education Quality Committee in this process are described. This is followed by an explanation of the new programme outlay within outcomes-based education. In offering a theoretical framework for the study various evaluation models are treated, and the CIPP evaluation model is adopted for this study. The research design for the study is allied to a literature-based model by Brinkerhoff, et. al. This is a six step framework for conducting meta-evaluation. The qualitative data analysis takes the form of evaluating the evaluation against thirty International Evaluation Standards of the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. These standards are sub-divided into the following categories, namely, utility, feasibility, propriety and accuracy standards. The study concludes that conducting a meta-evaluation for programme reviews has the potential to expose strengths and weaknesses of quality assurance practice.