Admin
03 Dec, 2025
R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s appearance at the Standing Committee on Finance – further issues and pertinent questions that need to be asked of the PIC
Dr Mkhacani Maswanganyi, MP Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Dear Dr Maswanganyi R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s appearance at the Standing Committee on Finance – further issues and pertinent questions that need to be asked of the PIC 1. Further to my correspondence dated 10 November 2025 , in which you were copied, I understand that the Standing Committee on Finance (SCOF) is scheduled to receive a report from the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) on 5 December 2025. 2. In regard, I wish to refer SCOF to my correspondence to the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr MC Ramaphosa and the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA), Mr Songezo Zibi, MP, which I attach for your ease of refence: 2.1. On 29 October 2025 regarding: “R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s governance collapse demands action ” and 2.2. on 8 November 2025 regarding: “Renewed concerns over probable governance irregularities and conflicts of interest at the Public Investment Corporation: the PIC’s confused(ing) rhetoric regarding the Lanseria and FlySafair deals” . 3. I understand from the SCOPA Chairperson Zibi, that he has referred the entire matter concerning the PIC, as submitted by the UDM, to SCOF for further consideration, as SCOPA is currently engaged in the Road Accident Fund inquiry and both committees share several members. 4. In addition to the above, there have been further developments which I wish to bring to SCOF’s attention, and I refer the Committee to the following documents attached for ease of reference: 4.1. A 30 October 2025 correspondence from Mabotja Attorneys on behalf of Acapulco Trade & Invest 164 (Pty) Ltd, dated 30 October 2025, regarding “FORMAL CLARIFICATION & REPRESENTATION IN RESPECT OF THE LANSERIA HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD TRANSACTION.” as well as a 4.2. 7 October 2025 correspondence from Mabotja Attorneys to Werksmans Attorneys, acting on behalf of the PIC, regarding: “LANSERIA AND RELATED MATTERS”, 5. For additional context to the bigger scheme of things, I refer to an article published in the Business Day of 5 November 2025 entitled” “PIC furious over R400m payout to Lanseria BEE partner” 6. Given the context outlined in all the UDM’s correspondence and the article referenced above, it is evident that SCOF will need to conduct a thorough and far-reaching investigation into the broader operations of the PIC, particularly its dealings involving PAIDF I and II and the investment of Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) funds. The arbitration award in favour of Acapulco, dated 17 September 2025 and amounting to R411 282 264.44, has clearly unsettled matters and exposed deeper issues within the PIC’s governance and investment practices. 7. Further to points 5 and 6 in my letter of 29 October 2025 concerning the Lanseria Airport Holdings and FlySafair matters, the UDM recommends that SCOF pose the following questions to PIC: 7.1. Management fees 7.1.1. Would you state, for the record, the total management fees Harith has drawn from PAIDF I, PAIDF II, and the newly constituted Harith Infraco? 7.1.2. Can you provide a detailed breakdown of those fees by fund, year, and category? 7.2. Fund performance 7.2.1. Provide a comprehensive summary of the financial and operational performance of PAIDF I and PAIDF II. 7.2.2. What were the key value drivers, impairments, exits, and realised or unrealised returns associated with each fund? 7.3. Value created for pensioners 7.3.1. Based on your own reporting and audited figures, how much net value, after all fees, costs, and adjustments i.e. have these funds generated for South African pensioners? 7.3.2. Are you able to confirm whether the net contribution has been positive, neutral, or negative? 7.4. Restructuring and recapitalisation 7.4.1. Harith has recently undertaken what appears to be restructuring, recapitalisation, and redesign of its funds. 7.4.2. Would you explain the commercial rationale for each of these steps? 7.4.3. What direct impact did these actions have on the value of the underlying investments and, specifically, on the stake ultimately attributable to the GEPF? 7.5. Harith Infraco participation 7.5.1. In the newly established Harith Infraco, what is the direct interest, shareholding percentage, or participation in returns attributable to the GEPF? 7.5.2. Has this position changed in any way compared to the GEPF’s prior participation in PAIDF I or II? 7.6. PCV creation and GEPF impact 7.6.1. Regarding the creation of the PCV, could you confirm whether the GEPF incurred any losses, impairments, write-downs, or adverse valuation adjustments from a pure accounting or profitability standpoint? 7.6.2. If so, please detail the amounts and their basis. 7.7. DBSA involvement 7.7.1. Was the DBSA at any stage an investor, lender, or creditor to any Harith-managed fund or to any of the portfolio companies within those funds? 7.7.2. If yes, please specify the nature and quantum of that exposure. 7.8. Pending applications for funding 7.8.1. Does Harith currently have any pending applications and whether for funding, refinancing, restructuring, or borrowing, before the PIC or GEPF? 7.8.2. If so, would you kindly identify each application and indicate its current status? 8. The Thabiso Moshikara scandal in July 2025 8.1. Further I point to 7.3 in my letter of 29 October 2025, regarding the above the UDM would suggest that SCOF ask the following questions of the PIC based further on “Levoca reaffirms its commitment to ethical business practices and remains committed to connecting our communities with fast internet access and bridging the digital divide in South Africa” 8.1.1. The Metrofibre Investment Funding of Levoca was stated in the Annual Financial Report of 2024 of the GEPF as having profited the PIC/GEPF just over R100 million in the span of one year. Why was this deal cancelled, and why were the shares seized for the alleged R1,170.00 postage and stamp fees of Bowmans Attorneys on a deal worth over R1.4 billion? 8.1.2. A case of fraud and corruption has been opened against PIC Head of Legal Lindiwe Masina Dlamini on 07 August 2025, under case number 2025-08-07 at MIDRAND Station, reference number CAS 205/8/2025, by a PIC 8.1.3. whistleblower. The case has now been referred to the Hawks. Why has she not been suspended if Mr Thabiso Moshikara was suspended under the same circumstances? 8.1.4. Who in the PIC authorised the granting of a R1.4 billion legal indemnity to the privately owned company Metrofibre against another private company, Levoca 805, in pursuit of trying to recoup a mere R1,170.00 following the R3 million bribe allegations? 8.1.5. Is this not biased and proof that Levoca was being punished for not wanting to pay Mr Moshikara the R3 million bribe? 8.1.6. It is stated in a civil matter paper between PIC and Levoca 805 that the R1,170 invoice was erroneous or fraudulently issued, which supports the fact that the PIC is lacking a legitimate trigger event. Furthermore, the R1,170 was eventually settled by Levoca, yet the PIC still proceeded to seize Levoca’s shares worth R1.4 billion for R1,170. Why is the PIC still proceeding to seize the shares even after the R1,170, which it relied upon, was settled by Levoca, particularly in an investment that is profiting our government pensioners over R100 million per annum? 8.1.7. What is the current status of this matter? Where does it stand now? Have the shares been returned to Levoca, and if not, why not? 8.1.8. Is the PIC attempting to punish the whistleblower by seizing Levoca’s shares for R1,170? 8.1.9. Does this not sound like corrupt, prejudicial, and oppressive conduct to unlawfully seize Levoca's shares by the PIC as a result of Levoca refusing to pay a R3 million bribe to Mr Moshikara, Head of the Isibaya Fund at the PIC? 9. The Isibaya Fund 9.1. The Isibaya Fund continues to be the centre of corruption within the PIC. Despite the clear warnings of the Mpati Commission, no meaningful reforms have been implemented. This unlisted investment portfolio still operates with poor oversight, secretive decision-making, and transactions that favour politically connected individuals. 9.2. Ultimately, the people who have dedicated their careers to public service are not the true beneficiaries of this fund. It has effectively become a pool of capital reserved for a privileged few, often distributed without proper risk evaluation, exposing the PIC to substantial financial losses and betraying the trust of millions of workers whose pensions are at stake. 9.3. A credit loss ratio exceeding 39% is indefensible and reflects an alarming level of financial mismanagement. No credible institution would tolerate such extensive losses under the guise of economic empowerment. 9.4. Complex financial structures and contractual arrangements have been deliberately used to conceal the extent of this looting. Few fully understand the intricate deal-making mechanisms that enable it, but it is clear that something even more insidious than State Capture continues to thrive within the PIC. 9.5. Given persistent governance failures, it is essential to ask whether the Isibaya Fund should remain under the control of the PIC at all. A more prudent course would be to transfer its developmental and impact investment mandate to institutions with proven governance systems and sectoral expertise, such as the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) or the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC). These entities are far better placed to ensure sound project evaluation, transparency, and accountability. The PIC’s role could then be confined to allocating funds under DBSA or IDC supervision, or outsourcing mandates to qualified independent managers operating under strict risk and performance controls. Unless this reform is undertaken, corruption and instability will persist, and no commission of inquiry will be able to restore confidence or integrity to the system. 10. The UDM reiterates its firm belief that safeguarding public pension funds is a matter of national priority. Urgent intervention is required to ensure that the Public Investment Corporation is never exploited as an instrument of political patronage, and that the more than R3 trillion in assets under its management are administered with the utmost integrity, professionalism, and accountability. Yours sincerely Deputy Minister Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement Copied to: • Mr Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa – President of the Republic of South Africa • Mr Enoch Godongwana, MP - Minister of Finance • Dr David Masondo, MP - Deputy Minister of Finance and Chairperson of the Board of the Public Investment Corporation • Ms Thoko Didiza, MP - Speaker of the National Assembly of South Africa • Mr Songezo Zibi, MP - Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts • Mr Patrick Dlamini - Chief Executive Officer, Public Investment Corporation • Mr Musa Mabesa - Principal Executive Officer, Government Employees Pension Fund • Ms Tsakani Maluleke - Auditor-General of South Africa • Adv Andy Mothibi - Head of the Special Investigating Unit • Mr Eric Mabuza – Mabuza Attorneys • Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP -UDM Deputy President and Leader in Parliament • Ms Thandi Nontenja, MP – UDM Chief Whip in the National Assembly and Member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
Admin
10 Nov, 2025
Report back: R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s governance collapse in the Lanseria Airport Holdings deal and other governance issues
Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP UDM Deputy President and Leader in Parliament PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 and Ms Thandi Nontenja, MP UDM National Treasurer and Chief Whip in the National Assembly Member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Dear Mr Kwankwa and Ms Nontenja Report back: R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s governance collapse in the Lanseria Airport Holdings deal and other governance issues 1. I hereby request that you prepare the United Democratic Movement’s (UDM) parliamentary operations to address the issues outlined in this letter, with particular focus on the Party’s participation in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) and the Standing Committee on Finance, and to begin gathering relevant information. I have already instructed Attorney Eric Mabuza of Mabuza Attorneys to obtain key information from Mr Patrick Dlamini, Chief Executive Officer of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), as reflected in the attached correspondence. 2. On 29 October 2025, the UDM addressed a detailed letter to the President of the Republic, Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, and the SCOPA Chairperson, Mr Songezo Zibi, MP, under the subject “R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s governance collapse demands action.” In that correspondence, I highlighted the grave risks posed by a series of recent and questionable transactions undertaken by the PIC, which endanger more than R3.5 trillion in pensioners’ funds, alongside widespread governance, ethical, and oversight failures within the institution. As you are aware, the UDM has already proposed several urgent interventions in that letter to address these systemic failures. 3. On 5 November 2025, the PIC Corporate Affairs Division, in the name of the PIC Board Chairperson and Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr David Masondo, issued a statement appeared designed to undermine the UDM’s position. 4. As a matter of interest, Deputy Minister Masondo contacted me, on the same day, personally after the statement was issued, distancing himself from its content and expressing concern about the manner in which the PIC had treated me. It appears that the statement was drafted within the PIC as a deliberate smokescreen and an attempt to deflect public attention from the Lanseria Airport Holdings deal by going on the offensive. Yet, in doing so, the PIC conceded that “…a legal review on the arbitration proceedings is underway…,” which only reinforces the view that where there is smoke, there is indeed fire. Why attack the UDM and me personally instead of providing a substantive response to each of the issues we raised in our letter of 29 October 2025? 5. On 8 November 2025, I again wrote to President Ramaphosa and SCOPA Chairperson Songezo Zibi, specifically concerning: 5.1. A letter from Werksmans Attorneys to Mabotja Attorneys titled: “PUBLIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION SOC LIMITED // ACAPULCO TRADE AND INVEST 164(RF) (PTY) LTD” dated 6 November 2025 and 5.2. Mabotja Attorneys’ response to the above entitled.: “LANSERIA AND RELATED MATTERS” of 7 November 2025. 5.3. In its correspondence, Werksmans Attorneys, acting on behalf of the PIC, wrote to Mabotja Attorneys, who represent Acapulco Trade and Invest 164 (Pty) Ltd, concerning the aftermath of an arbitration award in favour of Acapulco dated 17 September 2025, amounting to R411 282 264.44. The letter indicates that the PIC intends to review or challenge the award and has requested that the funds already deposited in Mabotja Attorneys’ trust account be frozen pending the outcome of that review. 5.4. In reply, Mabotja Attorneys issued a strongly worded and defensive response aimed at discrediting Werksmans Attorneys’ letter on behalf of the PIC and portraying Acapulco as the aggrieved party. The exchange highlights growing tension between Acapulco, Mr Patrick Dlamini, and Harith General Partners and its founder, Mr Tshepo Mahloele, who appears to be a key figure at the centre of the dispute. 6. What prompted Mr Dlamini to act so suddenly? Was it his own initiative, or did the PIC Board finally intervene in a last-minute attempt to salvage what remains of the institution’s credibility and reputation? 7. There appears to be a significant fallout between the PIC and Acapulco Trade and Invest 164 (Pty) Ltd, the BEE partner in the Lanseria Airport Holdings deal. Despite Acapulco having defaulted on a R333 million loan, which grew to approximately R600 million with interest, the PIC nevertheless proceeded to pay just over R411 million to Acapulco after an arbitration process upheld a contested valuation conducted by Crowe, a so-called external valuer. This payout has reportedly angered the PIC Board, which has since moved to freeze the funds and is said to be considering legal action. These developments point to growing internal discord within the PIC and raise serious concerns about a potential governance collapse within the institution. Why did the Mr Dlamini and his executive team approve this transaction in the first place if they are now raising alarm after the fact? 8. Mr Dlamini’s professional history continues to raise serious governance concerns. In Mabotja Attorneys’ letter of 7 November 2025, it is alleged that he has maintained a close personal and professional relationship with Mr Mahloele and Harith General Partners, including attending a celebratory gathering at Mr Mahloele’s Bryanston home shortly after his appointment as PIC CEO. This allegation adds to a pattern first documented during his tenure as CEO of the Development Bank of Southern Africa, when serious accusations of mismanagement, maladministration and possible corruption the UDM brought to the attention of SCOPA in October 2020. At that time, concerns were raised about his association with Mr Mahloele and Harith, particularly around the Poseidon funding matter and other questionable transactions that appeared to benefit politically connected entities. Now, as head of the PIC, the same allegations of conflict of interest, irregular investment decisions and weak governance have resurfaced, most notably in the Lanseria Airport Holdings and FlySafair dealings involving Harith-linked interests. This recurring pattern points to an entrenched network of influence between public finance institutions and private business interests that requires urgent and independent investigation. 9. In its letter of 29 October 2025, the UDM made two key recommendations: 9.1. That SCOPA convene urgent public hearings with the PIC Board, the Chief Executive Officer, and the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) to account for ongoing governance failures, ethical breaches, and poor investment decisions. 9.2. That the Auditor-General and the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) conduct a forensic audit of the Isibaya Fund and the Unlisted Investments Division, with a particular focus on politically connected transactions, loss-making projects, and compliance with the recommendations of the Mpati Commission. The Lanseria transaction, which was initiated in 2013, must be included in the scope of investigation as this appears to be where the shenanigans first began. Questions remain about the servicing of the loan through dividends. Were any ever declared by the Government Employees Pension Fund, the PIC, Acapulco, or Harith General Partners? 10. Equally concerning is the reported involvement of Harith General Partners in raising funds to acquire a stake in FlySafair. It is important to recall that the UDM previously intervened to stop the South African Airways (SAA) transaction after informing President Ramaphosa and then Minister of Public Enterprises Pravin Gordhan, following Gordhan’s 11 June 2021 announcement that the Takatso Consortium, led in part by Harith General Partners owned by Mr Tshepo Mahloele, had been selected as the preferred bidder to acquire a 51% stake in SAA for R51. 11. A further and deeply troubling conflict of interest arises from the fact that Mr Dlamini previously served as Chairperson of the Lanseria Airport Holdings Board while simultaneously holding senior public office. According to the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) website, he still remains listed as a Non-Executive Director of Lanseria Holdings (K2012204048), Lanseria Airport 1993 (M1993004101), Lanseria Airport Investments (M2002025907) and Lanseria International Airport (M1991001749). His continued association with these entities, which have direct financial dealings with the PIC, raises serious questions about the independence and propriety of decisions taken under his leadership. This dual involvement suggests that Mr Dlamini may have had access to privileged information regarding the airport’s operations and valuation, both before and after the disputed PIC investment. When considered alongside the issues raised in Mabotja Attorneys’ letter concerning his relationship with Harith General Partners and its founder, Mr Tshepo Mahloele, this overlap of roles points to a possible conflict of interest that warrants urgent scrutiny by the relevant oversight bodies. Now, the same players appear to be seeking to use public funds for private investment ventures. We have not forgotten the Mpati Commission’s damning findings against these entities. 12. The Auditor-General, acting under the auspices of SCOPA, remains the only credible authority capable of conducting a comprehensive review of the Lanseria deal and related transactions, given that public money is once again at stake. 13. The UDM should maintain its position that safeguarding public pension funds is a matter of national importance. It is imperative that decisive intervention takes place to ensure the PIC is never exploited as a vehicle for political patronage, and that the more than R3 trillion in assets under its management are administered with the highest levels of integrity, professionalism, and accountability. Yours sincerely Deputy Minister Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement Copied to: • Mr Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa – President of the Republic of South Africa • Mr Enoch Godongwana, MP - Minister of Finance • Dr David Masondo, MP - Deputy Minister of Finance and Chairperson of the Board of the Public Investment Corporation • Ms Thoko Didiza, MP - Speaker of the National Assembly of South Africa • Mr Songezo Zibi, MP - Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts • Dr Mkhacani Maswanganyi, MP - Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance • Mr Patrick Dlamini - Chief Executive Officer, Public Investment Corporation • Mr Musa Mabesa - Principal Executive Officer, Government Employees Pension Fund • Ms Tsakani Maluleke - Auditor-General of South Africa • Adv Andy Mothibi - Head of the Special Investigating Unit • Mr Eric Mabuza – Mabuza Attorneys
Admin
10 Nov, 2025
From job offer to captivity: how human traffickers prey on South Africa’s desperate
Statement by Zandile Phiri, Acting Secretary General of the United Democratic Movement Human trafficking in South Africa has become a national emergency hiding in plain sight. It is destroying lives through sexual exploitation, forced labour, and debt bondage, and it thrives on poverty, desperation, and the failures of the state to coordinate an effective response. Recent reports have exposed the scale of this crisis. Three young women from Botswana were rescued at OR Tambo International Airport after being lured through social media with false promises of lucrative jobs in Sierra Leone. A 22-year-old woman from Bonteheuwel was tricked into travelling to Thailand, later trafficked to Cambodia, and forced into work after her passport was confiscated. In Johannesburg, seven Chinese nationals were convicted earlier this year of human trafficking after exploiting more than ninety Malawian workers, including thirty-three minors, in a garment factory where they were kept under guard and paid R65 a day. In the past year, investigations have revealed houses in Sandton, Johannesburg, and Durban where dozens of foreign nationals were held captive by trafficking syndicates. In one incident in March 2025, more than 50 people escaped from a house in Lombardy East, and in May 2025, 44 victims were rescued from a locked property in Parkmore, Sandton. Similar discoveries have been made in Durban, exposing a network that uses residential properties as holding sites for victims awaiting transport across borders. It is reported that less than one percent of victims is ever rescued. At the centre of this tragedy are employment scams that promise opportunity but deliver slavery. These operations exploit South Africa’s severe unemployment, preying on people desperate for income or a chance to work abroad. Our joblessness has become a recruitment tool for traffickers, and the state has done too little to close that door. The problem is compounded by weak coordination among law-enforcement agencies, poor data collection, and a lack of capacity in social services. Police, immigration, labour inspectors, and welfare officials often work in isolation, while traffickers move people freely across borders and provinces. Corruption and bureaucracy slow down victim identification, shelter placements, and prosecutions. South Africa’s porous borders worsen the crisis. Traffickers exploit weak controls and under-resourced posts to move victims alongside migrants and contraband. Until border management is tightened, corruption addressed, and regional intelligence improved, the country will remain a key corridor for trafficking across southern Africa. The United States Trafficking in Persons Report has again warned that South Africa is failing to identify victims, prosecute offenders, or coordinate a national response. The country’s placement on the Tier 2 Watchlist signals growing international concern over its weak efforts to combat trafficking. Unless coordination and enforcement improve, South Africa risks further sanctions and the erosion of its global credibility on human rights. The UDM calls for decisive action to break this cycle of exploitation and neglect: 1. A national anti-trafficking strategy led by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, bringing together the South African Police Service (SAPS), Department of Home Affairs, Department of Employment and Labour, Department of Social Development, and reputable civil society organisations under one command structure with measurable targets and real accountability. 2. Public awareness and prevention campaigns coordinated by the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, in partnership with Basic and Higher Education, to educate communities about fake job offers, social-media recruitment, and passport confiscation; especially in provinces with high unemployment such as Mpumalanga, Limpopo, and the Eastern Cape. 3. Protection and reintegration services for victims managed by the Department of Social Development and provincial governments, with the support of accredited NGOs, to ensure safe shelters, counselling, and job placement programmes so survivors can rebuild their lives without fear or stigma. 4. Enforcement of labour laws and regulation of recruiters overseen by the Department of Employment and Labour and the SAPS, with heavy penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers, confiscate passports, or deceive jobseekers. Inspections must be routine and unannounced, and corrupt officials must be prosecuted. 5. Investment in youth employment and skills development driven by the Departments of Employment and Labour, Trade, Industry and Competition, and Higher Education and Training, working alongside the National Youth Development Agency and private sector partners. Preventing trafficking begins with creating real, sustainable opportunities at home through job creation, apprenticeships, and skills programmes that give young people viable alternatives to risky job offers and exploitation. 6. Strengthened cross-border cooperation spearheaded by the Department of International Relations and Cooperation and the Border Management Authority, working with SADC partners to dismantle trafficking networks, share intelligence, and ensure the safe repatriation of victims. Human trafficking is not only a criminal enterprise but a profound moral failure that strikes at the heart of our nation’s values. South Africa cannot claim to be a democracy that protects human rights while allowing syndicates to trade in human lives with impunity. The UDM calls on government to act with urgency, unity, and compassion to protect the vulnerable, prosecute the guilty, and restore integrity to our borders and institutions. Every victim rescued is a life reclaimed, but true victory will come only when no person in South Africa can be bought, sold, or enslaved.
Admin
10 Nov, 2025
No leader above the law: UDM KwaZulu-Natal condemns Councillor Ndlovu’s alleged sexual assault of young girl
Statement by Remington Mazibuko, Councillor in the Inkosi Mtubatuba Local Municipality and UDM KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Chairperson The United Democratic Movement (UDM) in KwaZulu-Natal is shocked and dismayed by reports that an Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) councillor from Ward 14 in Inkosi Mtubatuba Local Municipality, Cllr Ndlovu, allegedly sexually assaulted a young girl and later attempted to bribe the child’s mother with R10,000 to conceal the incident. The details of this case reveal a painful abuse of power and a failure of conscience. Those chosen to serve must protect the dignity of every person, especially the young and vulnerable. Anything less undermines the values on which our democracy stands. The UDM calls on the IFP to immediately suspend Cllr Ndlovu from office pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. Failure to do so will raise serious questions about the IFP’s commitment to ethical leadership and the protection of vulnerable citizens. The Party further calls for a swift, transparent, and impartial investigation into this case. Law enforcement must act decisively to ensure that justice is served, and no political affiliation or public office should be allowed to shield anyone from accountability. We also call for immediate support and protection for the victim and her family. The South African Police Service and the Department of Social Development must ensure that the child receives proper psychosocial care and that her safety is guaranteed throughout the legal process. Gender-Based Violence and Femicide are symptoms of a leadership crisis that has allowed impunity to thrive. Until those in positions of authority lead by example and enforce accountability, our communities will continue to suffer the pain of fear and loss. The UDM in KwaZulu-Natal believes that leadership means protecting the most vulnerable, not preying on them. We expect every public representative to embody the values of honesty, accountability, and respect for human dignity. Those who violate these principles should have no place in public life.
Admin
08 Nov, 2025
Renewed concerns over probable governance irregularities and conflicts of interest at the Public Investment Corporation: the PIC’s confused(ing) rhetoric regarding the Lanseria and FlySafair deals
Mr MC Ramaphosa President of the Republic of South Africa Private Bag X1000 Pretoria 0001 and Mr Songezo Zibi, MP Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Dear Mister President and Chairperson Zibi Renewed concerns over probable governance irregularities and conflicts of interest at the Public Investment Corporation: the PIC’s confused(ing) rhetoric regarding the Lanseria and FlySafair deals 1. I refer to my correspondence dated 29 October 2025, titled “R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s governance collapse demands action.” In that letter, I outlined the serious risks arising from several recent and questionable transactions undertaken by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), which place over R3.5 trillion in pensioners’ funds in jeopardy, as well as broader governance and ethical failures within the institution. 2. “The PIC’s records in respect of Harith’s (or a party related to Harith) application/request for funding to acquire all or portion of the shares in FlySafair, directly or indirectly.” This is a direct quote from the letter referred to in Paragraph 4.2, wherein the PIC is asked to preserve “records, minutes, notes, guest lists, recordings and resolutions and/or other material” relating to Harith General Partners’ acquisition of shares in FlySafair. One must ask: who is fooling whom? 3. On 5 November 2025, the PIC Board Chairperson and Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr David Masondo, launched a scathing and aggressive attack on me personally and made a weak attempt to tarnish my reputation, question my credentials, and cast aspersions on the information the UDM provided in its letter of 29 October 2025. In this regard, I wish to make the following observations: 3.1. While the PIC provides impressive financial statistics, it fails to meaningfully address the core governance concerns raised by the UDM, namely valuation manipulation, political interference, and weak board oversight. 3.2. The PIC attempts to project transparency by citing asset growth and external audits yet simultaneously hides behind claims of legal confidentiality in the Lanseria Holdings matter. This contradiction severely undermines its credibility. 3.3. Although claiming to respect Parliament, the PIC’s statement labels a Member of Parliament’s formal correspondence as “nefarious i.e. language that may be interpreted as contemptuous of democratic oversight and to which I take strong personal exception. 3.4. Furthermore, while denying wrongdoing, the PIC’s statement acknowledges that a review of the arbitration proceedings is underway, implicitly conceding that there may indeed be irregularities in the transaction. This is clearly evidenced by the correspondence referred to in Paragraph 4.14.1, which confirms that the matter remains under internal scrutiny. Yet, instead of welcoming the alert and taking proactive corrective measures, the PIC chose to attack me personally, rather than expressing gratitude for having brought this concerning deal to its attention. 3.5. Why issue the statement in the first place? The PIC went to great lengths to adopt a defensive posture, using offensive language directed at me, while at the same time conceding through its own actions that there is indeed something fishy about the Lanseria transaction. 4. To provide further context to this entire matter, I have attached two pieces of critical correspondence which demonstrate that Dr Masondo, in the name of the PIC, “doth protest too much”: 4.1. A letter from Werksmans Attorneys to Mabotja Attorneys titled: “PUBLIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION SOC LIMITED // ACAPULCO TRADE AND INVEST 164(RF) (PTY) LTD” dated 6 November 2025. 4.2. Mabotja Attorneys’ response to the above entitled.: “LANSERIA AND RELATED MATTERS” of 7 November 2025. 4.3. Werksmans Attorneys, acting on behalf of the PIC, addressed a letter to Mabotja Attorneys, who represent Acapulco Trade and Invest 164 (Pty) Ltd, regarding the aftermath of an arbitration award in favour of Acapulco, dated 17 September 2025 in the amount of R411 282 264.44. The correspondence indicates that the PIC intends to review or challenge the arbitration award and seeks to freeze the funds already deposited in Mabotja Attorneys’ trust account pending the outcome of that review. 4.4. In response, Mabotja Attorneys issued a combative and defensive reply, aimed at discrediting Werksmans Attorneys’ correspondence on behalf of the PIC and portraying Acapulco as the aggrieved party. The exchange suggests escalating tension between Acapulco and the PIC, its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mr Patrick Dlamini, as well as Harith General Partners and its founder, Mr Mahloele, who appears to be a central figure of contention. 4.5. The revelation that Mr Mahloele hosted a “celebratory gathering” in Bryanston to mark Mr Dlamini’s appointment as PIC CEO is particularly concerning in the broader context of potential conflicts of interest and governance integrity within the PIC. 5. Clearly, the Lanseria transaction and the PIC’s dealings in the FlySafair matter, both linked to Mr Tshepo Mahloele, appear increasingly suspect in light of the aforementioned context. The Lanseria deal has been unfolding for over twelve years, and it is now imperative that SCOPA asks even more probing questions than it did before my letter of 29 October 2025. 6. The key question for the UDM therefore remains: how many other transactions of this nature the PIC has entered into, in violation of its own governance protocols, and in the process placing at risk the R3.5 trillion in pensioners’ funds managed through the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF), notwithstanding Dr Masondo’s protestations to the contrary. 7. Ultimately, the PIC is a state-owned enterprise, and Parliamentary oversight is a cornerstone of ensuring that such institutions are managed ethically and transparently. Yet, the PIC appears determined to avoid public scrutiny and to continue operating in secrecy, contrary to the principles of accountability and public trust. 8. The UDM reiterates that the protection of public pension funds is a matter of national importance. Urgent intervention is required to ensure that the PIC is not used as a vehicle for political patronage and that the R3.5 trillion in assets under its management are handled with the highest standards of integrity, professionalism, and accountability. 9. We are in for a jolly period, to say the least, consider this my early Christmas gift to the public. The truth is finally coming to light. Yours sincerely Deputy Minister Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement Copied to: • Mr Enoch Godongwana, MP - Minister of Finance • Dr David Masondo, MP - Deputy Minister of Finance and Chairperson of the Board of the Public Investment Corporation • Ms Thoko Didiza, MP - Speaker of the National Assembly of South Africa • Mr Patrick Dlamini - Chief Executive Officer, Public Investment Corporation • Mr Musa Mabesa - Principal Executive Officer, Government Employees Pension Fund • Ms Tsakani Maluleke - Auditor-General of South Africa • Adv Andy Mothibi - Head of the Special Investigating Unit
Admin
07 Nov, 2025
UDM BCMM denounces callous evictions and Red Ants brutality in Reeston
Statement by Anele Skoti, United Democratic Movement Councillor and Whip in Buffalo City Metropolitan Council The United Democratic Movement (UDM) in the Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (BCMM) has taken serious exception to the municipality’s ruthless eviction of families from Reeston Phase 2, where residents who believe they are the rightful beneficiaries have now been forced to survive on the roadside for more than three weeks. On 16 October 2025, municipal officials escorted, by the now dreaded Red Ants, carried out a violent operation that left families destitute. Doors were kicked down, residents were allegedly assaulted, and household furniture, beds, clothing, and personal belongings were thrown into trucks and dumped at the municipal landfill site. Many items were broken, stolen, or damaged beyond repair. What was once the furniture of a home was reduced to waste overnight. For twenty-three days, men, women, and children have been living beside the road, exposed to heavy rain and cold winds, sleeping among the remnants of their destroyed possessions. Some continue to search through piles of rubbish to retrieve what little remains of their belongings. This is a scene of humiliation created by the very municipality that claims to serve them. It represents a direct violation of Section 26 of the Constitution and the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act), which prohibit evictions without adequate notice, due process, and provision for alternative accommodation. The destruction of personal property further constitutes malicious damage to property and gross misconduct by those who executed the order. The affected residents argue that they are not illegal occupants. They are beneficiaries of the Reeston Phase 2 housing project, land that was originally fought for under the leadership of the late Councillor Lameki Mlingwana. The houses had been vandalised for years and were reoccupied by local families believe they are the rightful beneficiaries. Instead of regularising and protecting these residents, Buffalo City chose violence and chaos, punishing the poor for reclaiming what is theirs. UDM in BCMM demands accountability and urgent relief 1. Immediate provision of temporary housing for all displaced households, with proper sanitation, water, and security. This must be implemented by the BCMM City Manager, under direct supervision of the Executive Mayor, within seven days. 2. Full replacement or compensation for all personal belongings and furniture destroyed or dumped during the eviction. The BCMM Executive Mayor and the Head of Human Settlements must table a report to Council detailing the losses, the cost of restitution, and the disciplinary action to be taken against officials who authorised or participated in the destruction of property. 3. A transparent investigation into the Reeston Phase 2 housing allocations and the conduct of officials and Red Ants during the eviction. The Municipal Speaker must convene an urgent Council oversight inquiry, assisted by the Eastern Cape Department of Human Settlements and the Office of the MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), to establish who authorised the operation, who benefitted, and whether due process was followed. 4. A public inquiry led by the Eastern Cape COGTA and Human Settlements Departments into the broader failures of Buffalo City’s housing management system and the mismanagement of rightful beneficiary lists. This inquiry must make binding recommendations for disciplinary and criminal proceedings against implicated officials. 5. Urgent intervention by the MEC for Human Settlements, the MEC for COGTA, and the South African Human Rights Commission to ensure lawful, humane treatment of all affected families and compliance with the Constitution and the PIE Act. The UDM in BCMM is considering submitting a formal complaint with video and photographic evidence to the South African Human Rights Commission, the Public Protector, and the Eastern Cape MEC for Human Settlements.
Admin
30 Oct, 2025
Formal clarification and representation in respect of the Lanseria Holdings (PTY) Ltd transaction
Mr KG Mabotja Mabotja Attorneys 189 Lunnon Road Hillcrest Office Park Barbet Place Hillcrest Pretoria 0083 Dear Sir Formal clarification and representation in respect of the Lanseria Holdings (PTY) Ltd transaction 1. I note your client’s position; however, the explanations provided raise several further questions that require documentary verification before any of the assertions can be accepted at face value. 2. You state that the valuation in question was performed by an independent audit firm and a professional property valuer jointly appointed by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) and Acapulco. Please confirm whether the external audit firm and the property valuer were selected from the Public Investment Corporation’s panel of accredited external valuers, and, if so, provide documentary evidence of their accreditation and appointment process. The independence of the valuer is a material consideration, as valuations of this nature are vulnerable to manipulation if not conducted by duly accredited professionals who have undergone an approved appointment process by the PIC. Kindly also provide: 2.1. The full valuation report and supporting schedules; 2.2. The name of the audit firm and confirmation of whether it is one of the recognised Big Four or Five audit firms (Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG, or BDO). 2.3. As you will appreciate, financial institutions and institutional investors typically rely on the work of internationally recognised audit and valuation firms to ensure independence and credibility. The integrity of the valuation process depends on this standard. 3. It has been noted that the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) continues to hold the same Lanseria asset at an impaired value, despite the revaluation you reference. 3.1. How does your client explain this discrepancy? 3.2. Are you suggesting that the GEPF valuation is incorrect? 3.3. If not, please clarify how two entities, both ultimately representing the same shareholder interest, can hold materially divergent valuations for the same asset. 4. If the valuation truly reflected a higher fair value, why did neither the PIC nor your client initiate a market sale of the asset to test and realise that value? 4.1. A sale to a bona fide third party would have provided the only objective confirmation of the claimed valuation and would have allowed the repayment of the outstanding loan from real, realised proceeds. 4.2. The decision to effect payments without such a sale raises legitimate questions about potential collusion between PIC representatives and BEE partners, to the detriment of the GEPF and the pensioners whose funds are at risk. 5. You confirm that repayment of the loan was linked to dividend flows. Once those dividends failed to materialise, the loan should have been declared in default and the PIC should have executed against the security, in this case, the shares held by Acapulco, until recovery was completed. 5.1. On what basis, therefore, were payments made to Acapulco before any such sale took place? 5.2. Please provide documentation or correspondence showing the PIC’s authorisation for these payments. 6. In light of your client’s assurance that all valuations, arbitration records, and transaction documents are available for inspection, I hereby formally request copies of these documents for review. Kindly provide the complete valuation report, arbitration award, loan and shareholder agreements, and any other records relevant to the Lanseria Holdings transaction. These documents are essential to substantiate your client’s representations and to enable informed oversight and accountability in the public interest. 7. Would you kindly direct future correspondence to my attorney, Mr Eric Mabuza, at Mabuza Attorneys at Eric@mabuzas.co.za. Yours sincerely Deputy Minister Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement Copied to: Mr Eric Mabuza, Mabuza Attorneys
Admin
29 Oct, 2025
R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s governance collapse demands action
Mr MC Ramaphosa President of the Republic of South Africa Private Bag X1000 Pretoria 0001 and Mr Songezo Zibi, MP Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Dear Mister President and Chairperson Zibi R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s governance collapse demands action 1. I had the privilege of attending the extended Cabinet Lekgotla at the end of September 2025, where you, Mr President, emphasised that the fight against corruption and the looting of state resources would be a top priority for the Government of National Unity. You further noted that the current climate of corruption and mismanagement has severely undermined investor confidence, and that this situation must be decisively addressed. 2. The Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Impropriety at the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) (‘the Mpati Commission’) was established by you, Mr President, in October 2018 to investigate allegations of corruption, maladministration, and governance failures at the PIC, Africa’s largest asset manager, overseeing pension and social funds exceeding R2 trillion at the time (now over R3.5 trillion). 3. Amongst others, the Mpati Commission in 2020 exposed the PIC as a politically captured institution plagued by poor governance, weak accountability, and corruption, particularly within its unlisted investment portfolio (Isibaya Fund). Its recommendations aimed to restore transparency and fiduciary responsibility, but implementation has been slow and inconsistent. 4. Instead, what the United Democratic Movement (UDM) presents hereunder is a stark picture of continued looting, mismanagement, and administrative bungling from top to bottom at the PIC and its Isibaya Fund since the conclusion of the Mpati Commission, a situation of enormous proportions that rivals the State Capture scandal itself. This does not require another commission of inquiry. Rather, the UDM sets out below a series of concrete proposals for decisive action to stop the rot in its tracks through innovative solutions, strengthened parliamentary oversight, and firm law enforcement intervention. 5. The Lanseria Airport Holdings case 5.1. This presents what appears to be brazen looting of PIC funds, arguably worse than anything uncovered by the Mpati Commission. Around 2013, Harith General Partners, a group of BEE partners, and the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) invested in Lanseria Airport. The BEE partner, Acapulco Trade and Invest, was fully funded by the PIC with a loan of about R350 million, to be repaid from future dividends. More than a decade later, the loan remains unpaid and has ballooned to over R600 million, leaving the investment deeply underwater. Instead of writing it off, the PIC and its BEE partner conjured a revaluation, declaring the asset suddenly worth R1 billion. 5.2. The PIC then took over the BEE partner’s shares as security and astonishingly concluded that it now owed the BEE partner R400 million. In other words, a failed investment was transformed on paper into a profit for the debtor, creating R400 million of value out of thin air. From a debt of R600 million with no repayment capacity, the BEE partner miraculously walked away with a R400 million windfall (the BEE shareholders got their share this month and they are allegedly fighting over the loot). This may be one of the most blatant acts of looting in PIC history, rivalling the excesses of the Dr Dan Matjila era. 5.3. To make matters worse, the GEPF itself already holds an impaired stake in Lanseria Holdings. This means the PIC will either have to immediately write off the shares it took over or get the GEPF to revalue the shares to avoid scrutiny. You cannot hold same shares on the same balance sheet at different valuations. 6. The “New Karan Beef” and FlySafair deals 6.1. In 2019, the PIC was forced to halt its planned investment in Karan Beef after a whistleblower exposed alleged price inflation that pushed the valuation to R5.2 billion. Despite prior approval, the deal was never implemented following the Mpati Commission’s intervention. 6.2. Now, a similar pattern appears to be emerging with FlySafair. The airline is seeking local investors after regulatory rulings on ownership, and it is alleged that a consortium is attempting to acquire it with PIC funding at an inflated valuation of about R7.9 billion; nearly double the estimated fair value. If executed, the transaction could result in massive value destruction, mirroring what would have happened with Karan Beef. 6.3. While FlySafair is a strong airline, it is certainly not worth more than R3.9 billion. The airline industry remains highly volatile, and history shows that even leading carriers can collapse within years. Yet again, just as in the Lanseria Airport and other controversial transactions, Harith General Partners (linked to Mr Tshepo Mahloele) appears to be involved. This deal is currently being hotly debated within the financial services sector. No approvals yet. Just like Karan Beef, there is a push to extract billions from the PIC, and as always write-offs will follow soon afterwards. 7. The latest scandals in the public domain 7.1. The latest developments at the PIC reveal a deepening power struggle within the institution, exposing how political factionalism continues to undermine its governance. 7.2. The suspension of Chief Investment Officer Kabelo Rikhotso in early October 2025, officially framed as part of a misconduct investigation, has reportedly triggered internal tensions between rival camps competing for control of the corporation’s investment machinery . According to insider accounts, the battle is not merely administrative but linked to political influence over access to capital and deal-flow. The episode underscores a worrying pattern: instead of operating as an independent and professionally managed custodian of more than R3.5 trillion in public servants’ pension assets, the PIC has again become a stage for self enrichment. This climate of uncertainty and factional interference threatens both investor confidence and the fiduciary security of millions of pensioners who depend on the integrity of the institution. 7.3. In July 2025, the Thabiso Moshikara scandal reignited concerns about governance at the PIC. Moshikara, acting head of the PIC’s Unlisted Investments division, was accused of demanding a R3 million bribe from businessman Ralebala Mampeule, whose company Levoca 804 had received R693 million in PIC funding to buy a stake in Metrofibre Network. Mr Mampeule claimed that after the investment soured, Mr Moshikara allegedly threatened to cut off funding unless he paid the bribe, leading to a criminal investigation for extortion and Mr Moshikara’s suspension in October 2025. The case, which erupted in the same period as other senior-level suspensions, has deepened divisions within the PIC and underscores how the Isibaya Fund, long criticised by the Mpati Commission for weak oversight and political interference, remains a focal point of instability in an institution managing over R3.5 trillion in public funds. 8. Investment losses and governance problems: the Daybreak Foods case 8.1. Daybreak Foods, once presented as a flagship black-empowerment investment, has become one of the most visible symbols of the PIC’s governance and oversight failures. Despite repeated warnings from the Mpati Commission about weaknesses in the unlisted portfolio, the PIC has continued to pour money into the struggling poultry company. In July 2025, the PIC injected a further R150 million into Daybreak, bringing its total exposure this year to about R400 million and total investment since 2015 to approximately R1.7 billion. The company entered business rescue in May 2025, following years of losses, poor governance, and operational mismanagement. The PIC’s decision to provide additional funding to a failing enterprise under these circumstances underscores the absence of effective oversight, proper risk assessment, and consequence management within its unlisted investments. 8.2. Observers note that, while the PIC claims to have implemented the Mpati Commission’s recommendations, its continued support of non-performing and poorly governed entities such as Daybreak Foods demonstrates that the underlying accountability mechanisms remain weak, opaque, and easily influenced. 9. Even after the Mpati Commission, corruption within the PIC appears deeply entrenched. The institution is increasingly viewed as ground zero for corruption in South Africa, with billions of rand lost through reckless investments and outright misconduct. The PIC manages over R3.5 trillion in pension funds on behalf of public servants, yet the scale of governance and oversight remains alarmingly weak. 10. The current PIC board appears unfit for purpose 10.1. Compared to boards of other major financial-sector entities, including even struggling state-owned enterprises like Eskom, the contrast is stark. It is deeply concerning that a fund managing R3.5 trillion in pensioners’ savings operates under such a fragile governance structure. This persistent instability raises serious questions: is it the result of oversight failures, or a deliberate design to enable political capture rather than protect public assets? 10.2. It is alleged that the board is struggling to constitute key subcommittees, such as the audit committee, due to a lack of people with the minimum required qualifications, i.e. chartered accountant expertise. 10.3. Furthermore, the board lacks sufficient investment experience to form a credible investment committee. At present, there is reportedly no one with appropriate investment credentials serving on the board. Of particular concern is the Minister of Finance’s recent appointment of the wrong individual, one Mr Maseko, to the board. This bizarre error raises further questions: was it a genuine mistake, or was the Minister misled into making the appointment? Either scenario reflects poorly on the integrity and diligence of the appointment process. 11. Involvement of the banks 11.1. Some of the top South African banks have been involved in advising the PIC to participate in many transactions that exposes the PIC to reckless investment dealing, while at the same time participating in the more secured portion of the deals. These top banks need to be held accountable for their role in value destruction. They hide behind the so-called Chinese Walls. There is one bank that has been more prominent in the deals involving the PIC/GEPF. Both as an advisor and a participant in the more secured portion. 12. Investigation into the government pensions Regarding the matter of the former SATBVC pensioners, which I raised during the State of the Nation Address debate on 14 February 2023, I wish to reiterate my concern that no progress has been made. At the time, you, Mr President, directed the Minister of Finance, Mr Enoch Godongwana, to establish a team to investigate the pension entitlements of civil servants from the former SATBVC states. You further tasked the Deputy President, as head of the task team on the benefits of military veterans, to provide you with a report on this matter. To date, however, no such report has been produced, and the affected pensioners continue to wait in uncertainty. 13. The Isibaya Fund remains the epicentre of corruption within the PIC. Despite the Mpati Commission’s warnings, little has changed. This unlisted investment portfolio continues to operate with weak oversight, opaque decision-making, and politically connected deal flows. It functions as a pot of money selectively accessed by a privileged few, often without proper risk assessment, leaving the PIC exposed to massive losses. The loss ratios are unacceptable by any commercial or development finance standard. 14. The credit loss ratios of over 39% is purely criminal, no credible institution will allow such level of brazen looting in the name of empowerment. Ultimately, the State and South African public are the real losers given that PIC is guaranteed by the National Treasury. The scale of looting rivals the Gupta’s State Capture, the amount at risk is over R170 billion. The sophistication of the financial engineering and contracts are used to hide the brazen looting. Many people hardly understand deal structuring. South Africa needs to know that something worse than the State Capture continues to thrive at the PIC. 15. Given these persistent failures, it is time to ask difficult questions: Why should the Isibaya Fund remain under the PIC’s control at all? A more sensible approach would be to transfer its developmental and impact investment mandate to institutions better equipped for that purpose, such as the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) or the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), where project evaluation, governance, and sectoral expertise are stronger. The PIC’s role could then be limited to allocating funds under DBSA or IDC supervision, or outsourcing mandates to independent professional managers with clear risk controls and accountability mechanisms. The looting will continue as long as the fund remains under the PIC. The instability will never stop; and no commission can fix that. 16. Isibaya Fund at R175 billion (at 5% of total AUM 3.5 trillion) can be transformative for South Africa if applied prudently for development purpose as defined in the mandate. Currently the fund is yielding negative returns. Based on the above number and high credit loss ratios, up to R70 billion is provided for ultimate write offs; clear wastage, with minimal development impact except narrow enrichment of a select few. 17. Working at Isibaya or the PIC has, regrettably, become increasingly viewed as career suicide. What should have been an exceptional training ground for Black investment talent, a place to hone technical, ethical, and leadership capabilities, has instead become a graveyard for many promising careers. It is virtually impossible to attract top talent with the reputation that the Fund has; the inability to attract top talent makes it difficult to do good investments. 18. The United Democratic Movement herewith recommends that: 18.1. SCOPA convenes urgent public hearings with the PIC Board, the Chief Executive Officer, and the Government Employees Pension Fund to account for ongoing governance failures, ethical breaches, and poor investment decisions. 18.2. The Auditor-General and the Special Investigating Unit to conduct a forensic audit of the Isibaya Fund and the Unlisted Investments Division, focusing on politically connected deals, loss-making projects, and compliance with the Mpati Commission’s recommendations. 18.3. National Treasury to review the composition, competence, and independence of the current PIC Board, with a view to strengthening governance and reducing political interference. 18.4. The Minister of Finance to present to Parliament a status report on the implementation of the Mpati Commission’s findings and recommendations, indicating which reforms have been completed, delayed, or abandoned. 18.5. The Minister of Finance commission a feasibility study on the transfer of the PIC’s developmental and impact investment mandate to institutions such as the DBSA or the IDC and report the findings to Parliament within a defined timeframe. 18.6. All deals under the Isibaya Fund should be reported on their website on a quarterly basis, showing the full details of the transaction, with no exception. Confidentiality cannot trump the transparency required for public funds. Current disclosure is not sufficient at all. Full amount disbursed should be shown, valuations, beneficiaries, impairments, original investment amount and all settlements. Parties not comfortable with disclosure should seek funding from commercial banks. 18.7. Dealmakers at the PIC/Isibaya Fund should be paid based on economic return performance, not disbursement of funds. Once funds are disbursed, the dealmakers do not have “skin in the game”. That should stop. With current return profile (i.e. negative returns), no bonuses should be paid irrespective of funds disbursed, just like in any commercial fund. 18.8. It is imperative that the Isibaya Fund be placed under immediate moratorium to facilitate its transition to a more credible and professionally managed platform, such as the DBSA, the IDC, or an independent third-party investment manager with robust governance frameworks and proven expertise. This decisive action will help stabilise the PIC by eliminating avenues for exploitative and politically motivated investments. 19. The United Democratic Movement believes that the protection of public pension funds is a matter of national importance. Intervention is essential to ensure that the PIC is not used as a vehicle for political patronage and that the R3 trillion in assets it holds are managed with the highest standards of integrity, professionalism, and accountability. Yours sincerely Deputy Minister Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement Copied to: • Mr Enoch Godongwana, MP - Minister of Finance • Dr David Masondo, MP - Deputy Minister of Finance and Chairperson of the Board of the Public Investment Corporation • Ms Thoko Didiza, MP - Speaker of the National Assembly of South Africa • Mr Patrick Dlamini - Chief Executive Officer, Public Investment Corporation • Mr Musa Mabesa - Principal Executive Officer, Government Employees Pension Fund • Ms Tsakani Maluleke - Auditor-General of South Africa • Adv Andy Mothibi - Head of the Special Investigating Unit
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
- 06
- 07
- 08
- 09
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
