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
