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
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
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
08 Jul, 2019
Holomisa writes to PIC Commission re alleged R2.5m personal loan from VBS to Dr Dan Matjila, former PIC boss
Dear Advocate Lubbe SC DR DAN MATJILA’S EXPECTED TESTIMONY AT THE MPATI COMMISSION: FURTHER GERMANE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM A WHISTLE-BLOWER I herewith acknowledge receipt of your email, dated 6 July 2019, wherein you informed me that – according to the rules of the commission of inquiry into allegations of impropriety regarding the Public Investment Corporation (‘the Commission’) – I may today be implicated in evidence to be submitted by Dr Dan Matjila, former Chief Executive Officer of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC). I wish to inform the Commission about information that has been provided to me by a whistle-blower regarding an alleged forensic review report (dated 15 April 2019) (‘the report”) as commissioned by the PIC board from Nexus Forensic Services regarding a VBS Mutual Bank investment transaction. 1. According to the alleged report, Dr Matjila, together with the PIC’s former chief risk officer Paul Magula and the head of legal Ernest Nesane received loans from VBS Mutual Bank. The allegations about the loans to the latter two gentlemen have been widely reported on in the media. 2. Dr Matjila has never declared a VBS Mutual Bank loan allegedly extended to him, to the value of R2 456 761.66, as required, which may constitute a conflict of interest and even possible criminal conduct. 3. The term of Dr Matjila’s loan is alleged to be a thirty (30) year period, which raises the questions whether a) the loan was extended at arm’s length and b) such a lengthy repayment period was the standard for VBS Mutual Bank? 4. In terms of the conditions of the loan, it is allegedly unclear whether the loan was intended to ever be repaid, or whether it is/was in fact being repaid. The only way to establish the veracity of this allegation is to scrutinise the dates of disbursement and repayment. 5. If there is any truth in these allegations, it raises serious concerns about Advocate Terry Motau SC’s report called: “The Great Bank Heist”. Why did Advocate Motau’s report omit Dr Matjila’s alleged loan, especially given his position as PIC CEO? 6. Why did Advocate Motua’s report exclusively focus on Messrs Magula and Nesane? Common sense would dictate that Advocate Motau would have declared Dr Matjila’s alleged loan even if no wrongdoing was apparent. 7. The alleged report apparently states that Dr Matjila holds ten directorships, but according to the whistle-blower, around two have not been disclosed as required. 8. As we all know, Advocate Terry Motau’s report revealed that a cash sum of R5 million was apparently “stolen” from VBS Mutual Bank, allegedly to bribe Dr Matjila to obtain his cooperation in facilitating the funding of VBS Mutual Banks’ requirements by the PIC. Famously, the money was reportedly carried by helicopter from Makhado to Lanseria Airport. If the alleged report is anything to go by, one could argue that Dr Matjila had personally benefitted from nearly R7.5 million of VBS Mutual Bank money. 9. Nexus Forensic Services’ alleged report apparently recommended that the PIC board should pursue criminal investigation. If that is true, the question is what has the board done about this recommendation and if nothing, why? Lastly and with respect, given the information the whistle-blower has imparted to me, I wanted to establish whether the Commission is aware of this alleged report and if not, could the Commission make enquiry into obtaining the said report to assist in its investigation. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
Admin
06 Feb, 2019
R116m of the PIC’s money to allegedly be spent on UWC student accommodation without due diligence
Dear Honourable Minister Mboweni REQUEST FOR THE URGENT INTERVENTION ON THE POSSIBLE IRREGULAR FUNDING OF IKHAYA STUDENT ACCOMMODATION (PTY) LTD BY THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION The above has reference, and I attach hereto relevant documents for your ease of reference. The referenced documents suggest, amongst others, that: 1. Based on an email dated 4 February 2019 from the Public Investment Corporation’s (PIC) Roy Rajdhar to some George Blackenberg, it appears, that the PIC is on the verge of transacting an amount exceeding R116 million, purportedly for the construction of student accommodation for the University of the Western Cape (UWC). 2. Disturbingly, there does not seem to be an existing approval and due diligence. Neither is there an approval by UWC council. According to the letter dated 30 May 2018, and signed by the UWC Head of Legal Service, such a project would be subject to the approval of the Executive Management, the Council and reported to the Minister of Higher Education. Without confirmation of these provisions, it is surprising that the PIC is on the verge of funding this project. 3. Furthermore, the two registration numbers which are (2007/025898/07 and 2013/144938/07- found in the referenced documents) have been listed under the Ikhaya Student Registration Company and appear to be inconsistent with the company details. 4. According to the attached document, titled “STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL – Indicative Term Sheet Issued by the PIC to the Ikhaya Student Accommodation Proprietary”, signed by the PIC’s Roy Rajdhar (Executive Head: Development Investment) and Rodger Lionel Hendrick, (Chief Executive Office of Ikhaya Student Accommodation), may shed light for your ease of reference. 5. With regard to Rodger Hendricks, it is alleged that he has been sequestrated by a court of law in a separate case dealing with student accommodation services within the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT). It would be apt to establish, at this time, his alleged historical conduct for the purposes of this investigation in order to provide a character assessment. 6. According to our quick search with the Companies and Intellectual Properties Commission (CIPC), this company include Dennis Henry George, Michelle Xaviera Gabler and Carl Liebenberg as active directors. Find attached the results from CIPC. The inconsistence on the registration numbers referred to above may be clarified by these directors. Accordingly, I request your good office to: • Stop any envisaged financial transaction as per the email dated 4 February 2019; and • Subject the entire transaction to the current PIC enquiry. I will be pleased to be advised on the steps taken by your office at all material times. Sincerely yours, Mr. Bantu Holomisa, MP President United Democratic Movement
Admin
17 Oct, 2018
UDM welcomes announcement of PIC commission of inquiry
The United Democratic Movement welcomes the president’s announcement of the appointment of Justice Lex Mpati as the head of the commission of inquiry into the allegations of corruption at the Public Investment Corporation (PIC). The inquiry should clean-up the mess at the PIC and get to the bottom of the rot we have seen exposed in the media for quite some time. The pension funds of past and present government employees should be protected from the ruthless sharks that are eating away at their financial futures. We reiterate our call that PIC chief executive officer, Dr Dan Matjila, who played a pivotal role in, for example the Mozambican oil deal, the VBS Mutual Bank scandal, the Ayo Technologies and Sagarmatha Technologies mess, should be suspended with immediate effect, which is in line with international norms and standards. Issued by: Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
Admin
04 Sep, 2018
The Public Investment Corporation: concerns regarding time being taken to institute commission of inquiry and the PIC board appointing forensic auditors
Dear Mr President This matter has reference. The United Democratic Movement is very concerned that there is no movement in terms of the appointment of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) commission of inquiry. Sir, in this matter, we want to remind you that Minister Nene had initially, in his court papers, said that he saw nothing untoward at the PIC. This raised some eyebrows at the time. His lack of action now raises the question as to why Minister Nene is dragging his feet in instituting the inquiry and appointing the commissioners. Our main concern is that Minister Nene, who once was a PIC Chairperson, is acting like a person who may himself, or maybe a family member, have been captured. Regarding Minister Nene’s instruction on a forensic audit at the PIC, the minister has not stated which aspects or transactions such an investigative team will audit. In fact, Sir, the entire matter is shrouded in secrecy. Mr President, we herewith ask that you take this matter away from Minister Nene and appoint the commission yourself. We also ask that you appoint the forensic auditing team i.e. not by the PIC board whose members may be compromised themselves. Kindly advise. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
17 Aug, 2018
PIC commission to start it’s work in “due course”
The United Democratic Movement (UDM) has noted that President Ramaphosa has announced the appointment of a commission of inquiry to probe the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) and the dark cloud of corruption allegations hanging over the institution. It is however frustrating that the names of the chair of the commission and the supporting team, as well as the detailed terms of reference will be announced “in due course”. What does National Treasury mean with “in due course”? They have been saying this for the last three weeks or so; it would appear that this could be months from now, which is enough time for the guilty to send the proof of the misdeeds to the shredder; if it has not happened already. The UDM outright rejects the idea that the PIC board – which includes CEO Dr Dan Matjila who is also under the cloud of suspicion – should be given the task of appointing the forensic company. The board appointing the audit firm is tantamount to a thief appointing his own judge and jury. National Treasury or the commission itself should appoint such a forensic company. To make matters worse, the board has neglected its fiduciary duty by outsourcing the decision to suspend the CEO to the forensic auditors. The UDM reiterates our call that Dr Matjila must be immediately suspended until the commission concludes its work.
Admin
26 Sep, 2017
UDM rejects Government’s attempts to tap into PIC funds to bail out failing SOEs
The allegations that the Ministry of Finance is trying to access Public Investment Corporation (PIC) funds to bail out failing State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) confirm the United Democratic Movement’s (UDM’s) long-held suspicion that the mafia styled ruling elite would, once cash-strapped, extend its grubby hands to workers’ pensions entrusted to them for safekeeping. The true intention of these transactions is not to bail out struggling SOEs, but rather to ensure that there is enough state resources to plunder for those “whose turn it is to eat”! We therefore reject any attempts by government to use PIC funds to fund failing SOEs. Bearing the aforementioned in mind, the UDM believes that steps should be taken to develop a mechanism to protect workers’ assets against abuse and misuse by government. Such a mechanism should, among others, also ensure that workers, as a key stakeholder, have a voice in how and where their assets are invested and accessed. In addition, steps should be taken to restructure the PIC board to ensure that other stakeholders are accommodated and that it is not under the full control of government. We call for the implementation of more checks and balances, with minimal bureaucracy, such as risk mitigation systems and a watertight Code of Ethics. We demand a comprehensive investigation of all transactions since 2009, as we believe that under Mr Zuma, the PIC may have been used as a source of funding for suspicious deals that have nothing to do with growing an inclusive and distributive economy. Statement issued by: Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP UDM Deputy President and Chief Whip
