New twist in Holomisa’s battle over the PIC graft claims

Three prominent businessmen accused by United Democratic Movement (UDM) president Bantu Holomisa of being involved in large-scale corruption and unduly securing funding from the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), have won their first victory in what is shaping up to be a nasty and drawn-out battle with the politician.

On Monday, Judge Vivian Tlhapi at the high court in Pretoria granted an order preventing Holomisa from repeating any information regarding the alleged corruption involving three businessmen, who previously received funding from the PIC.

He has been barred from repeating the allegations on internet posts‚ articles‚ letters‚ media interviews‚ Twitter and other social media posts.

The businessmen that hauled Holomisa to court are Tshepo Mahloele, the CEO of infrastructure investor Harith General Partners; Jabu Moleketi, the former deputy finance minister; and Warren Wheatley, the chief investment officer of financial services group Lebashe Investment Group.

Although Holomisa has been gagged, the three businessmen said they are still pursuing a separate defamation lawsuit against the UDM president.

The battle between Holomisa and the businessmen intensified in June after he penned a letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa accusing them of peddling influence to secure funding worth R2 billion from PIC CEO Dr Daniel Matjila. In his letter, Holomisa accused Matjila of personally releasing the funding without approval from the PIC’s board.

The businessmen strongly rejected Holomisa’s claims, saying they are an attempt at gaining political points. The PIC also rejected claims that Matjila has the power to unilaterally approve investments.

Read: Holomisa’s claims of shady PIC dealings spurned

Holomisa said the alleged corruption at the PIC could make the state capture project “look like chump change”. He called on Ramaphosa to urgently broaden the terms of reference of Justice Raymond Zondo’s state of capture inquiry, which begins in August, to investigate the PIC before “the paper trail is shredded in dark back rooms.”

Appeal of the gag order

Holomisa launched an appeal, hours after Judge Tlhapi’s gagging order.

In court papers, he said the order is an “egregious infringement” on the necessity to fight corruption and his right to impart information, which is protected under section 16 of the Constitution. As an MP, Holomisa said he enjoyed protection covered by section 58 of the Constitution, which protects his freedom of speech.

He added the allegations contained in his letter to Ramaphosa were not defamatory as they simply conveyed information that he and the UDM received.

“The reasonable reader would simply understand the statements as meaning that allegations of wrongdoing have been levelled, about which the applicants [UDM and Holomisa] are unsure as to their veracity, and demand their investigation by the President through the State Capture Commission.”

“Allegations of wrongdoing are routinely made against many persons and reasonable members of the public do not merely assume, simply because allegations have been made, that such allegations are true or the persons against whom the allegations are made are guilty.”

Holomisa said the allegations were truthful and for the public benefit as Moleketi was the PIC chairperson by virtue of his position as deputy finance minister between 2004 to 2008. Moleketi is now the chairperson of Harith General Partners and Harith Fund Managers, and a board member of Lebashe Investment Group, which are all recipients of funding from the PIC, he said.

“If Mr. Moleketi previously chaired the PIC and the PIC funded the first, second and third respondents [Lebashe Investment Group, Harith General Partners, and Harith Fund Managers], it would be a conflict of interest, prohibited by Section 96 of the Constitution, for him to be a beneficiary of funds flowing from the PIC.”

He said the publication of his letter to Ramaphosa was not only “constitutionally permissible, it was constitutionally mandated.”

“It is in the public interest that allegations of corruption made in the public service and where the beneficiaries are current and former senior members of government, must be exposed.”

Defamation lawsuit

Tlhapi also ordered Holomisa to remove the letter he wrote to Rampahosa from the UDM’s website, his social media account and that of the UDM within three hours of the order being granted – a deadline of 13:38 on Monday.

Lebashe’s Wheatley said Holomisa was in contempt of the court order as he refused to comply with it as none of the materials referencing the letter and allegations were removed. “He has no regard of the authority of the court,” Wheatley told Moneyweb.

Wheatley, Mahloele, and Moleketi have 30 days to pursue the separate defamation case. Among the relief that businessmen want from the court is a formal apology from Holomisa.

Wheatley said Holomisa’s allegations have caused economic harm and damage to the businessmen’s reputation as a potential business deal was scuppered. “Holomisa has called us thieves and looters. Our rights have been impaired. All we are saying is that if you are going to make allegations, at least have them backed up with evidence and proof,” he said.

“Holomisa has made the allegations without giving us the opportunity to respond to them or provide evidence to the contrary. We challenged him to provide evidence but he couldn’t.”