Holomisa, UDM lose ConCourt case against Lebashe

Court cites ‘insufficient proof’ of leader's claims

General Bantu Holomisa and his party, the United Democratic Movement (UDM), have lost their Constitutional Court case to allow him to make allegations that the Lebashe Group had wrongfully and illegally acquired Public Investment Corporation (PIC) backing for its investments.

Lebashe chairperson Tshepo Mahloele, who was a fifth respondent in the matter, also chairs Arena Holdings, the owners of Sowetan and other media assets.

Holomisa made the allegations in an open letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa and repeated these on several media platforms.

In an unanimous judgment written by justice Isaac Madondo, the apex court found that “the mere fact that the applicant had received funding from the PIC itself could not provide proof that such funding had corruptly been received”.

The court also found that the mere fact of Jabu Moleketi being a former deputy minister of finance and because of that office, chairperson of the PIC but a non-executive director in the Lebashe group “could not in itself justify the conclusion that he had conflict of interests”.

“These incidents were not sufficient to justify a perception that the funds of the PIC had been used in a manner that was in conflict with the PFMA and the constitution,” read the judgment.

The legal row between Holomisa and Lebashe began in 2018 when the UDM leader sent a letter to Ramaphosa, alleging that the company and its directors had conducted themselves unlawfully in various ways in relation to the PIC.

The Pretoria high court in 2018 ruled in favour of Lebashe, and ordered Holomisa and his party to refrain from repeating the remarks they had made about the company. They later unsuccessfully appealed the decision at the SCA.

Holomisa then approached the highest court in the land to overturn the decision, arguing that the lower court had infringed on his rights to free speech, political rights and exercise of his duties as a member of parliament.

Lebashe argued that its dealings with the PIC were above board and testified the same before the commission of inquiry into allegations of impropriety regarding the PIC.

The company said in its court papers that Holomisa had failed to substantiate the allegations.

“The affidavit contains no evidence whatsoever that any of the respondents have been involved in acts of corruption, theft, fronting, fleecing, sapping, double or triple dipping, and misappropriation of funds, or any other unlawful, dishonest or improper conduct, as alleged in the letter [to Ramaphosa].”

Holomisa and his party were ordered to pay the costs of two counsels.