Ayo is perturbed to learn that the CIPC has directed the directors of the PIC to recoup the investment

Under interrogation by evidence leader Jannie Lubbe, Botha conceded that most media reports regarding Ayo Technologies were factually incorrect. Whether or not these were associated with correct processes being followed, the fact is the PIC issued unreliable information pertaining to its deals.

Business Day refers to Ayo Technologies as never having had revenue of more than R12million. The facts are that it is an ICT investment holding group with underlying investments and subsidiaries. The audited financial statements of Ayo for the 12 months ended August 31, 2018, show Ayo generated revenue in excess of R638m.

The company has gone on record stating that it has not had sight of a compliance notice issued by the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC).

In a statement released yesterday, Ayo Technologies put to bed the claims made in Business Day. “Ayo is perturbed to learn that the CIPC has directed the directors of the PIC to recoup the PIC’s investment in Ayo. It is concerning that a newspaper has been informed of such a letter prior to Ayo having been apprised of it.

“Ayo believes the CIPC, by failing to inform and provide it with a copy of the alleged notice, has acted contrary to the provisions of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000.”

One must ask another question. If the board of the PIC is in limbo and dysfunctional, does it make sense for any remaining directors at the PIC to ask Ayo to repay a loan when it may find itself incapacitated in decision-making processes while the PIC Commission of Inquiry is under way? Mdluli is Independent Media’s Investigations Editor