President Ramaphosa stands firm on National Lotteries’ investigation
President Cyril Ramaphosa is facing a litmus test concerning his administration’s commitment to fighting corruption within South Africa’s National Lotteries Commission (NLC). His authorisation for an investigation by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) remains unshaken despite the fact that Alfred Nevhutanda, the former chairman of the NLC, legally challenged this act. This not only conveys the nature of the allegations but also the ongoing battle against systemic corruption in the country’s public institutions.
The high-stakes investigation
Following several financial irregularities, the investigation conducted by SIU has revealed assets amounting to R344 million, including a palatial R27 million mansion in Pretoria, which Nevhutanda allegedly bought with lottery funds. Initial reports revealed that lottery grants were misallocated to benefit certain officials in the NLC, as well as their families. This left a lot of unanswered questions over the commission that was mandated to distribute lottery money for public benefit.
A court proclamation that allowed the SIU to investigate the dealings of the NLC from January 2014 to October 2020- the duration of Nevhutanda’s chairmanship- was issued in 2020. However, Nevhutanda’s case aside, his proclamation in the Pretoria High Court, opened up a different point of view in the broader anti-corruption strategy for South Africa as a whole. His argument contended that the NLC is not a state entity, and hence it cannot be investigated by the SIU.
Legal moves for Nevhutanda
The legal challenge laid by Nevhutanda is based on two assertions. First, he claims that the SIU has no jurisdiction since the NLC does not handle public funds. Second, he argues that the proclamation purporting to empower the SIU is too wide and essentially gives the investigators a blank cheque to conduct a “fishing expedition” without adequate precautions. He also claims that President Ramaphosa did not pay sufficient regard to the facts prior to signing the proclamation, meaning that, too, has impaired the legitimacy of the investigation.
President Ramaphosa insists the inquiry stands on firm legal ground in response to the allegations. According to him, the NLC is categorised as the administrator of the National Lottery Distribution Trust, classifying it firmly as a state institution responsible for handling public funds. Expounding on the efficiency of financial oversight investigative strategies, Ramaphosa states that the proclamation underwent intense legal scrutiny, including from the Minister of Justice before his signature.
Struggle against corruption justice
As the case continues, SIU remains committed to bringing Nevhutanda’s application before the courts, indicating that the reasons behind his actions can be interpreted, if one were to look closely, as being based on self-preservation. This was reiterated by Juliana Rabaji-Rasethaba, head of the Asset Forfeiture Unit at the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), who said that the investigation was legitimate and that even if Nevhutanda nullified the proclamation, the assets would remain preserved since they were still deemed as proceeds of crime.
Rabaji-Rasethaba asserts, “The NPA has separate statutory powers to attach what is referred to or described as proceeds of criminal activities, and the investigation remains solid in as much as Nevhutanda has contested these arrangements on the basis of technical considerations.”
Are all things ready?
As the legal arguments go on, Nevhutanda will submit his final affidavit before the hearing. With weighty evidence against him and the public’s concern about corruption within his department, it is clear that any efforts to undermine the investigation ahead may be challenged. President Ramaphosa’s unshakable stance and the government’s commitment to justice through the SIU will ensure South Africa’s government roots out corruption.
It is essential to probe into how South Africa is entangling itself in the mire of corruption and, more so, how its would-be leaders manipulate the laws to squeeze themselves out of accountability. This ongoing contest in the legal arena focuses on accountability and transparency among the nation’s public officials and their investigative bodies, which are essential for maintaining public trust.
In this context, the consequences of the NLC outcome—whether it leads to punishment or the removal of individuals—extend beyond personal accountability. It directly addresses South Africa’s commitment to combating corruption and signals the beginning of a culture of ethical governance within the gaming industry.
