Gwede Mantashe
Johannesburg – Mineral Resources and Petroleum Minister Gwede Mantashe has suffered a major setback after the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg dismissed his application to review and set aside key findings from the State Capture Commission. The court ruled on 12 October 2025 that Mantashe failed to follow a crucial legal step by not seeking consent from the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal before suing retired Chief Justice Raymond Zondo.
This decision leaves the commission’s recommendation for a corruption probe against Mantashe intact, highlighting ongoing questions about his links to the now-defunct company Bosasa.
The ruling comes more than three years after Mantashe first launched his challenge in July 2022, following the release of the commission’s report. It underscores the strict rules protecting judges from lawsuits and adds to the long shadow cast by state capture allegations on South Africa’s political landscape. While Mantashe argued the findings damaged his reputation without solid proof, the court focused on procedural flaws rather than the merits of his claims.
Background to the State Capture Commission’s Bosasa Findings
The Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector – widely known as the Zondo Commission – was set up in January 2018 by then-President Jacob Zuma. Chaired by Raymond Zondo, who was Deputy Chief Justice at the time, the commission probed deep-rooted claims of corruption involving politicians, businesses and state entities.
In its third volume, released on 1 March 2022, the commission zeroed in on Bosasa, a company later renamed African Global Operations. Bosasa was accused of using bribes and favours to secure lucrative government contracts. The report highlighted security upgrades worth hundreds of thousands of rands at three of Mantashe’s properties: one in Boksburg, Gauteng, and two in the Eastern Cape – in Cala and Khowa.
Evidence from former Bosasa executive Angelo Agrizzi suggested these upgrades were part of a strategy to curry favour with influential ANC figures. Mantashe, who was ANC secretary-general at the time and is now its national chairperson, admitted to the installations but claimed they were a personal favour from Bosasa director Papa Leshabane, a family friend. He said he was unaware Bosasa footed the bill and viewed it in the context of traditional community contributions, like those at family events.
However, Zondo found Mantashe’s explanations unconvincing. The report noted Bosasa’s “heavy investment” in government tenders and concluded there was a “reasonable prospect” that further probes would uncover a prima facie case of corruption against Mantashe under section 3 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA). It recommended law enforcement investigate whether the upgrades were meant to induce Mantashe to act corruptly or influence decisions in Bosasa’s favour.
The commission stressed it did not find Mantashe guilty but saw enough red flags – including the scale of the “generosity” and Mantashe’s failure to contribute financially – to warrant deeper scrutiny. This included his initial denial of knowing Bosasa CEO Gavin Watson’s clan name, which he later recalled, and his claim of limited knowledge about Bosasa despite its public profile as a probed entity.
Mantashe’s Legal Challenge and Court Proceedings
Mantashe launched his review application in the Gauteng High Court under case number 007263/2022, seeking to scrap the Bosasa-related findings. He argued the commission exceeded its terms of reference, lacked evidence of corrupt intent, and misapplied PRECCA section 24. Mantashe said the report harmed his good name by implying corruption where none existed, as there was no proof he knew about or intended any wrongdoing.
The case was heard on 9 June 2025 before Judge E F Dippenaar. Respondents – Zondo in his official capacity and the commission – opposed on three fronts: procedural flaws under section 47 of the Superior Courts Act, the non-reviewable nature of the findings as mere recommendations, and the merits, given the commission’s wide discretion.
A key defence was Mantashe’s failure to comply with section 47(1), which requires consent from the relevant court head – in this case, the Supreme Court of Appeal President – before instituting civil proceedings against a judge. Mantashe contended consent was unnecessary because Zondo was acting as commission chairperson, not in a judicial role. He argued the commission’s work was separate from judicial functions, and requiring consent would immunise it from scrutiny.
The respondents countered that section 47 applies broadly to protect judicial independence, covering both official and personal capacities. They cited precedents like Soller v President of the Republic of South Africa, Engelbrecht v Khumalo, and Freedom Under Law v Judge Motata, which interpret the section expansively. They also referenced the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, defining “service” to include chairing commissions.
After judgment was reserved, Mantashe sought to introduce supplementary arguments based on a recent Pretoria High Court ruling in Memela v Chairperson of the State Capture Commission, delivered on 14 August 2025. In Memela, the court held section 47 did not apply to Zondo as commission chair. However, Judge Dippenaar disagreed, finding Memela “clearly wrong” for ignoring binding Gauteng precedents and the broad scope of section 47.
Reasons for the Court’s Dismissal
In her 20-page judgment handed down electronically on 12 October 2025, Judge Dippenaar upheld the section 47 defence, ruling the application a “legal nullity” from the start. She emphasised that consent is peremptory and must precede proceedings, with no room for condonation. The judge noted no dispute that consent should come from the Supreme Court of Appeal President, given Zondo’s status as former Chief Justice.
Dippenaar rejected Mantashe’s distinction between Zondo’s judicial and commission roles, stating chairing the inquiry fell under judicial functions per statutory definitions. She highlighted the purpose of section 47: to shield judges from frivolous suits and uphold the separation of powers and rule of law. The judgment clarified this is procedural protection, not absolute immunity – Mantashe could reapply after seeking consent.
The court did not delve into the merits or other defences, deeming the procedural flaw dispositive. Mantashe was ordered to pay costs, including those of two counsel on scale C, reflecting the case’s complexity.
🔴 Central News Weekly Edition | Issue 115 🔴 Download the Latest Print and E-Edition of Central News | Headline: Ngwathe Municipality Refuses to Back Down, Heads to Supreme Court of Appeal
Download Here:
Direct PDF File Here:
https://centralnews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Central-News-Issue-115-1.pdf
Read all our publications on magzter:
https://www.magzter.com/ZA/Central-News-Pty-Ltd/Central-News/Newspaper/All-Issues
Central News also offers Sponsored Editorial Content, Podcasts , Radio / Social Media Simulcast, Video Production , Live Streaming Services, Press Conferences, and Paid Interviews (Video/Audio) etc.
We guarantee exceptional exposure, reach, and engagement, with an excellent return on investment.
Advertisement:
To place your advert on our platforms (Print Newspaper or Digital Platforms) : Please email : sales@centralnews.co.za
For Business Related:
business@centralnews.co.za
Newsroom:
Send your Stories / Media Statements To: newsroom@centralnews.co.za
General Info:
info@centralnews.co.za
Office Administrator:
admin@centralnews.co.za
Whatsapp / Call: 081 495 5487
Website: https://www.centralnews.co.za
Social Media Platforms (@centralnewsza) : Linkedin, Facebook, Tiktok, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube