Moses Kau Praises Nkosana Makate’s Win and Spotlights South Africa’s Overlooked Intellectual Property Struggles
Pretoria – International relations and protocol expert Moses Kau has praised the long battle won by Nkosana Makate against telecom giant Vodacom, calling it a sign of hope for others who have quietly fought similar wars over their ideas.
In his comments, Kau salutes Makate’s grit and links it to a pattern where everyday creators in South Africa take on big systems and companies for rights to their inventions. He points to cases like the Apartheid Museum idea, the national flag design, the Bafana Bafana nickname, and the Bloemfontein Celtic name as examples of these hidden clashes.
Kau warns that without quick action to protect ideas, many more will lose out, reminding everyone of the legal rule: “Ignorantia juris non excusat” or “Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.”, which means “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.
These stories show how intellectual property fights can drag on for years, costing time, money, and peace of mind. They also highlight gaps in the system, where powerful players sometimes get ahead while original thinkers get left behind. As South Africa works to build a fairer economy, Kau’s words call on people to register their ideas fast and stand up for their rights.
Nkosana Makate’s Hard-Won Settlement with Vodacom
Nkosana Makate’s fight started back in 2000 when, as a young worker at Vodacom, he came up with the “Please Call Me” service – a free way for users short on airtime to ask for a callback. The idea took off, bringing in billions for the company through more calls and services. But Makate got nothing, even after his boss promised a share if it worked.
He took Vodacom to court in 2008, claiming he deserved part of the profits. The case went through many levels, with big wins along the way. In 2016, the highest court said Vodacom must talk fairly with Makate. But the company dragged its feet, offering just R47 million at first – far less than the R20 billion Makate wanted based on what the service earned.
Things heated up in 2024 when a court ordered Vodacom to pay R5.2 billion plus interest, figuring Makate should get 5% of 18 years’ worth of income from the idea. Vodacom fought back with an appeal, but on 4 November 2025, they settled out of court. The exact amount stays secret, but it was big enough to show in Vodacom’s half-year money reports ending September 2025. Makate’s lawyer called it a fair deal after 17 years of ups and downs.
Kau’s praise for Makate’s “courage, resilience and the fighting spirit to the end” fits here, as the win shows small voices can beat big firms with enough push. It has sparked talk of better laws to protect workers’ ideas in companies, helping stop similar heartaches.
Mike Stainbank’s Court Battles Over the Apartheid Museum Concept
Mike Stainbank’s story is one of a lone fighter taking on wealthy business people over an idea meant to teach about South Africa’s dark past. In the late 1980s, Stainbank, a history buff, thought up a museum to show apartheid’s harms and help healing. He registered “Apartheid Museum” as a trademark in 1990, hoping to build a place for learning and remembrance.
But in 2001, brothers Solly and Abe Krok opened their Apartheid Museum next to Gold Reef City Casino in Johannesburg. It was part of their bid for a gambling licence, which needed a project to help society. Stainbank claimed they stole his idea and name after he shared it in talks. The Kroks, who made their money in skin products and once owned Mamelodi Sundowns before selling to Patrice Motsepe, said the museum was their own plan from 1997.
Stainbank sued in 2002 for trademark theft. A judge ruled against him, saying the name was too general to own like a brand. He appealed, but lost again in 2010 and 2014. Courts found no clear proof of copying, and the museum’s setup – with raw displays on segregation – was seen as the Kroks’ work.
Stainbank spent over R2 million on fees and even faced jail for not following court orders in related fights.
Today, the museum draws millions, teaching about apartheid’s pain. But Stainbank calls the rulings unfair, saying they favour the rich. His case shows how hard it is to protect broad ideas like museum concepts, where trademarks might not hold up if too descriptive. It also ties into bigger talks on who owns history in post-apartheid South Africa, where black creators like Stainbank feel pushed aside.
Themba Hastings Mqhayi’s Claim to the South African National Flag
Themba Hastings Mqhayi, an artist from the Eastern Cape, has spent years saying he designed South Africa’s flag, only to see it credited to someone else. In early 1994, as the country geared up for freedom, Nelson Mandela asked people to send in flag ideas. Mqhayi put in five designs, one with a Y-shape showing paths coming together in unity.
The final flag, shown in April 1994, has a like Y merging colours – black, gold, green, white, red, and blue – for the rainbow nation. State expert Fred Brownell got the praise, saying he drew it in 1993 at talks in Norway. Mqhayi argues his work was copied, pointing to matches and claiming Brownell saw his entries.
Mqhayi went public in the 2000s and sued the government in 2022 for credit and money. Courts threw it out, saying no proof of theft and his sketches had extras like a sun or bird that the flag lacks. In 2025, around Freedom Day, Mqhayi stepped up his push, threatening action against Sports Minister Gayton McKenzie. McKenzie shot back, showing Mqhayi’s old drawings were different and calling the claim weak.
Kau backs Mqhayi, saying he agrees with the artist’s story but thinks waiting too long hurt the case, especially after Brownell died in 2019. This fight shows issues with public contests, where ideas can get lost without clear credit rules. It also touches on fairness in post-1994 South Africa, where everyday people feel big names steal the spotlight from their work.
The Bafana Bafana Nickname Trademark Saga
The fun name “Bafana Bafana” – Zulu for “boys, boys” – started in 1992 when South Africa rejoined world football. Three news writers from Sowetan and City Press – S’busiso Mseleku, Molefi Mika, and Sello Rabothata – came up with it at a team briefing. It stuck as a proud tag for the national side.
But in 1993, businessman Stan Smidt saw its worth and trademarked it through his firm, Stanton Woodrush. This meant the South African Football Association (SAFA) could not use it for shirts or ads without paying. SAFA sued in the late 1990s, saying the name belonged to the public. Courts sided with Smidt in 2002, calling his mark valid.
By 2011, SAFA paid R5 million to buy the rights for clothing and more, letting them sell Bafana gear freely. The deal ended an 18-year row, but it showed how quick moves on trademarks can lock in profits from popular terms.
Kau’s point here is clear: The writers who made the name got no cut, while a smart business step turned it into cash. It warns creators to protect catchy phrases fast, as others can claim them legally.
Bloemfontein Celtic Name Rights and the Birth of Siwelele FC
The “Bloemfontein Celtic” name has been tied up in rights fights since the club’s 2021 sale. Started in 1969 as Mangaung United, it became Celtic under Jimmy Augousti in 2001. When sold to Royal AM amid debt, the name stayed with old owners, leading to rebrands.
In July 2025, SuperSport United was bought by a group led by Lebohang McKenzie – son of Sports Minister Gayton McKenzie – and moved to Bloemfontein as Siwelele FC. This nods to the old chant “Phunya Sele Sele,” but skips the full Celtic name due to rights held by Max Tshabalala, who wants R5 million for it.
Tshabalala bought the brand in 2021, aiming to revive the club. But in October 2025, Tshilo Mahatanya took full rights, including the logo and green-white colours. Siwelele chairman Calvyn Le’John said no plans to buy, focusing on new growth in the PSL.
Fans are split – some want the old name for its history, others see Siwelele as a fresh start. Kau notes new positive steps around “Bloemfontein Celtic,” hinting at possible deals. This case shows how team names carry deep meaning, but laws let owners hold them tight, forcing changes that upset loyal supporters.
Why Protecting Ideas Matters in South Africa
Kau’s advice hits home: If you have an idea – called intellectual property or trademark in law – protect it fast. In South Africa, you can register at the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission for a small fee, lasting 10 years. But as these cases show, waiting can cost you, with courts often siding with those who act first.
These fights reveal a bigger issue: Many black creators from townships or rural spots lose out to big firms or connected people. From Makate’s billions to Mqhayi’s flag pride, the wins are rare but show sticking it out pays. Kau’s words urge more awareness, so no one falls victim to “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. As South Africa grows its creative side, stronger laws and support could level the field, turning ideas into fair rewards for all.
🔴Central News Weekly Edition | Issue 119 Download the Latest Print and E-Edition | Jacob Zuma Welcomes TonyYengeni to MK Party as Second Deputy President in Major Leadership Shake-Up🔴
Download Here:
Direct PDF File Here:
https://centralnews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Central-News-Issue-114-1.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: