Background
On 27 March 2024, under case number GP09/2024, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) brought an urgent application seeking to interdict the Mosokodi Business Trust, Phillemon Letwaba, the former Chief Operations Officer (COO) of the National Lottery Commission (NLC), and Johannes Letwaba from selling or dealing with immovable property in Limpopo. The SIU intended to bring a further application to have the property declared as being the proceeds of unlawful activities and forfeited to the State.
The application followed an SIU investigation authorised by Presidential Proclamation R32 of 2020.
The investigation concerned the allegedly unlawful purchase of a portion of a farm in Limpopo for R4.4 million by Mosokodi Business Trust, which was founded by Phillemon and Johannes Letwaba. The SIU alleges that the property was acquired through an elaborate scheme, set out below:
- The National Lotteries Commission awarded funding to two non-profit organisations: Lulamisa Community Development Organisation and Tshikovha Graduate Academy.
- These organisations transferred the NLC funds to companies owned by Phillemon Letwaba’s wife and cousin.
Those companies made five payments totalling R4 766 009.83 into the trust account of Anne-Marie Kotzee Attorneys as payment for the property. According to the SIU, the entire purchase price was funded by money intended for public use by the two NPOs, making it the proceeds of unlawful activities.
On 28 March 2024, the Special Tribunal granted the interdict sought by the SIU.
From interdict to forfeiture
On 25 June 2024, the SIU brought a forfeiture application (GP22/2024), asking the Tribunal to declare the Limpopo immovable property the proceeds of unlawful activities and to order it forfeited to the State.
The forfeiture application was opposed by the first, second, third and sixteenth respondents. This application will be heard by the Tribunal on 15 and 16 May.
In opposing the forfeiture application, the respondents have alleged:
- that the President did not have the requisite authority to issue the relevant proclamation instituting the investigation;
- that the Special Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction or power to order the preservation and forfeiture of assets, as the SIU Act does not confer such power on the Tribunal; and
- that the SIU Regulations and Tribunal Rules purporting to confer on the Tribunal the power to order preservation and forfeiture are unconstitutional.
As a result, the respondents launched a counter-application seeking an order declaring parts of the SIU Regulations and Tribunal Rules invalid and/or unconstitutional, and asked that the SIU’s forfeiture application be dismissed. Because the counter-application involved a constitutional challenge, the respondents also brought a joinder application, seeking to join the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and the President of the Tribunal to the matter. The parties are currently in discussion over whether the joinder and constitutional questions should instead be heard by the High Court rather than the Tribunal.
Amicus Curiae and the role of the DGRU
On 4 March 2025, the Tribunal issued a directive appointing the Democratic Governance and Rights Unit (DGRU) as an amicus curiae in the forfeiture matter.
The DGRU is expected to make submissions on:
- The validity of the SIU Regulations and Tribunal Rules, and
- Whether, until the Rules have been declared invalid, they should continue to be implemented.
DEFINITION: “An amicus curiae (lit. ‘friend of the court’; pl. amici curiae) is an individual or organisation that is not a party to a legal case, but that is permitted to assist a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. Whether an amicus brief will be considered is typically under the court’s discretion. The phrase is legal Latin and the origin of the term has been dated to 1605–1615. The scope of amici curiae is generally found in the cases where broad public interests are involved and concerns regarding civil rights are in question.[1] – Wikipedia]
Timeline of events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 27 March 2024 | SIU brings urgent interdict application (GP09/2024) |
| 28 March 2024 | Special Tribunal grants interdict |
| 25 June 2024 | SIU files forfeiture application (GP22/2024) |
| 4 March 2025 | Tribunal appoints DGRU as amicus curiae |
| 9 May 2025 | First set of heads of argument due |
| 13 May 2025 | Remaining heads of argument due, including from DGRU |
| 15–16 May 2025 | Hearing scheduled before the Special Tribunal |
| 3 and 13 October 2025 | Supplementary heads of argument due |
| 24 – 25 November 2025 | Hearing scheduled before the Special Tribunal |
What comes next
The matter is set down for hearing on 15 and 16 May 2025 before the Special Tribunal. The DGRU will make oral submissions alongside the parties. The outcome could have significant implications—not only for the forfeiture of the Limpopo property, but also for the future powers of the Special Tribunal in similar matters.
July 2025:
At the hearing on 15 May 2025, the SIU, NLC and DGRU made oral submissions before the Tribunal President on the merits of the matter as well as on the authority of the Tribunal to order forfeiture and to determine the validity of its empowering Act, Regulations and Rules. [Read more]
The parties agreed that the matter be postponed to the 4th of August 2025 to enable the First to Third Respondents to reply to the NLC’s answering affidavit and to allow the parties to adequately address the averments relating to the authority of the Tribunal.
On 20 June 2025, the First to Third Respondents’ served a notice requesting the SIU and/or the National Lotteries Commission (NLC) to discover certain documents.
On 8 July 2025 the First to Third Respondents advised that they would no longer bring an application to strike out information in the NLC’s answering affidavits. On 21 July 2025, the NLC discovered (provided) the requested documents on 21 July 2025. The First to Third Respondents’ reply to the NLC’s answering affidavit is due on 4 August 2025.
The forfeiture application that was originally meant to resume on 4-8 August 2025 has been postponed without a date, but will likely resume before the end of the year.
Update November 2025:
The forfeiture application was scheduled to proceed on 24 and 25 November 2025, virtually. The parties filed their heads of argument in October 2025. Prior to the hearing, the 1st to 3rd respondents served a notice on the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to participate in the proceedings as an amicus curiae. The Minister did not respond to this notice and thus did not participate in the proceedings.
At the virtual hearing on 24 and 25 November, the parties presented their arguments on the constitutional challenge raised by the 1st to 3rd respondents and then proceeded to present detailed submissions on the merits of the forfeiture application. The applicant, 1st to 3rd respondents, and 22nd respondent concurred that the Tribunal was not clothed with the jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the validity of its Regulations and Rules. The DGRU was not asked to make any further submissions, as it had presented its submissions at the hearing on 15 May 2025.
Judge Victor reserved judgment and advised that the judgment would be delivered as soon as possible.