Marubini Ramatsekisa v Special Investigating Unit and Others – GP21/2023
Background and context
In the matter of Marubini Ramatsekisa v Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and Others (GP21/2023), the Special Tribunal was asked to determine whether the applicant, a former senior official at the National Lotteries Commission (NLC), could access part of his preserved pension fund to cover reasonable legal and living expenses.
The Special Investigating Unit (SIU), the first respondent, had obtained a preservation order over R1 424 345.96 of Ramatsekisa’s pension, alleging that he facilitated a funding proposal that deviated from established processes and had misrepresented the facts. The funds were preserved on the basis that they may be proceeds of unlawful conduct.
Ramatsekisa applied to the Tribunal for the release of R1.2 million, triggering a legal debate over whether such access was permissible under the Tribunal’s rules and the governing SIU Act (Act 74 of 1996).
This case is significant because it deals with:
- The interpretation of preservation orders under both the Tribunal Rules and SIU Act
- The powers of the Tribunal in releasing preserved funds
- The importance of statutory interpretation and legislative consistency
- The boundaries between individual rights and the public interest
The legal dispute: Two interpretations
The applicant relied on Rule 23(10) of the Special Tribunal Rules, which, in his view, permitted the release of preserved funds for living and legal expenses.
By contrast, the SIU and the NLC argued that Section 4(1) and Section 8(2) of the SIU Act governed such preservation orders, framing them as interdictory relief aimed at preventing the dissipation of funds that may belong to the State. They asserted that Tribunal Rules could not override national legislation.
Special Tribunal ruling
Judge Margaret Victor, President of the Tribunal, delivered a comprehensive judgment focused on harmonising the legal frameworks at play.
Key findings:
Purpose of the SIU Act reaffirmed
The SIU Act exists to investigate serious maladministration and fraud in public institutions, and the Special Tribunal exists to adjudicate civil recovery based on such investigations.
Rules cannot override the SIU Act
Rule 23(10), though it speaks to the preservation of property, cannot trump the broader empowering provisions in sections 4(1) and 8(2) of the SIU Act. Where conflict exists, the Act prevails.
Rules and Act must be read harmoniously
Drawing from the Constitutional Court judgment in The Independent Institute of Education and Federation of Governing Bodies for SA Schools, the Tribunal applied a broad, contextual and purposive approach to the interpretation of legislation. Legislative frameworks must be read as part of a unified whole.
Rule 23(10) not limited to evidence preservation
The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s argument that Rule 23(10) was only about preserving evidence. Rather, it has a bifurcated purpose: to preserve property and prevent harm to the state.
Statutory supremacy affirmed
Even where Tribunal rules appear to conflict with legislation (such as the Pension Funds Act, specifically Section 37D, which allows for deductions in cases of fraud), legislation remains operative.
Judicial discretion exists—but requires disclosure
The Tribunal affirmed its judicial discretion to allow the release of funds for legal or living expenses. However, such relief requires full and frank disclosure of financial need, which the applicant failed to provide.
Timeline of Events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 12 December 2023 | SIU obtains preservation order over Ramatsekisa’s pension fund (R1.4 million) |
| Late 2024 | Ramatsekisa applies to the Special Tribunal to release R1.2 million for legal and living expenses |
| 17 March 2025 | Tribunal delivers judgment dismissing the application due to lack of full disclosure, but defers costs for 12 months |
Note: Specific dates of filing and hearings were not provided in the original content.
Conclusion: A landmark in interpreting Tribunal powers
The Tribunal dismissed the application, citing the applicant’s failure to fully disclose material facts about his financial circumstances. While the Tribunal confirmed it does have the power to release preserved funds, such discretion will only be exercised if applicants meet strict transparency standards.
The order for costs was deferred for 12 months, a nod to the financial burden faced by the applicant, but not a concession on legal principle.
Why this case matters
- Defines the hierarchy of law
The case firmly establishes that Tribunal Rules cannot override the SIU Act, and that statutory legislation must always prevail in conflicts of interpretation.
- Clarifies judicial discretion
The Tribunal has the discretion to adjust interdictory relief, but only where clear, honest, and full disclosure is made. This adds a crucial check on requests for access to preserved funds.
- Strengthens public accountability
The ruling reaffirms the SIU’s mandate to safeguard public funds, and signals to all litigants that any misuse of pension or public money will be closely scrutinised—even before criminal liability is established.
Key takeaway
This judgment is a foundational ruling on the powers of the Special Tribunal under the SIU Act. It confirms that while procedural rules offer guidance, they do not displace the overarching purpose of legislation: to protect public assets, recover unlawfully obtained funds, and ensure accountability. It also sends a clear message—you cannot access preserved funds without full, honest disclosure.