On 15 May 2025, the Special Tribunal heard a pivotal case – SIU v Mosokodi Business Trust and Others (GP22/2024) – questioning its authority to freeze and forfeit assets linked to corruption at the National Lotteries Commission (NLC). The outcome of this case could have major implications for anti-corruption efforts across the country and may redefine how South Africa recovers stolen public funds.
The Special Tribunal is not a court but a statutory adjudicative body established in terms of the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996 (SIU Act). It hears civil matters arising from investigations by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) and is tasked with recovering public funds siphoned from the fiscus through corruption, fraud, and illicit money flows.
The case stems from the SIU’s multimillion-rand investigation into allegations of corruption, maladministration, and fraud at the NLC. During arguments, a key question emerged: does the Special Tribunal have the power to freeze assets and bank accounts, and order their forfeiture to the state as proceeds of fraud and illegality? The outcome could reshape the state’s powers to recover the proceeds of corruption.
Phillemon Letwaba, a former senior official at the NLC and one of the respondents in the case, challenged the authority of the Special Tribunal to order the forfeiture of a farm and several other assets based on the SIU’s investigation. Letwaba and other implicated parties argued that there was no legislative or constitutional basis granting the Special Tribunal the power to make such orders.
In response, the SIU, supported by the NLC, argued that the Special Tribunal has the power to freeze and forfeit of assets under the SIU Act, read together with regulations issued by the Minister of Justice and the Special Tribunal Rules. They also cited the Constitutional Court’s ruling in Ledla, which affirmed that the Special Tribunal has broad powers to review unlawful contracts and other state conduct, as well as issue remedial orders.
The University of Cape Town’s Democratic Governance and Rights Unit (DGRU) was appointed as amicus curiae (a neutral friend of the Tribunal) to assist the Tribunal in analysing the legal issues. The DGRU argued that, under the Constitution and existing law, asset forfeiture is a tightly regulated power reserved for specific state institutions, being the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and its Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU), and in particular the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP).
In terms of the SIU Act, it is not clear that the Special Tribunal has the legal authority to order asset forfeiture. However, because of the Constitutional Court’s Ledla judgment, the Tribunal does possess broad remedial powers, including the ability to review fraudulent state contracts and conduct. Specifically, on the DGRU’s reading of the law, the SIU would need to refer any asset forfeiture matters to the NPA’s AFU to enable the NDPP to bring applications for asset forfeiture in a high court in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998.
The DGRU also recommended that the Minister of Justice be joined in the proceedings and proposed a comprehensive review of the legislation governing both the Special Tribunal and SIU to enhance their effectiveness, particularly in relation to investigatory and asset recovery powers.
This case could set a precedent for whether the Special Tribunal can act directly in asset recovery – or whether such powers must rest solely with the NPA. The ruling will define the legal limits of the Tribunal’s remedial powers and could significantly shape South Africa’s institutional approach to corruption.
Legal scholars, civil society, including The Progress Report and Judges Matter, and state entities, are closely observing the outcome, which may influence future funding accountability, inter-institutional coordination, and public confidence in anti-corruption bodies.
The initial hearing in this case occurred on 15 May 2025, with proceedings set to resume from 4 August 2025.
Find out more about this ground-breaking legal debate and its broader implications: https://www.theprogressreport.org.za/2025/05/16/landmark-case-tests-south-africas-anti-corruption-powers/
And https://www.theprogressreport.org.za/2025/05/13/siu-v-mosokodi-business-trust-and-others/
#ProgressReportSA #SpecialTribunal
Inky Dresner
Soapbox Communications
Cell: (083) 297 7981
Email: inky@soapbox.co.za