.Image: Flickr/GovernmentZA

Deputy President Mabuza misrepresents truth in response to OUTA’S criminal complaint

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) notes with concern Deputy President David Mabuza’s response on 7 December 2022 to OUTA’s claims of his involvement in the Mpumalanga land claims scams. Mr. Mabuza states that OUTA’s complaint filed against him and twelve others is being done “in tandem” with Mr. Fred Daniel. 

This is factually incorrect.

OUTA has certainly gleaned information from the civil case brought by Mr. Daniel and cases brought by others against the Mpumalanga authorities, all of which have serious implications for Mr. Mabuza. However, our complaint has been filed independently and seeks to ensure that the criminal conduct of individuals involved in false land claims and other criminal activities over many years in the Mpumalanga Province, are fully and thoroughly investigated, none of which has happened to date.

We dispute Mr Mabuza’s statement “that this complaint is a regurgitation of old allegations of Mr. Fred Daniel…”.  Our complaint includes six (6) dockets that have been neglected by law enforcement. Only two were filed by Fred Daniel as the other four (4) complaints were lodged by Robert Nkosi and Paul O’Sullivan as is laid out below:

•    Badplaas CAS 28-09-2011: (Trust) complainant, Chief Nkosi, accused, Pieter Visagie and MJ Nkosi.

•    Badplaas CAS 57/10/2011: (Ifasa land grab) complainant, Chief Nkosi, accused Gustav De Waal,

•    Badplaas CAS 47-3-2014: (Fence fraud) complainant, Paul O’Sullivan, Dubai World (Nkomazi Properties (Pty) Ltd, Nic Webb.

•    Badplaas CAS 43/10/2016: (Ndwandwe land grab) complainant, Paul O’Sullivan, Visagie/Mabuza

•    Pretoria Central CAS 401/11/2018: (Alleged niece) complainant Daniel, suspect Mabuza.

•    Pretoria Central CAS 373/03/2019: (Requisitions) complainant Daniel, suspects Gustav de Waal, Ifasa.

Mr. Mabuza’s claims that “every application that Mr. Daniel has filed against the Deputy President has been rejected with punitive costs” are demonstrably false. 

In fact, the following court orders were granted against Mabuza:

•    Two High Court orders in Case No: 29652/208 dated 23 June 2008 and 1 June 2009 as the 6th Respondent: The MEC Department of Agriculture Conservation and Environment Mpumalanga Province.

•    Two High Court orders in Case No: 32267/2008 dated 24 July 2008 and 1 June 2009 as the 6th Respondent: The MEC Department of Agriculture Conservation and Environment Mpumalanga Province.

•    A High Court order in Case No: 36615/2008 dated 6 August 2008 as the 2nd Respondent: Chairman of the Greater Badplaas Land Claims Committee.

•    A High Court orders in Case No. 36615/2008 dated 6 August 2008 as the 2nd Respondent: Chairman of the Greater Badplaas Land Claims Committee.

•    A High Court order in Case No. 19108/2010 dated 29 November 2012 as the 1st Respondent: Mr. DD Mabuza & 21 Others.

•    A Magistrates’ Court order in Case No. 1/7/2-16//2018 dated 29 January 2018 as the 1st Respondent: Mr. DD Mabuza.

Furthermore, in a review application in the Mbombela High Court under Case No. 3246/18, DLBM Attorneys wrote to Mabuza’s attorney, Mr. Carl Adendorff from Adendorff Theron Inc, on 2 September 2020 “that Mr. Daniel no longer resides in the Badplaas district and therefore believes that he no longer requires the protection order and that the matter, as a consequence, might possibly become moot as regards to the protection order”.  In this matter, the parties agreed to withdraw the review application, each party to pay its own costs and that Mabuza agreed not to use the outrageous credibility finding in the public domain or rely on the so-called “credibility findings” in court proceedings.  Daniel says that the findings were based on a false affidavit handed up by Adv Mike Hellens (SC).

By making a press statement on 7 December 2022, Mabuza violated the above agreement and written undertaking as set out in the response to his attorney’s letter dated 3 September 2020: “He [Mabuza] will not rely on or refer in any legal proceedings or public statements to any of the credibility findings made against your client [Daniel] by Magistrate Grabe and contained in his judgment; and your client [Daniel] withdraws the review application, each party pay their own costs.”

It is patently clear from the above court cases, that Mr. Mabuza has deceived the SA public in his press release when he says that “every application that Mr. Daniel has filed against the DP has been rejected with punitive costs, and the judicial system has found him to be a dishonest litigant who takes advantage of the system”.

In Mr. Mabuza’s statement of 7 December 2022, he says “the allegations they have now made to the NPA were encapsulated in previous false criminal charges brought against the DP. The Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation [DPCI, or Hawks] and the Specialised Commercial [Crime] Court [SCCC] prosecutors declined to prosecute anyone because of false charges. Similarly, the allegations in this complaint are completely false and without merit.” 

OUTA refutes this statement by Mr. Mabuza as being false. There is no evidence that the DPCI or the SCCC prosecutors have ever declined to prosecute Mr. Mabuza. On the contrary, the evidence shows that dockets have been stripped and sabotaged and nobody has taken responsibility for defeating the ends of justice.

In his media release, Mr. Mabuza furthermore states that “in the current civil litigation brought by Mr. Daniel, the DP is not even a respondent in his personal capacity”.  What he fails to admit, is that Mr. Mabuza took control of the damages litigation in 2015, in 2019 (before acting Deputy Judge President Raulinga) and 2020 (before acting DJP Potterill), and that he confirmed that Adv Ferreira SC and Adv Hellens SC represented him in the damages case in his personal capacity. Mabuza was also listed as a witness, before withdrawing his name. 

In Mr. Mabuza’s media statement, he also says that “on countless occasions, including before Parliament, the DP has maintained that if anybody has any evidence of wrongdoing on his part, they should bring the case to the attention of the appropriate law enforcement agencies. The DP stands by the statement and is not naive about the true motives of the complaint”.

We fail to understand Mr. Mabuza’s comment that he “is not naive about the true motives of the complaint.” All OUTA wants is for the NPA and the Investigative Directorate (ID) to conduct a thorough and professional investigation into the various matters highlighted in OUTA’s criminal complaint. Law enforcement and the NPA have the power to subpoena and interrogate bank statements and meeting records and can interview various people involved. 

OUTA maintains that there is a strong case against DP Mabuza and others and is confident that the NPA will institute prosecutions.

More information

A soundclip with comment by OUTA CEO Wayne Duvenage is here.