Is the PIC Trying to Silence a Whistleblower?

A new legal application by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) has intensified a high-profile dispute with South African businessman and Levoca representative Rali Mampeule, raising broader questions about whistleblower protections and corporate governance within one of Africa’s largest state investment institutions.

The PIC has approached the South Gauteng High Court seeking to have Mampeule held in contempt of court and requesting that he be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment.

The application follows an earlier interdict granted in February 2026 that restricts Mampeule from publishing allegations of corruption and related misconduct against certain PIC officials while legal proceedings are ongoing.

The contempt application was filed on behalf of the PIC and is supported by a founding affidavit deposed to by August van Heerden, the acting Chief Investment Officer of the PIC. The affidavit also lists Kabelo Rikhotso, the former Chief Investment Officer of the PIC, and Lindiwe Masina Dlamini, the PIC’s Executive Head of Legal, as applicants in the matter.

A Dispute Linked to Metrofibre

The legal battle forms part of a broader commercial dispute involving investments linked to fibre infrastructure company Metrofibre Networx.

Mampeule has previously described himself as a whistleblower in relation to matters involving the PIC and its investment activities. The dispute centres on investments and shareholding interests connected to Metrofibre through Levoca 805 (RF) Proprietary Limited.

The dispute has increasingly attracted attention beyond the courtroom due to its potential implications for whistleblowing, corporate governance, and the management of public pension fund investments.

Statements at the Centre of the Court Dispute

According to court papers, the contempt application relates in part to remarks Mampeule made during a public address.

During that address, Mampeule made several statements including:

“Thanks to those that have resigned… let’s give them a round of applause that they have resigned from the PIC.”

He also stated:

“Let’s say bye, we have cleaned the PIC,” and “they must open the way, they must leave, we are sweeping.”

Mampeule further told the audience that the judge had allowed him to continue presenting information to authorities.

“The Judge let me continue to talk to the Public Protector… the Judge said that I must continue.”

He also stated:

“The second thing that the judge agreed to is we must not care if a person is a Minister, CEO of any organisation. He said go give proof to the police… There is Hawks. Viva Hawks.”

Another individual present at the address, Mr Vardakos, also referred to the court’s position, stating that individuals should present evidence to law-enforcement authorities rather than making allegations publicly.

According to a statement attributed to him, the court’s message was:

“Speak to the police, speak to the prosecuting authority, make sure your voice is heard there. We don’t have to say to the media a lot about people. We all know the truth, and the truth will come out once the legal process proceeds through the criminal procedure.”

In its court submission, the PIC argues that these remarks imply that misconduct occurred within the institution and that certain officials resigned as a result of alleged wrongdoing.

The corporation contends that references to “cleaning the PIC” and “sweeping” create the impression that corruption has already been established, which it says causes serious reputational harm to the institution and individuals associated with it.

Leaked Emails to Metrofibre Shareholders

Amid the escalating legal dispute, emails allegedly sent by Mampeule to Metrofibre shareholders have circulated among industry stakeholders.

In the correspondence, Mampeule warned that the new court application represented a significant escalation in the dispute.

“We have been informed that the PIC has now launched a new legal application seeking my arrest. This development represents a significant escalation in what has until now primarily been a commercial dispute relating to the Metrofibre shares held by PIC and Levoca.”

Mampeule also cautioned Metrofibre’s board and shareholders about the possible consequences of a prolonged legal conflict.

“From a commercial and reputational perspective, the continued prolonging of this dispute risks creating an extended period of uncertainty around the Metrofibre shareholding structure.”

He suggested the matter could remain unresolved for years if the dispute continues through multiple legal proceedings.

“If the matter continues to escalate through successive court applications and appeals, it is foreseeable that the dispute may persist for several years. Such a scenario may also attract increasing public attention, civic mobilisation, and potential involvement from international organisations concerned with governance, investment fairness, and pension fund conduct.”

Mampeule further suggested that a commercial settlement could resolve the dispute more efficiently.

“It is difficult to understand why a straightforward commercial resolution — namely the sale of the relevant Metrofibre shares at a fair market-related price — cannot be pursued by the parties involved.”

Questions About Whistleblower Protection

The request for Mampeule’s arrest has also prompted debate among observers about whether such legal action could discourage whistleblowers from raising concerns about potential misconduct.

Globally, whistleblowers have often faced retaliation after exposing alleged wrongdoing. Such retaliation can include harassment, legal action, professional marginalisation, or dismissal.

Advocates of stronger whistleblower protections argue that robust safeguards are necessary to ensure individuals can raise concerns without fear of intimidation or legal consequences.

A Dispute Still Before the Courts

For now, the matter remains before the courts.

The South Gauteng High Court will determine whether Mampeule’s statements constitute a breach of the February interdict and whether contempt sanctions, including possible imprisonment, are justified.

As the case unfolds, it is likely to continue attracting attention due to its broader implications for whistleblower protections, corporate governance, and the management of public investment institutions in South Africa.

The legal dispute between the parties remains ongoing.

‍