You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App

NEW SENS search and JSE share prices

More about the app

More headaches for the Public Protector

Former FSB head Dube Tshidi files a strongly worded review application to her findings against him.
Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s findings have been described as ‘arbitrary’, ‘irrational’ and ‘unjustified’. Image: Moneyweb

Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane released a report on March 28 that instructed the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) to take “corrective action” against a member of its transitional management committee, Advocate Dube Tshidi. Tshidi was formerly executive officer of the Financial Services Board (FSB), forerunner of the FSCA.

The Public Protector’s report found that Tshidi, in his capacity as FSB executive officer, had acted improperly in appointing attorney Anthony Mostert as the curator of several pension funds in 2005 and 2006. These funds had fallen victim to a fraudulent scheme.

On Friday Tshidi and the FSCA filed an application to have these findings set aside. In echoes of a number of recent review applications, Tshidi argues that the Public Protector overstepped her authority, did not provide a satisfactory explanation for why she was investigating matters that had taken place well beyond the two-year window that usually applies, and did not properly take into account his responses to the allegations.

“It is immediately apparent from the report that the conclusions drawn about my conduct and the findings against me are entirely unreasoned,” Tshidi says. “The Public Protector failed to have proper regard, if any, to the extensive information the applicants put before her, and she has failed to give any reasoned justification for her findings.”

He says her findings are “arbitrary”, “irrational” and “unjustified”. In particular, Tshidi argues that the Public Protector did not consider the credibility of the different information she received, and failed to weigh which version was more likely to be true.

“It is therefore impossible to discern whether her findings are pursuant to deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning or any reasoning at all,” he notes.

The source

It is clear that Tshidi considers this a critical failing in light of the background to the Public Protector’s investigation, which was premised on a complaint from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). The EFF had already directly approached the FSB with similar allegations, and had left little doubt as to their source.

“It emerged in these engagements that the true source of the EFF’s allegations was Mr Simon John Nash, one of the chief participants in a criminal pension surplus-stripping scheme, known as the ‘Ghavalas scheme’ [named after the architect of the scheme], which the FSB Inspectorate had exposed in the early 2000s,” Tshidi submits. “Mr Nash is currently facing criminal charges of inter alia fraud, theft and breach of fiduciary duties relating to his involvement in the surplus-stripping scheme implemented in two pension funds for which Mr Mostert was appointed curator.”

Read: High Court judge slams ‘dishonest’ Simon Nash

The allegations brought by the EFF were not only the same as those Nash had already previously aired, Nash even arrived with the EFF for a meeting with the FSB. Tshidi believes the complaint to the Public Protector is a continuation of attempts by Nash to frustrate the proceedings against him.

“That Mr Nash is motivated by a desire to obstruct his prosecution and the civil claims against him, and in so doing resort to false allegations against the FSB, myself and Mr Mostert in this endeavour, is by now a matter of public record,” Tshidi notes.

These attempts have already been aired and dealt with in a number of court cases. Most recently, Judge Fisher of the High Court in Johannesburg dismissed an application by Nash to stay criminal and civil proceedings against him.

In the judgment handed down in February this year, Fisher noted that: “Mr Nash is involved in a campaign designed to delay determination of his guilt and liability. There was clearly never any merit in any of the relief. The relief was fashioned in a cynical way. Its aim has been and is to delay the process.”

It is important to note that Peter Ghavalas has already pleaded guilty to being part of the scheme. He is expected to testify against Nash in the criminal proceedings.


While this calls into question the origins of the complaint to the Public Protector, the appointment of Mostert as a curator has been the subject of controversy for some time. Concerns have been expressed about the apparent close relationship between Tshidi and Mostert, and the scale of remuneration Mostert earned.

However, while the Public Protector concludes in her report that Tshidi was “biased towards the nomination of Mr Mostert” she provides no reasoning to support this finding. 

Tshidi also argues that the Public Protector had no jurisdiction to investigate the complaints. Firstly, this is because they relate to something that happened more than two years ago, and there are no special circumstances to warrant her involvement now.

Secondly, Tshidi believes the questions being dealt with are all matters that have been or will be before the courts.

“The allegations that the EFF made in its complaint to the Public Protector have already been raised in the litany of previous litigation involving Mr Nash, including in his criminal prosecution,” Tshidi argues. “The result is that the Public Protector’s investigation entailed a duplication of public investigative and court-governed processes to pursue – and indeed abuse – parallel processes through the Public Protector’s office.”

Tshidi is therefore not only asking that the court set the findings in the report aside, but that a personal costs order be made against Mkhwebane.

“Had Advocate Mkhwebane performed her duties and functions reasonably and in good faith, as she is required to do, this application would not have been necessary,” Tshidi says. “On the contrary, the report would not have seen the light of day. The levy-paying institutions subject to the Conduct Authority’s supervision and regulation, and which fund the Conduct Authority’s operations, ought not to be saddled with the costs of the application.”

Please consider contributing as little as R20 in appreciation of our quality independent financial journalism.



Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


It is hard to wake up to news like this in a time all SA citizens feels like rape victims. The EFF is only playing these games to hide there own misconduct. And the citizens “pay back the money”

This is at least criminal

He is absolutely right you know, nothing has changed.
SAA were in the poops, are in the poops, and will be in the poops tomorrow, next week, next year etc.
Oh, and by the way Government does have money, its the taxpayer that is the bank.

But are they taking into account the rate that the depositors of that bank are emigrating. That is the ones who make the larger deposits. We already see its effects on the reduction of government largesse required to keep the looter cabal happy.

A cadre deployment playing political games for her faction.

Worryingly the Constitutional Court has still not pronounced on the PP’s liability to pay a portion of the costs of the SARB review.

Such a judgement against her would have made her think twice about issuing her preposterous and damaging reports.

Th court’s inexplicable delay is harming the country.

Here’s a grade-A Dunning–Kruger effect example. Pickle her and display her for future generations to study!

If a matter (pension fraud) is already dealt with in a court, surely the office of the PP doesn’t also have to investigate it? What a waste of time and resources. What does the PP Act say?

What everyone is ignoring is that the Pension fund that was supposedly robbed was so old – all but one pensioner who could claim against the fund were dead! So infact, from what I can gather, the government was hoping to keep the fund to rob for themselves!
In my opinion, Mr Nash has done nothing wrong, save beat the ANC at their own game.

The PP has stated that she investigates complaints, she doesn’t look for matters to investigate.

Come on everybody – take a case worthy of a complaint out of Gangster State, or the Zondo commission and lodge it. There is plenty from which to choose.

Lets keep her so busy with real complaints that she has no time for frivolous ones.

End of comments.





Follow us:

Search Articles: Advanced Search
Click a Company: