Businessman Rali Mampuele
Image: Supplied
Opinion
By Themba Hlophe
A new legal application by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) has intensified the high-profile dispute with businessman and Levoca 805 (RF) Proprietary Limited representative Rali Mampeule, raising questions about the treatment of whistleblowers in South Africa’s financial sector.
The PIC has approached the South Gauteng High Court seeking to have Mampeule held in contempt of court and requesting that he be arrested for two months. The application follows an earlier interdict granted in February 2026, which restricted Mampeule from publishing allegations of corruption and related misconduct against certain PIC officials.
The contempt application was filed on behalf of the PIC and is supported by a founding affidavit deposed 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 connected to the 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 matter has increasingly attracted attention beyond the courtroom due to its potential implications for whistleblowing, corporate governance, and the management of public pension funds.
Questions About Whistleblower Protection
The request for Mampeule’s arrest has sparked debate about whether the legal action could discourage whistleblowers from speaking out. Globally, retaliation against whistleblowers can take many forms, including victimisation, harassment, threats, marginalisation, dismissal, legal action, physical harm, and even death. Advocates of whistleblower protection argue that strong safeguards are necessary to ensure that individuals who raise concerns about potential misconduct are not subjected to retaliation or intimidation.
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 further cautioned Metrofibre’s board and shareholders about the potential consequences of a prolonged dispute: “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 also argued that the dispute could drag on for years if not resolved commercially:“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 suggested that a market-based resolution could prevent further escalation: “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.”
A Dispute Still Before the Courts
For now, the matter remains before the courts. The South Gauteng High Court will determine whether Mampeule’s actions constitute a breach of the February order and whether contempt sanctions, including imprisonment, are justified. As the case unfolds, it is likely to continue attracting attention due to its broader implications for corporate accountability, whistleblower protections, and the governance of public investment institutions in South Africa.
The legal dispute between the parties remains ongoing.