- The High Court in Pretoria has ruled that Patrick Dlamini’s precautionary suspension as PIC CEO is unlawful and invalid.
- Judge MPN Mbongwe found that the PIC board did not have the authority to suspend the CEO and failed to follow its own governance framework.
- The court also dismissed applications from a GEPF member and Public Interest South Africa to take part in the case.
The High Court in Pretoria has found that the precautionary suspension of Public Investment Corporation (PIC) chief executive officer Patrick Khulekani Dlamini was unlawful and invalid, ruling that the board exceeded its powers when it suspended him.
Judge MPN Mbongwe delivered the judgment on Tuesday, setting aside both the precautionary suspension notice given to Dlamini on 13 July 2026 and the suspension itself.
Dlamini brought the case to court as an urgent matter, naming the Public Investment Corporation SOC Limited, its Board of Directors, and the Minister of Finance as respondents. The Minister was included only as the government’s representative shareholder in the PIC, and no relief was sought against him.
The case was heard on 28 July 2026. Although the PIC board initially filed notice to oppose the application, it did not submit an answering affidavit or show up at the hearing, so the case went ahead essentially unopposed.
Court dismisses intervention requests
Before addressing Dlamini’s main challenge, the court considered two requests to intervene in the proceedings. The first was brought by Jabu Happy Moche, a member of the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF), who argued that reinstating Dlamini could harm the pension fund members.
The second came from Public Interest South Africa (PISA), which asked to be admitted as amicus curiae and also to be joined as a respondent. Judge Mbongwe turned down both requests.
On Moche’s application, the judge explained that his interest is indirect because his pension rights are with the GEPF, not the PIC or its CEO. He added that if Moche’s reasoning were accepted, all 1.7 million GEPF members would have to be joined, which would not be practical. For that reason, the application was dismissed.
The court also found that PISA did not meet the requirements to be admitted as a friend of the court. Judge Mbongwe said an amicus curiae must be non-partisan, but PISA’s approach was partisan and therefore disqualified it. He ruled that its application for admission must be refused.
Board exceeded its authority
The main issue before the court was whether the PIC board had the legal authority to suspend the chief executive. Judge Mbongwe looked at the Public Investment Corporation Act and the corporation’s Delegations of Authority (DOA).
The judgment explains that the Minister of Finance, with Cabinet’s input, appoints the CEO. The board’s role is limited to selecting and recommending a candidate.
The judge also found that the DOA requires any suspension of the CEO to be recommended by the Human Resources and Remuneration Committee, started by the chairperson and approved by the Minister after consulting Cabinet.
Judge Mbongwe said that none of these requirements was met. The board acted alone, without Ministerial approval, and ignored its own policies. He concluded that the suspension was therefore beyond the board’s authority and invalid.
The judgment notes that after learning of the suspension, the Minister called a shareholders’ meeting on 27 July 2026 to deal with what the court described as a governance crisis. Several non-executive directors, including the chairperson, resigned after the suspension.
Whistleblower policy did not give board power
PISA argued that the board’s authority to suspend Dlamini came from the PIC’s whistleblower policy. Judge Mbongwe rejected this argument, noting that the DOA clearly states that if there’s any inconsistency between it and other policy documents, the DOA takes precedence.
The judge said that whistleblower protections exist to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers, but they do not give the board the power to suspend. He went on to say that the board’s reliance on whistleblower principles does not fix its lack of authority. Judge Mbongwe concluded that the CEO’s suspension was beyond the board’s powers and invalid.
Urgency justified by governance issues
The court also found that Dlamini demonstrated enough urgency for immediate court intervention. Judge Mbongwe found that Dlamini faced immediate harm by being stripped of his statutory duties and that the resignation of several directors had destabilised the PIC.
The judge warned that the consequences went beyond the corporation itself. He said the invalid suspension of the CEO and the sudden resignations of board members pose a serious threat to the stability of government investments across many sectors of the economy.
Judge Mbongwe added that the court could not ignore its constitutional duty to protect the public interest and ensure that state institutions managing public resources do so according to the values of accountability, transparency and responsiveness.
Court order
Judge Mbongwe declared that the precautionary suspension notice given to Dlamini on 13 July 2026 was unlawful and invalid and set aside his suspension as chief executive officer of the PIC.
The court also dismissed Moche’s request to intervene and PISA’s application to be admitted as amicus curiae or as a co-respondent. Finally, the PIC and its board were ordered, together and individually, to pay the legal costs of the application, including the costs of two lawyers.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
