Interests: King MisuZulu ka Zwelithini wants his legal firm to appoint service providers to audit the trust, but the board said this might violate the Public Finance Management Act. Photo: Oupa Bopape/Getty Images
The Ingonyama Trust Board (ITB) has shot down a proposal by its chairperson, King MisuZulu ka Zwelithini, that the legal firm representing him in his battle over the Zulu throne be appointed to conduct a forensic audit on the trust and the entities associated with it.
Although the board resolved to appoint a forensic audit of Ingonyama Trust and Ingonyama Holdings — neither of which have been publicly audited — it refused to appoint Cavanagh & Richards, which had been proposed by the monarch to carry out the audit.
The king made the suggestion in the form of a draft resolution he submitted to a three-day board meeting last week, days before the firm represented him in the challenge to his control of the trust by his uncle, Mbonisi Zulu, in the Pietermaritzburg high court.
Mbonisi had also asked the court to stop the ITB from funding the king’s legal battles, which have thus far been paid for by the provincial government and the ITB, which administers about three million hectares of KwaZulu-Natal on his behalf.
The firm of attorneys is also representing the king in his battle with his half-brother, Simakade, and other royal family members over his recognition as monarch by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
It is at loggerheads with the provincial government over an unpaid R8 million legal bill, which the office of the premier had queried because there is no back-up documentation to justify the expenditure.
Sources in the ITB said the king had proposed that the firm be appointed to investigate payments made under previous chairperson Jerome Ngwenya’s tenure to Ingonyama Holdings — which total R71 million — and to audit the trust and other entities associated with it.
In terms of the proposal, Cavanagh & Richards would be given “sole discretion” to appoint whatever service providers it “deemed necessary” to carry out the process, while the ITB would pay their costs and expenses for the investigation “without limitation”.
The source said the board had previously agreed to conduct the audit, but had rejected the proposal to appoint the company without any process because there were concerns on the part of board members that it was a potential violation of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).
The issue of the king’s legal fees has been a thorny one, and has been raised by his uncle in the Pietermaritzburg high court case, which has been adjourned until 17 May for argument. Mbonisi and his camp have asked the court to stop the ITB and the province from funding the king’s legal defence.
The board had previously settled MisuZulu’s R6.682 million legal bill with another law firm who had represented him in some of his earlier legal battles with Simakade, Mbonisi and other family members since he was first named as king in 2021.
It did so in terms of an agreement signed by former chairperson Ngwenya, but has suspended any disbursement of funds to the king for the 5% of revenue he is entitled to for a 26-month period.
ITB chief executive Vela Mngwengwe confirmed on Tuesday that they had turned down the proposal to appoint Cavanagh & Richards to conduct the forensic audit, the terms of which were still being finalised.
“It is correct that the board intends to have a forensic investigation conducted on Ingonyama Trust and Ingonyama Holdings,” he said.
Although there had been a formal proposal from the king, in his capacity as chairperson of the board, to appoint Cavanagh & Richards, “the board had long decided to follow an open procurement process on matters of a similar nature”.
“The same position was affirmed by the board” in its meeting attended by the king on 23 April, Mngwengwe said.
Asked whether the proposal to appoint the king’s legal team to audit the entity without due process might create legal and ethical issues, he said the board had not considered this. “The board didn’t have to get to the issue of conflict of interest since it doesn’t appoint service providers in the manner proposed.”
Mngwengwe said it was not clear whether the proposal presented to the ITB by the king was drafted by his lawyers. He added that it was “not uncommon” for a board member who “seeks to persuade fellow board members towards the adoption of a particular proposal to have such proposal contained in the form of a draft resolution”.
Cavanagh & Richards were not contracted as services providers by the ITB, according to Mngwengwe. “There are no lawful grounds for them to receive any payment from Ingonyama Trust, hence no payment has ever been made to them.”
Mngwengwe said the board had resolved that a forensic investigation — something which parliament has been calling for almost a decade — would be appointed.
“The actual scope of the investigation is still to be determined,” Mngwengwe said. “The procurement process will be initiated once the scope of the investigation has been determined by the board.”
Thulasizwe Buthelezi, the king’s traditional prime minister, defended his actions, saying: “There is nothing irregular about a forensic audit being undertaken of the Ingonyama Trust Board and its associated entities.”
The king had a “vested interest and a fiduciary duty” to ensure that the institution was free of maladministration both in his capacity as trustee of the trust and chair of the ITB.
“There is no conflict of interest if His Majesty’s attorneys undertake the forensic audit,” Buthelezi said. “What is important is a declaration of interests.”
He said the Ingonyama Trust was not governed by the PFMA and that the R22 million a year the government contributes to the ITB “is a drop in the ocean compared to ITB’s own resources”.
Cavanagh and Richards declined to comment and referred the Mail & Guardian to Buthelezi.
Last week the Pietermaritzburg high court struck claims by Mbonisi that the king was “under the control of drug mules” who “fed his obsession with dangerous drugs” from the court record.
This came after the king’s legal team brought an application for the court to do so, along with claims that he had set up companies to loot the Ingonyama Trust and was leading a “reckless” lifestyle which was bringing the monarchy into disrepute.
The matter has been adjourned to 17 May, when the application for the king to be stripped of his powers — and for Buthelezi’s appointment to be set aside — will be argued.
A counter application by the king’s attorneys to have Mbonisi declared a vexatious litigant will also be argued when the case resumes.