President Cyril Ramaphosa with late former deputy president David Mabuza.(Delwyn Verasamy/M&G)
The office of President Cyril Ramaphosa has described the R44 million dispute over late former deputy president David Mabuza’s pension money as a family matter.
“This is a family matter that has nothing to do with the president nor the presidency,” spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said in a brief response to the Mail & Guardian on Monday.
Last week, Mabuza’s daughter Tamara Silinda filed an urgent application at the Mpumalanga High Court to stop AlexForbes from paying the R44 million to Nonhlahla Mnisi, who was the second lady of the country when Mabuza was Ramaphosa’s deputy. The case will sit at the high court on Tuesday.
Silinda is demanding that AlexForbes pay her R40 000 monthly towards her basic maintenance, including clothing, transport, and medical expenses. She says she was dependent on Mabuza’s medical aid, hence her demands for her medical expenses to be covered from his pension money.
She is also demanding that AlexForbes pay R127 990 towards her yearly tuition fees at the University of Cape Town pending the finalisation of the matter.
Her mother, Emunah Silinda, is the first applicant in the matter and Tamara is the second applicant. Mnisi has been cited as the first respondent, AlexForbes as the second respondent, the Master of the High Court as the third, the presidency as the fourth, the government pension administrator as the fifth and Mabuza’s six other dependents as the other respondents.
Mabuza, who served as the country’s deputy president from February 2018 to February 2023, died in July. A copy of his death certificate, attached to documents before the court, shows that he was never married, raising questions about his union with the former second lady.
Asked on Monday whether the presidency was aware that Mabuza was customarily married or that he was allegedly not married to Mnisi, Mangwenya did not respond further.
AlexForbes spokesperson Fiona Rollason said the company was aware of the application brought by Silinda, but would not oppose it. AlexForbes declined to say why it had decided to pay the pension to Mnisi.
“As a financial services provider, we are committed to treating all client matters with the highest level of confidentiality. For this reason, we are unable to share further details on the specifics of the case,” Rollason said.
She added that the company would respect the judicial process and abide by the decision of the court.
The M&G also tried to contact Mnisi but she did not respond to calls or text messages sent to her. Silinda says Msini claims to be Mabuza’s wife and produced a marriage certificate obtained posthumously from the department of home affairs.
“We challenge the legitimacy of this certificate as no valid marriage could have been concluded or registered after death,” read her court papers.
“This background has set the stage for the legal discourse on the recognition of customary marriages posthumously, underscoring the profound effect of such recognition on the rights and dignity of women like my mother who are left behind.”
Silinda claims that her mother Emunah was married to Mabuza in terms of customary law and that the marriage is valid and subsisting.
“My mother was married to the deceased in terms of customary law and the marriage was never dissolved during the lifetime of the deceased,” she said.
The home affairs department declined to comment on whether it would file its papers ahead of Tuesday’s court hearing. Department spokesperson David Hlabane acknowledged the M&G’s inquiry but did not respond further.
It is still unclear whether the presidency, the home affairs department and Mnisi will oppose the application by Silinda.
In her application, Silinda argued that once the pension funds are wrongfully distributed, the applicants would be left without any effective recourse, as recovery would be practically impossible.
“Therefore, an interdict is the only appropriate and effective means to safeguard the applicant’s rights to prevent irreparable harm. I humbly submit that there is no avenue left for me, as the second applicant, to get my educational and personal needs met pending the finalisation of the estate. If the honourable court does not intervene, I will be left without food and income,” she argued in her papers.
“The deceased estate will take some time to complete. It is well documented that he was a public figure. In dealing with the estate, it requires due diligence, and I submit to the honourable court that approaching the courts on urgency remains pivotal and the most available route to address the lengthy process that could derail any distribution as well as liquidation of accounts.”