Businessman Kagiso Matjila has threatened the PIC, the Government Employees Pension Fund and PIC chief executive Patrick Dlamini with a R1 billion damages claim in an escalation of the battle over the Lanseria International Airport dispute.
In a final demand before action dated 15 June, attorneys acting for Matjila and Acapulco Trade & Invest 164 gave the PIC and GEPF 10 business days to comply with a series of demands, including halting the forensic investigation into the Lanseria matter, issuing a written retraction and paying R1 billion in damages.
Failing that, the attorneys say summons will be issued in the High Court, urgent interdictory relief will be sought and complaints will be lodged with the Public Protector, Auditor-General, Financial Sector Conduct Authority and Parliament.
They also warn that Dlamini and any executive found to have acted with him, could be pursued in their personal capacities.
The demand represents the most direct challenge yet to Dlamini's decision to commission a forensic review of the Lanseria transaction and an arbitration award involving Acapulco — an investigation that has already become the centre of a widening governance dispute within South Africa's state asset manager.
The letter accuses the PIC and GEPF of unlawful interference with Matjila and Acapulco's commercial relationships, defamation, injurious falsehood and breach of confidence.
"Our clients hold the PIC and the GEPF liable, jointly and severally, for unlawful interference with their existing and prospective contractual and commercial relations under the lex Aquilia; for injurious falsehood; for defamation; and for the unlawful breach of confidence," the attorneys wrote.
Central to the dispute is the PIC's decision to investigate the Lanseria transaction and the arbitration award granted in favour of Acapulco.
The PIC has previously told the Mail & Guardian that Dlamini acted within his delegated authority when commissioning the investigation and that both the PIC board and Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana supported the process.
The corporation has said the review is intended to determine whether reasonable steps were taken to protect the interests of the PIC and the GEPF.
Matjila, however, contends that the matter was already settled through a final and binding arbitration process and that the PIC is attempting to reopen issues that have already been determined.
The attorneys describe the forensic review as an "unauthorised and ultra vires forensic investigation" and allege that it has damaged Acapulco's standing with existing and prospective funders.
According to the letter, the conduct complained of has jeopardised relationships with development finance institutions and threatened a project of national strategic significance.
"Our clients' loss, patrimonial and reputational, is presently quantified at R1 000 000 000, and it continues to mount," the attorneys wrote.
The letter demands that the PIC and GEPF immediately cease making statements concerning Matjila, Acapulco and the Lanseria matter, issue an unconditional retraction, confirm that the dispute has been finally determined, disclose the board resolution authorising the forensic investigation, if one exists and either pay R1 billion in damages or present an acceptable compensation proposal.
The legal threat lands amid growing scrutiny of the circumstances under which the forensic investigation was initiated.
Last week, the M&G reported on a whistleblower complaint submitted to the PIC board relating to Dlamini's conduct. The complaint emerged against the backdrop of tensions within the PIC over the Lanseria matter and the decision to appoint external investigators to examine the transaction and arbitration award.
Questions have also been raised about the authority under which the forensic review was commissioned, including whether a formal board resolution exists authorising the investigation.
Those questions now form part of Matjila's legal challenge.
In the latest demand, the attorneys require the PIC to produce the board resolution authorising the investigation or confirm that no such resolution exists.
The dispute marks the latest chapter in a battle that has moved from arbitration proceedings into the boardrooms of the PIC and now appears headed for the courts.
The PIC, GEPF and Dlamini were asked for comment on the allegations and whether they intend opposing the threatened legal action.