The board of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) has begun assessing allegations against chief executive Patrick Dlamini after receiving a whistleblower complaint that raises questions about governance, executive authority and conflicts of interest at Africa’s largest asset manager.
On Thursday, the board confirmed that it had received the complaint and had initiated an assessment of its credibility and substance.
“The Board has initiated an assessment of the credibility and substance of the allegations in accordance with the applicable frameworks, policies and applicable legal obligations,” the board said.
It added that Dlamini had been afforded an opportunity to respond in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.
The 26-page complaint, dated 9 June, was addressed to PIC chairperson David Masondo, deputy chairperson Gloria Serobe, the chairperson of the board’s Social, Ethics and Transformation Committee and the corporation’s whistleblower office.
The complaint calls for an independent investigation into Dlamini’s conduct and urges the board to consider placing him on precautionary suspension pending the outcome of any inquiry.
At the centre of the complaint is the PIC’s handling of the long-running Lanseria Airport dispute and, in particular, a forensic investigation commissioned by the corporation into the transaction and a subsequent arbitration award issued in favour of shareholder Acapulco Trade and Invest 164.
The complainants allege that Dlamini authorised the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to conduct the forensic review without a board resolution approving the investigation.
They contend that repeated requests for proof of such a resolution have gone unanswered.
The allegation echoes concerns previously raised by businessman Kagiso Matjila and his company, Acapulco, which have argued that the forensic review amounts to an attempt to revisit issues already determined through a final and binding arbitration process.
Earlier this month, attorneys acting for Matjila sent a letter of demand to the PIC board alleging unlawful interference with contractual relations, injurious falsehood and defamation.
The letter threatens legal action against both the PIC and Dlamini.
The whistleblower complaint also alleges that Dlamini failed to disclose or properly manage conflicts of interest involving Lanseria Airport Holdings and infrastructure investment firm Harith General Partners.
According to the complaint, Dlamini did not adequately answer questions posed by Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance in December 2025 regarding his previous directorships in Lanseria-related entities and his relationship with Harith and its founder, Tshepo Mahloele.
The complainants further allege that Dlamini failed to recuse himself from matters involving Lanseria and Harith despite what they describe as clear conflicts of interest.
Prior to the board’s statement, the PIC told the Mail & Guardian that Dlamini had acted within his delegated authority in commissioning the forensic review.
The corporation said Dlamini informed Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance in December 2025 that the PIC would conduct an independent forensic review of the Lanseria transaction and the arbitration award issued in favour of Acapulco.
According to the PIC, the review was commissioned to determine whether all reasonable steps had been taken to protect the corporation’s investment in Lanseria Airport and safeguard the interests of its client, the Government Employees Pension Fund.
“The PIC CEO acted within his powers and delegated authority to ensure accountability and to ensure that the PIC carries out its fiduciary duties to the GEPF, by having the Lanseria settlement independently reviewed,” the corporation said.
The PIC added that once the forensic report is finalised, it will consider its legal options, including possible remedies against external counterparties.
In its statement on Thursday, the board said it retained confidence in the leadership and operations of the PIC and stressed that the institution’s stability and investment mandate remained unaffected.
The board’s decision to formally assess the complaint marks the first official acknowledgement that the allegations have entered a governance process.
While the PIC maintains that Dlamini acted within his delegated authority, it has not directly addressed whether the PwC investigation was authorised by the board, a question that now sits at the centre of both the Lanseria dispute and the whistleblower complaint.