R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s appearance at the Standing Committee on Finance
The Public Investment Corporation (PIC), the state asset manager entrusted with investing public funds on behalf of government employees, has come under renewed parliamentary focus as it appears before the Standing Committee on Finance (SCOF).
The engagement follows a sustained oversight push from the United Democratic Movement (UDM), led by Bantu Holomisa, who has called on Parliament to interrogate what he describes as escalating governance concerns within the PIC, including matters linked to unlisted investments and the conduct of senior officials.
Holomisa’s latest submission to Parliament outlines further issues the UDM believes should be interrogated during the PIC’s appearance. These include a set of specific questions connectedto the so-called “Thabiso Moshikara scandal” (July 2025), as well as a dispute involving Levoca805, Metrofibre, and actions allegedly taken by the PIC to seize shares.
For full context, the UDM’s published correspondence is available here:
Why Parliament’s questions matter
The PIC is not an ordinary investment institution. It is responsible for investing assets largely linked to public sector pensions, meaning the consequences of governance failures are ultimately carried by South African public servants whose savings are invested through the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF).
Unlike typical corporate disputes, allegations involving the PIC raise direct questions about public accountability, fiduciary duty, and whether internal controls are being applied consistently.
This is especially significant in light of prior findings related to the PIC, including earlier national scrutiny into governance failures in the institution’s unlisted investment environment.
Holomisa’s position, as reflected in the UDM submission, is that Parliament should not treat the PIC appearance as a routine reporting exercise, but as a critical oversight moment to test whether the institution is acting transparently, lawfully, and in the best interests of pension beneficiaries.
The Levoca-Metrofibre matter and the alleged “R1,170” justification
A central element of the questions submitted by Holomisa involves an investment dispute connected to Metrofibre and Levoca 805, and the proportionality of actions taken by the PIC.
Holomisa’s submission states that the Metrofibre investment funding of Levoca is referenced in the GEPF Annual Financial Report of 2024 as having generated profit for the PIC/GEPF of just over R100 million within the span of a year. Based on this, the UDM questions why the investment arrangement was cancelled and why an outcome allegedly involving the seizure of shares would be pursued in a matter said to involve an invoice of R1,170.
In the UDM framing, the dispute raises the question of whether the PIC’s legal and governance processes were applied in a manner consistent with fiduciary responsibilities – particularly given the scale of the value at stake (allegedly R1.4 billion) in relation to a minimal sum cited as a trigger.
Holomisa’s parliamentary oversight questions to the PIC
In the UDM submission, Holomisa proposes that SCOF ask the PIC the following questions toestablish clarity, accountability, and the current status of the matter.
1. Why was the deal cancelled and why were shares seized over R1,170?
Holomisa asks why a deal described as profitable — with profits stated as exceeding R100 million within a year — was cancelled. He further asks why shares were allegedly seized for R1,170 in postage and stamp fees linked to Bowmans Attorneys, on a deal described as worth more than R1.4 billion.
2. Why was a senior PIC official not suspended under similar circumstances?
Holomisa’s submission states that a fraud and corruption case was opened against PIC Head of Legal, Lindiwe Masina Dlamini, on 07 August 2025 at Midrand Police Station (CAS 205/8/2025), reportedly by a PIC whistleblower, and that the case was referred to the Hawks. He asks why she has not been suspended if Mr Thabiso Moshikara was suspended under the same circumstances.
3. Who authorised a R1.4 billion legal indemnity and why?
Holomisa asks which official(s) within the PIC authorised the granting of a R1.4 billion legal indemnity to Metrofibre against Levoca 805, particularly in pursuit of recouping R1,170, and in the context of alleged R3 million bribe allegations.
4. Was this biased treatment linked to the alleged bribe allegations?
Holomisa asks whether the PIC’s actions are not biased and whether this constitutes proof that Levoca was punished for allegedly not wanting to pay the R3 million bribe attributed in the submission to Mr Moshikara, described as Head of the Isibaya Fund.
5. Why proceed with seizure if the invoice was allegedly erroneous or fraudulently issued and later settled?
Holomisa states that civil matter papers between the PIC and Levoca 805 reflect that the R1,170 invoice was erroneous or fraudulently issued, which the UDM argues means the PIC lacked a legitimate trigger event. He further states that the R1,170 was eventually settled by Levoca, yet the PIC still proceeded to seize Levoca’s shares worth R1.4 billion. Holomisa asks why the PIC continued to proceed with share seizure even after the invoice had been settled, particularly where the investment is said to have been benefiting pensioners by over R100 million per annum.
6. What is the current status of the matter?
Holomisa asks for a clear update on where the matter stands, whether the shares have been returned to Levoca, and if not, why not.
7. Is the PIC attempting to punish the whistleblower?
Holomisa asks whether the PIC is attempting to punish a whistleblower by seizing Levoca’s shares for R1,170.
8. Does the matter indicate corrupt, prejudicial, and oppressive conduct?
Holomisa asks whether the matter does not reflect corrupt, prejudicial, and oppressive conduct, with the PIC allegedly unlawfully seizing Levoca’s shares due to Levoca’s refusal to pay a R3million bribe to Mr Moshikara.
PIC response and public debate
The questions raised by Holomisa form part of a wider public discourse on PIC governance and unlisted investment oversight.
In public reporting, the PIC has pushed back on what it has characterised as false or malicious claims related to its governance and investment decisions, maintaining that its processes are lawful and grounded in the relevant agreements and due process frameworks.
Meanwhile, labour and civil society commentary has also reflected concern about the seriousness of allegations relating to governance integrity at the PIC, including calls for urgent investigation and parliamentary seriousness in response.
What Parliament is really being asked to decide
Holomisa’s submission to SCOF makes a broader point beyond a single dispute: that parliamentary oversight must establish whether the PIC is applying governance and accountability standards consistently across leadership.
In practical terms, the questions place Parliament in a position to evaluate four high-level issues:
● Proportionality: whether the PIC’s escalation and legal actions were rational and defensible relative to the amounts cited as triggers
● Internal accountability: whether disciplinary standards are applied consistently across officials, regardless of seniority
● Decision-making authority: who authorised key steps and indemnities, and on what basis
● Whistleblower protection: whether alleged retaliatory conduct can occur without consequence inside an institution responsible for public pensions
As the PIC appears before SCOF, the UDM position is that Parliament should use its oversight mandate to establish answers clearly and formally on record; both for accountability and for the protection of pension beneficiaries whose funds remain exposed to governance risk.