Court rules PIC board acted unlawfully in suspending CEO Patrick Dlamini

The Gauteng High Court’s has ruled against the unlawful suspension of PIC CEO Patrick Dlamini. The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has declared the precautionary suspension of Public Investment Corporation (PIC) chief executive officer Patrick Khulekani Dlamini unlawful and invalid, ruling that the corporation’s board acted beyond its legal powers when it suspended him in July. In a judgment handed down on Tuesday, Judge Mandla Mbongwe set aside Dlamini’s suspension, finding that the PIC board failed to comply with the statutory and governance requirements governing the suspension of the state asset manager’s chief executive.

The court also dismissed two applications by outside parties seeking to intervene in the proceedings. Dlamini approached the court on an urgent basis after receiving aprecautionary suspension notice from the PIC board on 13 July 2026. He sought an order declaring both the suspension notice and the decision to suspend him unlawful.

The application was effectively unopposed after the PIC board, despite filing a notice of intention to oppose, failed to submit an answering affidavit or appear during the hearing. The Minister of Finance, who was cited as the third respondent in his capacity as the government’s shareholder representative, also did not oppose the relief sought. Before considering the merits of the suspension, the court dealt with applications by government employee and Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) member Jabu Happy Moche and advocacy organisation Public Interest South Africa (PISA) to participate in the proceedings.

[paywall]

Moche argued that reinstating Dlamini could jeopardise his pension interests as a GEPF member. However, the court found that his interest was indirect because his rights lay against the GEPF rather than the PIC or its chief executive. Judge Mbongwe said accepting Moche’s argument would mean all 1.7 million GEPF members would have to be joined in the proceedings, an outcome the court described as untenable.

PISA, meanwhile, sought admission as both friend of the court and a co-respondent. The organisation argued that the PIC board had authority under the corporation’s whistleblower policy to suspend Dlamini. The court rejected the application, holding that a friend of the court must remain impartial and assist the court with expertise or a different legal perspective.

Instead, PISA openly supported the board’s decision, effectively attempting to defend the suspension without introducing any novel legal arguments. Turning to the central dispute, the court examined the Public Investment Corporation Act and the corporation’s Delegations of Authority.

[/paywall]