The Speaker of the National Assembly, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, has denied the widely publicized allegations of personally benefiting from military tenders during her time as South Africa’s Minister of Defence and Military Veterans.

According to the Sunday Times on Sunday, a whistleblower identified Mapisa-Nqakula as one of the beneficiaries in an affidavit to the Independent Directorate of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). It added that businesswoman Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu had decided to testify against South Africa’s legislative branch leader, who served as the country’s defence minister between 2012 and 2021.

The bribery scheme allegedly involved various locations, such as OR Tambo International Airport, Mapisa-Nqakula’s residence in Bruma, and an air show at the Waterkloof military base in Pretoria.

Mapisa-Nqakula and Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu reportedly created different code words for the money, referring to it as ‘wigs,’ ‘impepho’ (incense), ‘imithi’ (medicine), and ‘snuff.’

The article states that Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s statement was provided under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedures Act, enabling a witness to self-incriminate and collaborate with the prosecuting authority in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

In a statement released on Monday, March 4, 2024, Mapisa-Nqakula denied all allegations levelled against her.

“The Speaker of the National Assembly, Ms. Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, categorically denies any involvement in alleged corrupt activities pertaining to her tenure as the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans. She expressed deep concern about the allegations, including a purported affidavit by one of the department’s former service providers, all of which she only learned about through the Sunday Times,” said Mike Ramagoma, a spokesperson in Mapisa-Nqakula’s office.

Ramagoma expressed concerns about the handling of the investigation, emphasizing the importance of diligence and due process. He was adamant that Mapisa-Nqakula had an impeccable record and upheld the highest ethical standards.

In this case, the primary complainant is a Parliament member, Bantu Holomisa, who leads the United Democratic Movement (UDM).

In 2021, Holomisa filed a case against Mapisa-Nqakula after receiving information from an anonymous whistleblower, who has since been identified as Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu. Holomisa tried to have the National Assembly look into the allegations, but his request was turned down due to the whistleblower’s anonymity.

South African opposition parties frequently claim that Mapisa-Nqakula protects her African National Congress (ANC) colleagues from being held accountable in part because she allegedly has her own skeletons in the closet.

In 2022, Mapisa-Nqakula declined a request from the Democratic Alliance (DA) for Parliament to establish an ad-hoc parliamentary committee to look into events related to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in Waterberg, Limpopo.

John Steenhuisen, the DA leader, publicly accused Mapisa-Nqakula of disregarding recommendations from the Zondo Commission report on state capture. The report warned Parliament against repeating past actions when it protected former President Jacob Zuma from accountability.

Both the UDM and the African Transformation Movement (ATM) have expressed dissatisfaction with Mapisa-Nqakula’s approach to accountability.

Holomisa and ATM leader Vuyo Zungula were not immediately available for reaction. However, the ATM has been instrumental in ensuring accountability for the Speaker’s decision to reject a secret ballot during the Phala Phala parliamentary debate in 2022.

In December 2022, a vote was held where most ANC MPs opposed setting up an impeachment inquiry to determine if Ramaphosa had violated the law.

Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was one of only five ANC MPs who voted to adopt the report. This led to the ANC’s newly elected national executive discussing whether they should face charges for voting against the party’s stance.

Zungula sought to challenge the Speaker’s decision in the Western Cape High Court last year, aiming to have it overturned and declared unconstitutional and invalid.

The Phala Phala issue could be brought back to Parliament for another vote, but the ATM had difficulty persuading the Western Cape High Court.

The presiding judges, Ashley Binns-Ward, Daniel Thulare, and Andre Le Grange, sought clarification on the Speaker’s rationale for implementing a transparent voting process, requiring MPs to declare their stance on the Section 89 panel report publicly.

The judges had concerns regarding the application’s contents. They stated that MPs from all political parties in parliament carried out their duties in accordance with their party line.