Mzwinila wants DCEC bosses jailed
Spira Tlhankane | Monday November 2, 2026 06:00
Mzwinila, his wife Bridget and their company, Delicious Dairy (Pty) Ltd, have dragged the Attorney General, former Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) Director General, Botlhale Makgekgenene, Deputy Director of Operations Thabo Malambane and Acting Director of Immigration and Citizenship, Moeng Mogomotsi Andries before the High Court for contempt.
In the urgent application, the Mzwinilas accuse the officials of deliberately disregarding binding court orders issued on December 11, 2025, and January 28, 2026, despite being fully aware of their obligations. The couple wants the court to declare the respondents in contempt and commit Makgekgenene, Malambane and Andries to imprisonment for 60 days, with the sentences suspended for 24 hours to allow them to comply with the outstanding orders. The application also seeks an order compelling compliance within 24 hours of service, failing which the applicants want warrants of committal issued against the three officials.
At the heart of the dispute is Mzwinila's accusation that government officials have continued to act as though court orders are optional, even after losing a legal battle over searches, seizures and restrictions imposed on his family and business. 'The sole question now confronting this Honourable Court is whether organs of State may deliberately disregard binding court orders whilst electing not to obtain any order suspending their operation,' Mzwinila states in his founding affidavit. He argues that the dispute has moved beyond his family's constitutional rights and now threatens the authority of the judiciary itself. 'Put differently, the issue before this Honourable Court is no longer one between litigants. It concerns the dignity, authority and effectiveness of this Court itself,' he adds. Mzwinila insists that he is not attempting to prevent the DCEC from investigating him.
Rather, he argues that the agency must conduct its investigations within the confines of the law. 'Equally, this application is not concerned with the merits of the investigations being undertaken by the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime ('the DCEC'),' he states in the court papers. 'Those investigations continue and the Applicants have never sought to prevent the DCEC from lawfully carrying out its statutory mandate.' The contempt proceedings follow a January 28 judgment by Justice Barnabas Nyamadzabo, which declared the flagging of the applicants' passports unlawful and ordered that the restrictions be lifted. The court also interdicted further warrantless searches and seizures, directed the immediate return of seized property with a full accounting, and prohibited further unlawful interference with payments to Delicious Dairy.
According to Mzwinila, the respondents subsequently appealed against the judgment but never sought an order suspending its operation. He argues that lodging an appeal does not, by itself, excuse compliance with a binding judgment. 'The Respondents cannot elect to enjoy the benefit of the appellate process whilst simultaneously disregarding the operative force of the judgment appealed from,' he argues. The former minister further alleges that the respondents were repeatedly afforded opportunities to comply, including through statutory procedures under Section 7 of the State Proceedings Act. He maintains that reports were issued calling upon government to honour the orders, but compliance remained outstanding. Particularly striking is his allegation that senior DCEC officials personally undertook to address the matter during a meeting held on February 17, 2026.
According to the affidavit, the meeting involved his legal representatives, Makgekgenene and Malambane. Mzwinila states that although the meeting was ostensibly convened to discuss compliance, it became apparent that the DCEC also wanted an account of the family's assets. His lawyers allegedly informed the officials that financial records had already been seized during investigations and that the agency could pursue additional information through lawful statutory mechanisms. The former minister claims Makgekgenene expressly undertook to follow up on the unlawful passport restrictions. However, he alleges that the undertaking produced no results. 'Yet, notwithstanding that express undertaking, nothing happened,' he said. Mzwinila says the alleged failure cannot be attributed to administrative confusion because the officials understood the orders and possessed the authority to implement them.
'The Respondents' conduct is not the product of misunderstanding. It is not the product of administrative oversight. Nor can it be attributed to uncertainty regarding the meaning of the orders,' Mzwinila states in his papers. He further alleges that the respondents have continued to disregard directions relating to passport flagging, the cessation of prohibited conduct, the return of property, the accounting of seized assets and payments owed to Delicious Dairy. Furthermore, the former minister argues that the conduct demonstrates deliberate resistance to judicial authority.
'It is not bureaucratic delay. It is deliberate, continuing and wilful disobedience of binding court orders,' he states. The contempt application comes against the backdrop of an escalating legal battle between the Mzwinilas and anti-corruption authorities over investigations into suspected corruption, money laundering and possession of unexplained property. In separate proceedings under the Proceeds and Instruments of Crime Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions sought restraint orders against numerous assets associated with the couple.
These included bank funds, agricultural properties, residential plots, business interests, vehicles and farming equipment. The restraint proceedings were brought before Justice Oteng Motlhala, with the prosecution alleging that the assets were potentially connected to suspected offences. However, Mzwinila argues that those separate proceedings neither suspended nor overturned the orders granted by Justice Nyamadzabo. He maintains that government officials cannot use parallel litigation as justification for ignoring existing judicial directives.
The application has also been formally brought to the attention of the respondents. According to a return of service signed by Deputy Sheriff Ikageng Seloi, the court documents were served on the Attorney General's office and personally on Makgekgenene, Malambane and Andries on August 3, 2026. The return records that the nature and urgency of the application were explained to the recipients.
Mzwinila insists that imprisonment is necessary to protect the authority of the courts and compel compliance. 'Unless this Honourable Court intervenes, the orders previously granted will remain little more than declarations on paper. Respectfully, that cannot be permitted,' he says.