Unemployed man wins R19.4m lotto jackpot, vows to uplift family, friend and community
Upon realising his win, he was thrilled to share the news with his wife and is eager to transform his life and the lives of those around him.
'I also plan to help a former colleague who holds a special place in my heart,' he said.
Ithuba, the operator of the National Lottery, said the man claimed his winnings of R19,435,068.10 from last week's Wednesday draw.
He bought his ticket on a banking app with a R30 wager, using the quick pick selection method.
The unemployed man attributed his luck to his persistence and belief that he would win one day.
'I have always believed I would win one day and now it has happened.
'I found out I had won through my bank and checked the results on the National Lottery app and I was shocked.'
He wanted to make an impact on his family's wellbeing, grateful that he can now provide for their every need.
He also plans to donate a portion of his winnings to charitable organisations and invest some of his winnings to create a sustainable source of income that will allow him to enjoy life's pleasures such as leisurely walks by the beach.
Ithuba CEO Charmaine Mabuza congratulated the winner.
'It's inspiring to see a winner who is committed to transforming not only his own life but also the lives of those around him; his family, friends and the community. When managed wisely, a multimillion jackpot win can rewrite the future for many people.'
TimesLIVE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Ethics in the grey zone: governing conflicts of interest with courage
Though the award process to Sizekhaya Holdings may have complied with legal requirements, the absence of visible and transparent disclosures around these relationships undermined trust. In governance, perception matters. Poor or absent disclosure damages legitimacy, even without legal fault. Image: Cape Argus By Nqobani Mzizi In governance, few terms provoke as much unease as "conflict of interest". It conjures images of overt corruption, self-dealing and backroom deals. Yet in many boardrooms, the more dangerous form is covert and subtle. It emerges not through criminality but convenience, not through law-breaking but ethical lapses that thrive in silence and passivity. These are the conflicts that live in the grey zone. We often associate conflicts of interest with clear-cut wrongdoing: a director awarding a tender to their own company, a regulator sitting on a board they're meant to oversee. But many conflicts are more nuanced. They live in assumptions we don't question, relationships we don't declare, and benefits we don't probe. Often, they hide in plain sight: in annual declaration forms submitted as routine or meeting registers listing interests without discussion or follow-up. These processes, meant to enable transparency, become hollow rituals without meaningful engagement and ethical reflection. Grey-zone conflicts are not always compliance failures; they are ethical blind spots where governance falters under silence, ambiguity, or convenience. They are technically compliant but ethically compromised. They flourish where disclosure is absent, recusal is performative, and boards look the other way, not because they condone wrongdoing, but because they've normalised ambiguity. It is here, in the comfort of procedure without principle, that governance erodes. King IV recognises this risk. South African law requires declaration of personal financial interests and sets fiduciary duties, but King IV Principles 1 and 5 go further, calling for ethical and effective leadership beyond legal minimalism. A director may comply with the law but betray governance's spirit by failing to disclose a relationship or by participating in decisions blurred by personal gain. When Sizekhaya Holdings was awarded the fourth National Lottery licence in 2025, public concern quickly surfaced over the perceived political connections of its leadership, including ties to relatives of senior government officials. Though the award process may have complied with legal requirements, the absence of visible and transparent disclosures around these relationships undermined trust. In governance, perception matters. Poor or absent disclosure damages legitimacy, even without legal fault. At the Airports Company South Africa (Acsa), CEO Mpumi Mpofu came under fire for alleged misrepresentation of academic qualifications and awarding bonuses to executives during financial strain. With service providers unpaid and operational performance under scrutiny, the optics of bonuses raised ethical questions. Although no formal charges were brought, the board's failure to address these concerns reflected a worrying tolerance for ethical ambiguity: a grey zone where silence replaced scrutiny. The Steinhoff International scandal, known for accounting fraud, also revealed subtle but corrosive conflicts of interest. Executives linked to related-party transactions personally benefited from inflated financial results. Despite this, the board did not act urgently. It failed to question transactions, investigate relationships, or push for disclosure. The board's deference to executive authority, whether out of loyalty, deference, or inertia, allowed personal interest to override fiduciary duty, shifting oversight to complicity. These cases show governance failures need not involve overt misconduct. Sometimes, it is the cumulative effect of quiet compromises: undisclosed affiliations, soft recusal, where directors nominally step aside without meaningful disengagement, and silence under pressure that unravels institutional integrity. The Steinhoff scandal, like the cases of Sizekhaya and Acsa, reveals a pattern: grey-zone conflicts thrive where boards privilege process over principle. They are not isolated failures but systemic symptoms of a governance culture that rewards silence over scrutiny. To break this cycle, boards must reframe conflicts of interest as strategic governance moments, not bureaucratic disclosures to file away. They must take an uncompromising stance on ethical ambiguity, recognising that every potential conflict is an opportunity to demonstrate ethical clarity and transparent leadership. This mindset demands more than compliance; it requires courage. Disclosure practices must be strengthened. Too often, boards limit declarations to statutory interests or ownership stakes, ignoring broader context. Personal, familial, or political affiliations that may create perceived bias must be declared and discussed openly. Some argue excessive scrutiny risks paralysing decision-making. Yet the greater danger lies in inaction disguised as pragmatism. Boards that tolerate grey-zone conflicts to avoid 'overcomplication' ultimately erode the very currency of governance: trust. Boards must create environments where over-disclosure is encouraged, not penalised. Oversight mechanisms must be more robust and independent. Conflict reviews should not be managed by internal structures reporting to those under scrutiny. Independent ethics committees with external expertise can depoliticise assessments. But structures alone are insufficient without cultural change. Boards must adopt zero tolerance toward grey-zone conflicts, where even perceived compromised judgment triggers recusal, not just legal violations. Ethical behaviour must be incentivised, not incidental. Executive performance metrics often focus on profitability, growth, or shareholder value. But ethical governance should be tied to performance evaluations and bonus structures. Stakeholder trust, reputational stewardship and ethical conduct must carry weight in boardroom remuneration decisions. Finally, governance culture must prioritise values over vagueness. It is not enough to have conflict of interest policies on paper. Boards must actively pose ethical questions, encourage critical reflection and normalise discomfort. A culture that rewards candour, curiosity and dissent is one that builds long-term resilience and trust. Ethical governance lives in the gap between law and leadership. Conflict of interest is not merely a legal risk; it is a test of character. It demands more than checklists and compliance registers. It demands boards and executives who are willing to declare their interests fully, recuse themselves meaningfully and interrogate decisions with integrity. As directors, we must ask ourselves: Are we fostering a boardroom culture that prioritises disclosure over defensiveness? Are we willing to challenge colleagues when grey-zone decisions arise? Do we understand the reputational cost of passive complicity? Are we prepared to act with courage when conflict surfaces, or will we hide behind process? In an era of rising public scrutiny and stakeholder activism, governance legitimacy will not be earned by technical compliance. It will be earned by ethical clarity. And that clarity is forged in the grey zones, where the law is silent, but leadership must speak. Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), (IoDSA) and an Academic. Image: Supplied * Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), (IoDSA) and an Academic. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. BUSINESS REPORT
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Stitch Group acquires Efficacy Payments, secures DCSP designation to offer card acquiring services
Digital payments company Efficacy has been acquired by the Stitch Group, enabling it to become one of the first fintechs to offer direct card clearing services in the market. South Africa-based payments infrastructure company Stitch Group has announced acquisition of Efficacy Payments, its second major strategic acquisition, enabling the firm to offer card acquiring services directly to merchants as a Designated Clearing System Participant (DCSP), and provide more seamless and cost-effective transactions. By bringing Efficacy within the Stitch Group, Stitch Group has become one of the first fintechs in South Africa to offer direct card clearing both online and in-person, underscoring its commitment to serving clients across more of their payments needs. As a designated clearing system participant, Stitch can offer a comprehensive, end-to-end card product with full control over the whole product lifecycle. Stitch is the gateway, switch and the acquirer: Merchants can work with one provider that can perform the end to end acquiring service across technical, compliance, financial and operational requirements Stitch Group is directly connected to Visa and Mastercard: There is no dependency on an intermediary acquiring bank or switch, removing potential failure points from the transactions For enterprise merchants, this results in: Better conversion: due to optimisations in the way messages are passed through card networks Faster access to new products and features: due to a reduction in bank and third party dependencies and delays, Stitch has greater autonomy to provide the latest products and features to its clients Real time reporting and reconciliation: merchants monitor the state of their payments and associated fees through a real-time view of transactions, as well as set up custom reporting at various frequencies, with fewer settlement and reconciliation issues Cost savings: from lower fees by working with one provider, thanks to optimisations in the way messages are sent, and a reduction in the need for internal resources to manage reconciliation across multiple interfaces and multiple parties 'We're excited to welcome the Efficacy team into the Stitch Group and offer this critical solution to the merchants we work with. Card processing is an essential requirement for businesses in South Africa, and we've seen a lot of room for improvement when it comes to conversion, recon capabilities and access to the latest technology. We're excited to see the impact this will have on the way our merchants collect card payments from their customers,' said Junaid Dadan, President and Co-founder at Stitch. Efficacy was launched in 2016, and it was designated as a clearing system participant in 2021, as the second fintech in South Africa to achieve this. This is the second major acquisition for Stitch Group, following its acquisition of ExiPay in January 2025, which allowed the firm to expand from online payments into the in-person payments space. Today Stitch offers a true omnichannel payment platform, allowing multi-lane retailers, telcos and other omni-channel businesses to modernize their in-store and online payment experiences. Stitch emerged from stealth in February 2021 and has raised $107 million in total funding to date, including its recent Series B round of $55 million announced in April 2025. DM For further inquiries, contact [email protected]. About Stitch Stitch is a payments infrastructure company that helps businesses seamlessly connect to the financial system, so they can deliver a better user experience and optimize operations. Headquartered in Cape Town, South Africa, Stitch launched in February 2021 and has global staff. Stitch offers all popular online payment methods as a Payments Service Provider, as well as in-person payments at POS. Its platform supports a variety of pay-in methods and solutions; financial and payment management solutions; and Payouts. Learn more at
The Herald
4 hours ago
- The Herald
Bessent no-show, Brics tensions set to cast shadow over Durban G20 meeting
'Policy uncertainty is the biggest theme now,' South African Reserve Bank deputy governor Fundi Tshazibana told Reuters. The G20 has its origins in past crisis firefighting and took off as countries around the world saw a need to co-ordinate policies to emerge from the global financial crisis of the late 2000s. 'The G20 was built around a presumption that all the world's major economies shared a common interest in a stable, relatively open global economy,' said Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations. 'But Trump doesn't care about stability and wants a more closed global economy.' The Durban gathering of finance chiefs on Thursday and Friday also unfolds against a backdrop of mounting economic pressures, particularly for African economies. Sub-Saharan Africa's external debt has ballooned to $800bn (R14.24-trillion), or 45% of GDP, according to Goldman Sachs, while traditional funding sources are drying up. Chinese lending has slowed to a trickle after years of expansion, leaving an $80bn (R1.42-trillion) financing gap. 'The views they've expressed are if you negotiate them down before taking the loan, they will go with that,' said Trevor Manuel, former finance minister of South Africa who is leading the Africa Expert Panel of the G20. 'But once the loan is made, they expect a return and that is embedded in their legislation. So that is one issue that needs a lot of attention.' China's Belt and Road Initiative has brought significant resources to the African continent, 'but there are also the offsets', said Manuel. 'I think that part of the push in future is greater transparency, which means some of the barter arrangements and so on need to be dealt with differently.'
