Civil organisations call out Ramaphosa over silence on Edgar Lungu's burial controversy
Image: Rogan Ward/Reuters
Civil organisations have questioned President Cyril Ramaphosa's silence regarding the controversy surrounding the burial of late former Zambian President Edgar Lungu.
The organisations under the banner Progressive Forces For South Africa that include, The South African Concerned Citizens Association, March and March and Reakga Community Project among others laid their concerns bare during a press briefing in Midrand on Thursday.
A dispute has erupted between the Zambian government and Lungu's family over whether he should be buried in South Africa or repatriated to Zambia for a state funeral.
Lungu died last month in South Africa and his remains have become the centre of a dispute.
In the Pretoria High Court, the Zambian government filed an urgent application to prevent Lungu's burial in South Africa.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
They argued that as a former president, Lungu "belongs to the nation of Zambia" and should be interred there. Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema underscored this point, drawing a parallel to the precedent of founding President Kenneth Kaunda's burial in Zambia, which occurred despite his family's desires.
Lungu's family, however, had opted for a private ceremony in South Africa. The High Court halted plans for the burial in South Africa just as it was about to start, following an agreement between the parties.
The court has given the Zambian attorney general until a specified date to submit papers in support of Lungu's repatriation to Zambia, with the matter to be heard on August 4, 2025.
Leader of the organisation, Mthetho Ngcukayithobi is questioning why Ramaphosa has remained silent on the matter saying that South Africa has a diplomatic stance when it comes to former presidents of other states.
Ngcukayithobi also alleged that Lungu was admitted into a Pretoria hospital under a fake name prompting more questions for the South African government.
'The Lungu saga makes us ask critical questions about our own government. Who did the authorities declare dead?...When a former president dies on foreign soil there are diplomatic processes…But in this case it seems none of the steps were followed. Why is our government silent on this?' Ngcukayithobi asked.
"We are saying go and clear your name. We are also saying the former president cannot be buried in a foreign country when he was a president in Zambia. The Zambians deserve to bury their leader," said Ngcukayithobi.
The organisation expresses concerns about potential land claims by the Lungu family in South Africa if he is buried there, highlighting the country's ongoing issues with land claims.
'We, in South Africa, have land issues, with some claims still being processed. We don't want a situation where Lungu's descendants come to claim land here because their ancestor is buried here,' Ngcukayithobi said.
Ngcukayithobi also pointed out that members of Lungu's family are facing serious corruption charges in Zambia, including charges related to proceeds of crime and money laundering against his children.
"The former first family are facing serious corruption charges back home. This is about state capture and asset looting in Zambia. These beneficiaries live in SA comfortably," said Ngcukayithobi.
The dispute over Lungu's burial underscores the tense relationship between him and his successor, President Hichilema, which continued even after Lungu's death.
During Lungu's presidency, Hichilema was arrested for treason.
Lungu's family during a press briefing recently asserted that the reason they did not want the former president to be buried in Zambia was because they feared his remains would not be properly buried because of the feud with the current president.
South African presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya had not responded to the allegations at the time of going to print
mashudu.sadike@inl.co.za
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA government officially withdraws recognition of Taiwan's office in Pretoria
Taiwan has rejected the move and threatened to retaliate, saying that Pretoria had bowed to pressure from Beijing. The South African government has issued a Government Gazette officially withdrawing its diplomatic recognition of Taiwan's representative office in Pretoria. This is the latest move in Pretoria's mounting pressure to force Taiwan to move out of its Pretoria office and relocate to Johannesburg. Taiwan has rejected and strongly protested at the 'unilateral action' and said it would 'take appropriate action in accordance with the circumstances'. It said the SA government had bowed to pressure from Beijing. Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Mofa) said the South African government had published its 'unreasonable announcement' — without consulting Taiwan — after Deputy President Paul Mashatile's visit to China from July 14 to 18. 'This demonstrates that China has ramped up suppression of Taiwan in South Africa and that South Africa is willing to bow to China and exert pressure on Taiwan. Mofa expresses regret and dissatisfaction over these developments.' Pretoria's notice in the Government Gazette said, 'The Taipei Liaison Office, now referred to as the Taipei Commercial Office, situated in Pretoria, will no longer be recognised as of 31 March 2025. Rather, the Republic of South Africa will, from 1 April 2025, recognise the Taipei Commercial Office, based in Johannesburg, through which consular services will be rendered and through which non-diplomatic and non-political engagements will continue.' Taiwan has no office in Johannesburg, even though on its website, South Africa's Department of International Relations recently and unilaterally changed the address of the country's office from Pretoria to an address in Johannesburg, which used to house Taiwan's information office, before it moved out several years ago. One China policy The SA government has been putting pressure on Taiwan to move from Pretoria to Johannesburg since late 2023. It claimed that Taiwan having an office in the capital violates the One China policy, which SA adopted in 1998 when it switched recognition from Taiwan to the People's Republic of China. However, Taiwan has pointed out that almost all countries in the world, including Russia, India and Brazil, allow Taiwan to maintain representative offices in their capital cities, although these offices go under the name of Taiwan's capital, Taipei, rather than under the name Taiwan. In its notice, SA said it had called on Taiwan to move its office from Pretoria to Johannesburg because this was 'more appropriate, given its status as the country's economic hub'. It added that the Taipei Liaison Office in Cape Town would now be referred to as the Taipei Commercial Office in Cape Town. Taiwan's Mofa said it 'reiterates that the position of the Taiwan government remains unchanged and that it will not accept the South African government's unilateral violation of its 1997 agreement with Taiwan'. This agreement by SA to allow Taiwan to continue maintaining a representative office in Pretoria — but under the name Taipei Liaison Office — was reached after SA switched its official diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China. 'The Taiwan government will continue to communicate with the South African government on the principles of parity and dignity,' said Mofa. 'And in the face of South Africa's repeated unilateral changes to the names and status of Taiwan's liaison offices, Taiwan will take appropriate action in accordance with the circumstances.' Pretoria had justified its move by citing UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971, 'which recognises the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legitimate representative of China'. However, Taiwan has said in the past that this resolution says nothing about the country not being allowed in countries which switch diplomatic recognition to Beijing. 'Mofa solemnly calls on South Africa, as the host country of this year's Group of 20 summit, to abide by the 1997 legal framework concerning bilateral relations and not employ coercive tactics against Taiwan's liaison offices or take any other actions that might interfere with their operations or services before both sides have reached a consensus through consultations.' SA's efforts to pressure Taiwan to move from Pretoria to Johannesburg have been cited by the Trump administration and US congressional representatives as one of the reasons they are seeking to sanction South Africa. DM
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA's organised crime optics — suspicions blur lines between ‘gangsters', celebrities and flashy politicians
Shootings. High-profile figures in the entertainment industry. Politicians. Rogue cops. While there have always been rumoured links between these different arenas, South Africa's unprecedented policing scandal is adding substance to related suspicions. Politics, entertainment and shootings — these elements are part of South Africa's seismic policing scandal that keeps erupting with fresh developments and suspicions. While this saga emphasises just how fragmented the country's law enforcement arena is, it also highlights the proximity of certain politicians to individuals who have become the targets of shootings. This is not to suggest the politicians are in the wrong — they are not simply guilty by association. The overall situation, though, points to a blurring of lines between some public servants and people publicly known for reasons unrelated to the state. This reinforces ideas that political influence is seeping into various arenas. Or, more specifically, what's potting in some political offices is trickling into — and merging with — other spaces and even affecting street-level violence. Optics and organised crime There are optics associated with organised crime — and with politics. Prolific long-term lawbreakers may not flaunt their wealth. They know that discretion helps create hurdles in 'follow the money' investigative paths that lead to jail cells. Financially flamboyant criminals attract more scrutiny. They may not care though, especially if they feel they are above the law. Some organised crime suspects in South Africa flash their wealth — they use luxury cars reinforced against bullets. There are stories of Rolex watches discovered during arrests, and some individuals accused of crime enter courtroom docks in designer gear. Suspects can, based on material wealth, come across as celebrities. Now, just to be clear, people can spend their honestly earned personal money however they choose. This extends to politicians. In a South African context, though, politicians in decision-making positions who are wealthy — and who show it — inevitably draw scrutiny. This is because they are meant to be working to safeguard residents and improve the living conditions of the masses of people who are struggling to survive while up against factors including poor governance and state corruption. Some may therefore view it as crass when elements of politics edge towards celebrity-style realms and reality show-type grandeur. Outfits and opulence On 6 July 2025, KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi held a pivotal press conference during which he made astounding accusations that suggest that some of those in power are selling out South Africans. The optics of this briefing were notable, with some saying it created the impression of a coup. Mkhwanazi wore Special Task Force camouflage — he previously headed the unit — and was surrounded by armed police officers. While his attire was scrutinised and, in some instances, criticised, it may make some sense if what Mkhwanazi alleged is true. He said a drug cartel, headquartered in Gauteng and with ties to South America, was running a criminal syndicate that was embedded with corrupt state figures. It is common knowledge that international cartels are ruthless and murder those who get in their way. Mkhwanazi also alleged that at the end of last year the police minister at the time, Senzo Mchunu, issued a directive to disband the Political Killings Task Team to shield politically connected members of a criminal syndicate from prosecution. Mkhwanazi's other claims included that Mchunu was in cahoots with, among others, attempted murder case accused Vusi 'Cat' Matlala. Mchunu denied the accusations but was placed on leave. As for Matlala, central to the allegations against Mchunu, he seems to be someone who enjoyed an opulent lifestyle. According to News24, he had 'bankrolled a luxurious existence for himself and his family, marked by profligate spending on palatial homes, luxury cars and high-end fashion'. Matlala faces criminal accusations in connection with the attempted murder of actress Tebogo Thobejane, who was wounded in a Sandton shooting in October 2023. Other shootings of high-profile Gauteng figures fit into this broader matrix in which politicians keep cropping up. [WATCH] As the ANC, we do not think that the matters raised by General Mkhwanazi border on politics. We think the matters are so serious that they border on criminality #KhokhelaRamaphosa #ANCRenewalAtWork — ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula (@MbalulaFikile) July 15, 2025 In reaction to Mkhwanazi's allegations, ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula, who was once the minister of police and who is nicknamed 'Razzmatazz' for his flashiness, took to the platform X. Before we get to what he posted on there, it is noteworthy that Mbalula's attire often gets attention. A few years ago, The Citizen even published a lifestyle piece about his 'best looks'. A section of that article referenced what it termed his 'rapper riche' outfits, saying: 'Keeping it young and trendy Mbalul[a] dabbles in loungewear, urban gear, and can often be seen in luxurious Gucci, wearing signature cardigans and embellished beanies. 'He's often spotted in hoodies and comfortable Gucci tracksuits.' Back to issues of national importance. Crime and politics Mbalula, in reaction to Mkhwanazi's recent accusations, posted on X on 15 July 2025: 'As the ANC, we do not think that the matters raised by General Mkhwanazi border on politics. We think the matters are so serious that they border on criminality.' There are obvious overlaps between politics and organised crime, and where they overlap, they are effectively one and the same. Take, for example, the State Capture that crushed the country when Jacob Zuma was president between 2009 and 2018 (when the ANC led South Africa before the Government of National Unity that is now in place). Mkhwanazi's recent accusations suggest the development of other iterations, or the continuation, of that capture. Mbalula, meanwhile, aside from talking about politics bordering on criminality, knew an individual Mkhwanazi referenced during his pivotal press conference — rapper Kiernan Forbes, also known as AKA. In 2020 Mbalula appeared on a TV show that Forbes hosted. He was South Africa's transport minister at the time. Maybe I should start a TV App and calling it's MegaFIX TV ? I've now watched #TheBraaiShowon #AKATV Good job @akaworldwide thank you for the engagement – big ups to your precessional production team. — ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula (@MbalulaFikile) June 11, 2020 Forbes, who was based in Gauteng, went on to be murdered in a shooting with his celebrity chef friend, Tebello Motsoane, in KwaZulu-Natal in February 2023. During his press conference earlier this month, Mkhwanazi pointed out that the police in KwaZulu-Natal had made arrests in that case, while suspects were yet to be taken into custody for other incidents involving high-profile individuals in Gauteng. Mkhwanazi said the suspects in those Gauteng cases had been identified, but prosecutors were basically dragging their feet in signing off on arrests. It appeared that among those Gauteng cases was one linked to Oupa John Sefoka, better known as DJ Sumbody, who was murdered there in a shooting in November 2022. DJ Sumbody's murder Sefoka's Instagram account is full of dazzling photographs. Think designer clothing, liquor and luxury cars. Through entertainment venues he had been associated with individuals including alleged 28s gang boss Ralph Stanfield, who was arrested at his home in the upmarket Cape Town suburb of Constantia in 2023. Sefoka's funeral was an elaborate one. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Djsumbodysa (@djsumbodysa) Among those who spoke at it was EFF leader Julius Malema, whose name is among those embroiled in the VBS bank scandal, and who faces accusations in connection with the alleged discharge of a firearm at a party event in 2018. Back to the Sefoka case. Arrests were only carried out recently, on 21 July 2025, three years after the shooting and only after Mkhwanazi's press conference during which he implied that certain prosecutors were holding up cases. Another politician crops up here. Firstly I believe Kenny 100%, I can't expect everyone to believe him hence we launching a full investigation to proof what we know already know which is that he is innocent. We will share the whole process and findings. — Gayton McKenzie (@GaytonMcK) July 22, 2025 News24 reported that when the police arrested Katiso Molefe, a key suspect in the Sefoka murder case, at his Sandton home, the Patriotic Alliance's Kenny Kunene was outside the house. Kunene, who has a well-documented past involving unrelated crime, insisted to News24 that he was merely accompanying a young journalist there and that he had no relationship with Molefe whatsoever. The Patriotic Alliance's Gayton McKenzie, South Africa's Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture, suspended Kunene the day his presence outside the suspect's home was reported on. McKenzie said this was simply to go through due processes as he believed that Kunene was innocent of any wrongdoing. Now, McKenzie has been open about his past that has involved crime and time in jail. He has before referred to his younger self as 'a common criminal' who became a gangster around the age of 12 or 13 years. As a minister, he has not shied away from that. Gang suspicions It is in this arena that a web of shootings (some with suspected links to gangs in the Western Cape) and court issues start unfurling. These predate, and now include, Sefoka's murder. Politicians' names, for various reasons and again not to suggest that they are in the wrong, are dotted in between. Former Hard Livings gang boss Rashied Staggie was murdered in Cape Town in 2019. Staggie had previously indicated he was backing McKenzie and Kunene's Patriotic Alliance. About a decade ago McKenzie had referred to Staggie as 'a leader'. In 2021 William 'Red' Stevens, widely reputed to have been the most senior 27s gangster, was killed in a shooting in Cape Town. At the time Stevens was facing criminal charges in connection with a murder plot. McKenzie spoke at his funeral. Alleged 28s gang boss Stanfield has several co-accused in the case he is currently charged in. Two of the co-accused face accusations in connection with Stevens' murder. Stanfield also faces charges for a murder conspiracy relating to Staggie's killing. He previously faced other housing tender-linked charges, that were provisionally withdrawn, alongside former DA Cape Town human settlements mayoral committee member, Malusi Booi. Stanfield was among those acquainted with Sefoka, who was murdered in the 2022 Gauteng shooting. It was Sefoka's funeral at which Malema spoke. On 21 July 2025, police officers happened upon Kunene outside the home of one of the suspects arrested in connection with Sefoka's murder. This web, even if the politicians mentioned in it are totally innocent of wrongdoing, is concerning because it is a tiny fragment of a much more expansive web. Mkhwanazi's recent accusations, while yet to be fully tested, highlight other parts of this web and suspected overlaps between organised crime and politics. So far, President Cyril Ramaphosa seems to have taken Mkhwanazi seriously — he has appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate his allegations. As for Malema and McKenzie, they are among politicians who have expressed support for Mkhwanazi (although McKenzie was one of those who viewed Mkhwanazi's press briefing attire as coup-esque). 'Politicians who must still go to prison' The two politicians have quite a past. McKenzie wrote an open letter to Malema back in 2014. A section said: 'Julius, you and I are not 'revolutionaries'. We both know that. We both shop at the same Louis Vuitton and Gucci shops. We both have watches worth hundreds of thousands… 'For people like us to call ourselves revolutionaries is an insult to history's real revolutionaries.' (For his part, at an unrelated event, Malema previously told journalists: 'I bought Louis Vuitton and Gucci before VBS… No one can tell me what to wear and not to wear.') McKenzie had also stated in the letter to Malema: 'You get two kinds of politicians in this country: the ones who come from prison and those who must still go to prison.' Mkhwanazi's recent accusations, paired with past State Capture allegations, now underscore some of McKenzie's words. There are undoubtedly politicians 'who must still go to prison'. Even if the intent behind Mkhwanazi's accusations against politicians and figures in the state is questionable, his allegations have at the very least brought focus onto an arena involving suspicions of rogue state and political activity in organised crime. These kinds of suspicions are not new. And they emphasise how criminality — from killings on street corners, to dirty money spending sprees and political skullduggery — cuts through vastly different sectors and endangers innocent residents. DM
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
How Vodacom and Maziv convinced everyone they had changed
All the details from the Vodacom/Maziv merger Competition Appeals Court hearing where R12bn in promises nearly caused a fender-bender. When senior counsel representing the Competition Commission, advocate Daniel Berger, said, 'My lord, as an officer of the court, I am duty bound to commit this statement to the public record,' I nearly drove my car off the road in shock. I was on my way from collecting my kids from school to drop my son off at his football practice, and things were getting spicy in the post-lunch session of Competition Appeals Court (CAC) proceedings. But how did we get here? The devil in the details Earlier this month, I reported on the Competition Commission's dramatic about-turn on the Vodacom/Maziv merger – how they went from fierce opposition to sudden support after the parties agreed to 'revised conditions'. Now, sitting in back-to-school traffic with a Teams call crackling through my car speakers, I got the full story of exactly what those conditions entail. And frankly, it's either the most comprehensive set of telecoms concessions in South African history, or the most elaborate corporate sleight of hand. The headline number that had everyone's attention was always going to be the money. Maziv has committed to a cumulative capital expenditure (capex) of 'at least R12-billion' over five years for network expansion and maintenance. That's 'two more (billions) than it was before,' as one counsel helpfully clarified for those of us trying to do math while navigating parking lot chaos. But here's where it gets interesting – and where my daughter, sitting in the passenger seat doing homework, started asking why I was shouting at my laptop again: of that R12-billion, R9-billion will be spent specifically on new fibre projects, with the commitment period restarted from April 2025. They've effectively put the 'clock back to zero' on their investment timeline. The kicker? The capex will be 'primarily but not exclusively spent on roll-out of infrastructure in low-income areas.' This isn't just about passing homes – it's about actually connecting them. The million homes promise Maziv has undertaken to pass at least one million homes in lower-income areas over five years, with at least 350,000 homes in what they're calling 'key areas' (think Alexandra Township), what counsel is calling the 'lowest of low-income homes'. My daughter is now asking what I mean when I keep muttering about 'homes passed'. How do you explain to a 14-year-old that a telecoms company just promised to wire up the townships? But the really fundamental concession – the one that had legal eagles in the virtual courtroom practically purring, is this: Maziv must provide 'sufficient capex to ensure that every home passed in terms of the commitments that wishes to be connected on the prevailing terms and conditions for connection is connected' for five years. What this means They can't just run fibre past your house in Alex and then charge you R2,000 to actually connect. They have to budget for actual connections, not just the theatrical gesture of running cables down your street.. Boardroom chess The shareholding arrangements have been tweaked in ways that would make any corporate governance lawyer proud. Vodacom still gets its initial 30% co-controlling equity interest, but the path to 40% just became significantly more complicated. Under the revised conditions, which now meet muster for Compcom sign-off, 'Vodacom can't increase its shareholding beyond 34.9% without the consent of the Commission.' And if it wants to move to more direct forms of control, it'll need fresh merger approval entirely. I gaze directly into the sun, trying to follow the technical submissions about board composition. All parties are now trying to explain, much to the chagrin of the merging parties, to Judge President Norman Manoim that the 'extra four percent' shareholding isn't the nothingburger he keeps making it out to be. You see, the composition of the board has been restructured since the Competition Tribunal blocked the deal: seven Maziv directors, seven Vodacom directors, and now four independent directors (up from three), plus CEO/CFO. Crucially, 'Vodacom will not be entitled to veto their appointment' of independent directors. It's corporate governance with training wheels, designed to address exactly the control concerns that got this deal prohibited in the first place. Clearing the blockade The legal arguments against the Competition Tribunal's original prohibition are where this hearing gets properly spicy. Advocate Jerome Wilson, representing the merging parties, spent considerable time arguing that the tribunal had 'misdirected itself' through what he called 'internal mistrust' and 'cynicism or bias'. The tribunal, Wilson argued, relied on 'extraordinary allegations' about alleged past collusion between Vodacom and MTN from media reports dating back to 1994 – allegations that were never properly tested in proceedings. This context, he said, apparently 'infected the Tribunal's entire reasoning process'. Wilson's most damning critique focused on the tribunal's 'counterfactual analysis', basically, what would happen without the merger. The tribunal assumed Vodacom would become a very significant fibre player in low-income areas and that other players would fill any investment gap. The evidence? A Dark Fibre Africa representative testimony saying it would take 'at least three years for me to find an investor and I cannot guarantee you that I would find one', and that 'nobody else has come up since 2015' other than Vodacom. The tribunal's reliance on speculation rather than what Wilson calls 'real world outcomes' was deemed a fundamental error. But this does not erase the other issues. The maths starts math-thing While lawyers argued legal theory, the market realities are crazy. Pre-merger, Maziv (through Vumatel) commanded 32% of the fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) market with 2,050,000 homes passed. Vodacom's standalone fibre network? A measly 2.5% with 158,000 homes. Post-merger, the combined entity will control 34.5% of homes passed (2,208,000) and 34.4% of homes connected (885,000). That makes them significantly larger than Telkom's Openserve at 20.9% of homes passed. I explain to my now fully engaged teenager that this deal is essentially creating a duopoly in South Africa's wholesale fibre market: Vodacom-Maziv versus Openserve, with everyone else scrambling for scraps. Which was the original Compcom opposition point, until the merging parties sweetened the deal to get government buy-in – the DTIC and communications minister both supported the appeal. Honeypot dealmaking These post-tribunal public interest commitments read like a policymaking wet dream. Free gigabit per second fibre connections for all public schools, libraries, and clinics passed by the FTTH network roll-out. More police stations getting Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) products. Enhanced employee share ownership plans. Vodacom has also committed to achieving 90% 5G population coverage within five years, with obligations to connect additional FWA users that will require them to 'price their FWA competitively'. For pricing protection, FTTH can't increase prices for the lowest-price options for two years, and there can be 'no forced upgrades' for five years – protecting lower-income consumers from being pushed on to more expensive packages. You see, the tribunal's concern was that Vodacom's veto rights could allow it to force Maziv to act against its profit-maximising interests – essentially, to favour Vodacom over other wholesale customers. The merging parties argued this was a 'fundamental conceptual error'. Vodacom would account for 'less than 20% of Maziv's revenues', so any theoretical side payments or compensation for non-profit-maximising behaviour simply wouldn't make economic sense. The burden of debt What's often lost in the regulatory theatre is why Maziv needed this deal in the first place. CIVH, Maziv's parent company (owned by Remgro), was carrying R19.5-billion in debt by mid-2024. This merger provides the capital injection needed to fund the next phase of fibre expansion, particularly into areas where the business case is marginal. The 'lessening of competition' identified by the tribunal primarily affected 'certain wealthier households' – about 2,000 to 7,500 homes, according to the merging parties. They argued this was insignificant when weighed against connecting a million low-income homes. One genuinely innovative aspect of the revised conditions is an enhanced 'fast-track interim relief process' for foreclosure concerns. This allows an expert to make binding determinations while formal investigations are under way, 'taking the load off the commission' for complex, time-sensitive issues. It's regulatory innovation born from regulatory failure. A recognition that the traditional competition processes aren't nimble enough for rapidly evolving telecoms markets. Concession is a town in Zimbabwe As I finally switch off the Teams call, the bigger picture comes into focus. Compcom's about-turn isn't just about accepting better conditions, it's about accepting that South Africa's digital infrastructure reality requires uncomfortable compromises. The revised deal creates what's being called a 'fibre powerhouse with unparalleled market scale' while theoretically addressing competition and public interest concerns. Whether those theoretical protections work in practice remains to be seen. But here's the uncomfortable truth that emerged from the proceedings: the same companies we don't trust to compete fairly are the only ones with deep enough pockets to bridge our digital divide. In a country where millions still lack basic connectivity, that might be a trade-off we're willing to make. DM
