Ramaphosa’s office rebuffs Mabuza pension saga
The office of President Cyril Ramaphosa has described the R44m dispute over late former Deputy President David Mabuza’s pension money as a family matter ‘that has nothing to do with the Pesident nor the Presidency’.
That’s according to spokesperson Vincent Magwenya after Mabuza’s daughter, Tamara Silinda, last week filed an urgent application to stop Alexander Forbes from paying the funds to Nonhlahla Mnisi, who was the second lady of the country when Mabuza was Ramaphosa’s deputy.
The Mail & Guardian reports that the case will sit at the Mpumalanga High Court today.
Silinda is demanding that Alexandra Forbes pay her R40 000 monthly towards her basic maintenance, including clothing, transport, and medical expenses. She says she was dependent on Mabuza’s medical aid, hence her demands for her medical expenses to be covered from his pension money.
She is also demanding that Alexandra Forbes pay R127 990 towards her yearly tuition fees at UCT pending the finalisation of the matter.
Her mother, Emunah Silinda, is the first applicant in the matter and Tamara is the second applicant.
Mnisi has been cited as the first respondent, Alexandra Forbes as the second respondent, the Master of the High Court as the third, the Presidency as the fourth, the government pension administrator as the fifth and Mabuza’s six other dependents as the other respondents.
Mabuza, who served as Deputy President from February 2018 to February 2023, died in July.
M&G reports that the copy of his death certificate, attached to documents before the court, shows that he was never married, raising questions about his union with the former second lady.
Asked whether the Presidency was aware that Mabuza was customarily married or that he was allegedly not married to Mnisi, Mangwenya did not respond.
M&G notes that Alexander Forbes spokesperson Fiona Rollason said the company was aware of the application brought by Silinda, but would not oppose it: ‘As a financial services provider, we are committed to treating all client matters with the highest level of confidentiality. For this reason, we are unable to share further details on the specifics of the case.’
She added that the company would respect the judicial process and abide by the decision of the court.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
