Special Tribunal Dismisses Pule Mabe’s Bid to Halt R27.6 Million Enviro Mobi Proceedings

PRETORIA, Gauteng — The Special Tribunal has dismissed an application by African National Congress National Executive Committee member Pule Mabe to stay legal proceedings against him and his company, Enviro Mobi (Pty) Ltd, ordering him to pay the legal costs associated with the failed bid. The tribunal concluded that the application was without merit and constituted an attempt to delay accountability in an ongoing civil recovery matter involving a contract valued at approximately R27.6 million.

Mabe, cited as the first respondent in the matter, with Enviro Mobi listed as the second respondent, had approached the tribunal seeking to pause the Special Investigating Unit’s (SIU) civil recovery proceedings. His legal team argued that because a parallel criminal investigation was already under way, the two processes should not run concurrently. The tribunal rejected that argument outright.

Selby Makgotho, spokesperson for the SIU, confirmed the ruling and explained its significance. According to Makgotho, the tribunal’s judgment was notably pointed, expressing concern that the application to stay proceedings was effectively an attempt to evade or escape accountability.

“The tribunal has agreed that there was no merit in that [application], and it is quite scathing in the judgment to the effect that they express concern in relation to the delays, as it is seen as an attempt to evade or escape from accountability,” Makgotho said.

Preservation Order Remains in Force Over Property and Vehicle

The dismissal means the SIU can now move forward with its civil recovery proceedings, which aim to review and set aside the R27.6 million contract at the centre of the dispute. The unit had obtained a preservation order in November 2024, which froze a residential property and a vehicle linked to Mabe.

Makgotho clarified that the preserved assets do not currently equal the full R27.6 million owed to the state, but were secured as a preliminary measure to ensure that some recoverable value would be available should the tribunal ultimately rule in the SIU’s favour. The exact value of both the house and the vehicle is still being determined.

“We preserved this on the basis that when we proceed with the review and setting aside of the contract, and when ultimately the funds have to be declared forfeit to the state, there will at least be something that we will be able to recover,” Makgotho explained.

The SIU spokesperson added that the unit would investigate whether additional properties or assets exist that could be used to make up the shortfall if Mabe and Enviro Mobi are unable to pay the difference in cash.

The preservation order, which is an interim measure pending final determination of the case, remains fully operational. The assets cannot be moved, sold, or otherwise disposed of while the order stands.

Civil and Criminal Proceedings Are Distinct, SIU Argues

A central pillar of Mabe’s application was the argument that running civil recovery proceedings alongside a criminal investigation by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) would be prejudicial, since both processes would rely on the same investigative material and derivative forensic reports.

Makgotho pushed back firmly on that contention, explaining that the two processes serve fundamentally different purposes and seek different outcomes.

“The civil recovery proceedings basically look into what funds and monies have been lost to the state, either through a decision-making process that did not give due diligence to governance frameworks or adherence to legislative processes,” Makgotho said. “The criminal elements will then be able to look into the question of intent — as to whether there was any intentional effort to undermine or to loot the funds.”

He stressed that the SIU’s mandate does not extend into the criminal space, but the unit is legally obligated under its governing act to refer any elements of criminality it uncovers during investigations to the NPA. Such referrals are made as soon as criminal elements are identified, without waiting for the broader investigation to conclude.

“It is not a duplication,” Makgotho said. “We do not even wait for the investigations to be concluded, and even in this particular set of circumstances, such a referral was made to the National Prosecuting Authority.”

What Comes Next

With the stay application dismissed and the preservation order intact, the SIU’s immediate next step is to argue before the Special Tribunal for the review and setting aside of the R27.6 million contract. The unit maintains it has strong grounds to justify the recovery action and believes the preserved assets, along with any additional properties that may be identified, will form the basis for recouping public funds.

Makgotho noted that the successful opposition of Mabe’s application reinforces the SIU’s position that it had made a compelling case before the tribunal when it initially secured the preservation order.

“We had to go and oppose it. It was opposed, and it was granted in favour of the SIU, and now we are moving further to look into the next step, which is the reviewing and setting aside of the contracts and to recover whatever has been lost in this regard,” Makgotho said.

The NPA is expected to pronounce on the criminal aspects of the matter in due course, following its own processes and procedures.