A dramatic ruling has cast a spotlight on the final months of Mosiuoa Gerard Patrick Lekota, finding that he was mentally incapacitated for nearly a year before his death and raising serious questions about how his affairs were handled.
In a judgment handed down in the Pretoria High Court, Judge A. Millar declared that the Congress of the People founder and former cabinet minister was “of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs from May 25, 2025, to the date of his death on March 4, 2026″.
Court papers reveal that Lekota’s health deteriorated sharply after April 2025. Medical experts concluded that his cognitive state never recovered to a level where he could function independently.
Dr Z Makasi, a neurologist, noted that while there had been some physical improvement, Lekota “primarily remained dependent upon other persons for physical and neurological [cognitive] activities of daily functioning”.
By January 2026, his condition had worsened significantly. The court heard that he “struggled doing a basic neurological mental exam… especially in concentration, memory recall, as well as higher-order functioning”, scoring just 20 out of 30.
Dispute between Lekota’s wife and partner
His wife, Ntombenhle Lekota, described deeply troubling interactions that raised alarm about his mental state.
“It came as a complete shock to me that the patient… was not aware of the status of the medical aid,” she told the court.
She added that he could not explain why monthly financial support payments had stopped, saying: “The patient could not provide me with an explanation… nor could he remember or recall any past payments made.”
Her fears escalated when he appeared unable to recall even basic financial details: “The patient informed me that he does not know who his broker or financial advisor is or what the status of his bank accounts were.”
In another disturbing moment, Lekota confused key figures in his life, telling his partner she had supported him during his imprisonment on Robben Island, something the court noted was impossible.
The case exposed a bitter dispute between Mrs Lekota and Advocate Luzelle Adams, Lekota’s partner at the time.
A turning point came when a medical report, initially consented to, was later withheld after consent was suddenly withdrawn.
The court found this deeply concerning, noting it was “inexplicable” that consent could be withdrawn by someone already deemed cognitively impaired.
The judgment details substantial financial transactions during Lekota’s incapacity, including over R1-million paid to Adams.
Most strikingly, R400 000 was transferred from Lekota’s account on February 12, 2026, while court proceedings about his mental capacity were underway.
Millar found the timing highly suspicious, stating. “The inference is irresistible that… Adv Adams emptied Mr Lekota’s bank account, presumably while the parties were negotiating in good faith at court.”
Allegations ‘stand unchallenged’
Despite the seriousness of these claims, Adams did not address them in court papers. The judge noted that key allegations “stand unchallenged”.
Millar delivered a blunt assessment of the conduct in the matter. He described arguments that the case had become irrelevant after Lekota’s death as “fallacious, self-serving, and entirely contrived”.
He also criticised the lack of cooperation with court-appointed officials, calling explanations provided “disgraceful and indicative of an attempt to obstruct”.
Importantly, the court found that Adams knew of Lekota’s condition, stating she “knew he was unable to manage his affairs, at least from May 25, 2025.
The court ordered Adams to pay punitive legal costs and directed that her conduct be reported to the Legal Practice Council and the Johannesburg Society of Advocates.
It also raised concerns about the conduct of the treating neurologist, ordering that the matter be referred to the Health Professions Council of South Africa.
Despite Lekota’s death, the court made it clear the matter remains critical.
“The death of Mr Lekota could never have provided a respite… in having to account for actions with regard to the joint estate,” the judge ruled.
