A Mpumalanga woman has been denied access to her late husband’s 20-year shareholding in a local concrete maker.
The widow, Patricia Chiloane-Mkhizana, said the benefits from these shares could change her life, so she has mounted a lonely battle for truth and transparency against the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), among others.
She said the corporation refused to release documents confirming her late husband’s participation in a black economic empowerment (BEE) deal it funded in 2003.
The Acornhoek resident is trying to wind up the estate of the late businessman Msizwethu Musa Mkhizana, but cannot proceed without Bosun Holdings confirming details.
“I don’t know how much of the company he owns, what it is worth, or whether his shares are still active. Without this information, I cannot close the estate,” Chiloane-Mkhizana told Sunday World.
Her efforts to obtain the information from the IDC, including a formal application in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, have hit a wall.
The corporation told her that Bosun had instructed it not to disclose the information relating to the transaction to her.
IDC head of corporate affairs Tshego Ramodibe said: “The records sought are contemplated in terms of section 36(1) and 37(1) of PAIA. In terms of section 47 of the act, the information officer must inform a third party.
Ramodibe said Bosun instructed the IDC to refuse the request.
In a letter Sunday World has seen, its law firm claimed that the documents the widow sought contained sensitive commercial information whose release could cause competitive harm.
It further alleged that the request was “frivolous and vexatious” and raised concerns about a perceived conflict of interest by the widow’s former legal representatives, Maluks Attorneys.
But Chiloane-Mkhizana disputes this, saying the information is necessary for arbitration and reporting the matter to the commission.
“They’re making it seem like I’m trying to access secret files for personal gain. I’m trying to confirm my husband’s shareholding so that I can report what looks like fronting,” she said. “Without proof, the BEE Commission won’t even open a case.”
Despite IDC’s central role in structuring BEE deals, the corporation insists it has no further obligation in the matter.
“We do not meddle in disputes involving funded companies. For the record, we do not even hold equity in Bosun Bricks. Our view is that this matter should be resolved by the executor of the deceased’s estate,” said Ramodibe.
When asked directly whether the IDC believes commercial confidentiality overrides the rights of a surviving spouse seeking to access BEE records, Ramodibe replied, “Yes.”
He added, “The IDC can’t intervene or mediate. Now that this is a PAIA matter, the Mkhizana family is at liberty to refer their query to the Office of the Information Regulator (South Africa).”
As a state-owned entity tasked with promoting inclusive participation in the economy, the IDC plays a critical role in enabling BEE transactions, ensuring compliance and transparency.
“They are gatekeeping the very records that prove whether my husband was a legitimate shareholder. Without that, I have no leg to stand on,” said Chiloane-Mkhizana.
“If he had shares, I should be allowed to prove it. If he was used, then someone must account.”
She is now preparing to escalate the matter to the commission, but fears that without supporting documents, she will be turned away.
“They’re telling me to go report the matter while refusing to give me what I need to do so. It’s a trap, an injustice wrapped in red tape.”
She argues that the IDC’s silence may unwittingly be enabling families to be left high and dry when
their BEE participant loved ones pass away.
“This isn’t just about me. If the IDC can walk away from a BEE deal it facilitated, what chance do other widows have?” she asked.
As the questions pile up and the records remain sealed, Chiloane-Mkhizana’s search for justice continues, trapped between the silence of a state entity and the secrecy of a private company.
Bosun had not responded at the time of going to print to a request for comment sent via its lawyers.
