Deputy Finance Minister David Masondo (pictured) has resigned as chairperson of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), ending his tenure amid a governance crisis that has seen the chief executive suspended, a succession of board resignations, and the Financial Sector Conduct Authority launch an investigation into Africa’s largest asset manager.
In a statement announcing his resignation on 23 July 2026, Masondo defended the outgoing board’s conduct and called for unresolved matters – including a whistleblower report, allegations against suspended chief executive Patrick Dlamini and the controversial Acapulco investment – to be fully investigated rather than “swept under the carpet”.
His departure is the latest development in weeks of upheaval at the PIC, which manages more than R3 trillion in assets, predominantly on behalf of the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF).
On 24 July, Godongwana confirmed that he had asked all PIC board members either to step down or make representations explaining why they should not be removed. He said five board members had resigned following his request, in addition to two who resigned after Dlamini’s suspension.
Godongwana described Masondo’s decision to step aside as “both good and necessary, given the governance challenges confronting the institution”. His statement brought into sharper focus the breakdown between the board Masondo chaired and the minister who represents the government as the PIC’s sole shareholder.
The statements from Masondo and Godongwana bring into sharper focus the breakdown between the board Masondo chaired and the minister who represents the government as the PIC’s sole shareholder.
Masondo said he had decided to resign “in the interests of the Republic of South Africa, the continued stability of the PIC, and the confidence of the millions of South Africans whose savings are entrusted to this institution”.
He also made a pointed reference to the shareholder minister.
“As board chair, I served at the pleasure of the shareholder minister, whose powers are prescribed by law and must be exercised with due care, diligence, and in accordance with the law,” Masondo said.
He said Godongwana had recognised that, in performing his duties, he had acted with integrity and in good faith.
Masondo defended the decisions taken during his tenure, saying the board had acted collectively, based on sound legal advice, and in accordance with the principles of good governance.
Masondo did not say that Godongwana’s move against the board prompted his resignation.
The minister said instability at the PIC posed “systemic risk to the economy”, and he would provide further details once consultations had been completed and a new board appointed.
How the crisis unfolded
The immediate governance crisis involves several overlapping issues, including questions arising from the PIC’s investment in Acapulco Trading 101, an empowerment vehicle that acquired a stake in Lanseria International Airport.
The PIC financed Acapulco’s acquisition of a 25% stake in Lanseria in 2013. After Acapulco defaulted on the loan, the PIC took control of the shares pledged as security.
A dispute over their value ultimately went to arbitration, resulting in the PIC paying more than R400 million to Acapulco.
Dlamini, who became PIC chief executive years after the original investment, subsequently commissioned PwC to investigate aspects of the transaction.
That investigation later became intertwined with a wider governance dispute.
Daily Maverick reported, based on a 141-page draft PwC forensic report it obtained, on questions concerning the valuation of Acapulco’s stake and payments made by the PIC following the arbitration.
Daily Maverick noted that the PwC document was a draft and that its findings remained subject to amendment or withdrawal.
In June, Masondo announced that matters arising from the Acapulco transaction had been referred to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), following information that emerged during the PwC investigation.
He returned to the issue in his resignation statement, listing “the Acapulco matter, which I referred to the SIU” among the outstanding matters he hoped would be thoroughly investigated and appropriately addressed.
Whistleblower allegations emerge
While the PwC investigation was under way, an anonymous whistleblower complaint raised a series of allegations concerning Dlamini’s conduct and governance at the PIC.
Among the issues raised were questions about his authority to commission the PwC investigation and alleged conflicts arising from previous professional connections involving Lanseria.
Dlamini has denied wrongdoing.
News24 reported on 21 June that Dlamini, through his lawyers, described the whistleblower report as “malicious fiction” and disputed its allegations.
One of the contested issues was whether he had authority to commission the PwC investigation. The whistleblowers alleged there was no board resolution authorising it, whereas Dlamini’s lawyers said the board approved the investigation in September 2025 and received regular reports on its progress.
Daily Maverick separately reported that the PIC had said Dlamini acted within his powers and delegated authority when the investigation was commissioned.
These competing claims have not been finally determined.
The board began assessing the whistleblower allegations and subsequently decided they should be independently investigated.
Board suspends Dlamini
On 13 July, the board placed Dlamini on precautionary suspension pending an independent investigation.
The PIC emphasised that the suspension was intended to ensure a fair, objective, and independent investigation and did not constitute a finding or pronouncement of wrongdoing against Dlamini.
Masondo later said nine of the board’s 11 members had supported the decision and that the board had obtained legal advice before acting.
At a staff town hall on 16 July, he defended the decision, saying the board could not ignore serious allegations placed before it.
According to a statement shared by National Treasury, Masondo said ignoring the allegations would itself have constituted a failure of governance.
Dlamini is challenging his suspension in court.
Currency News reported on 24 July that he had launched an urgent application in the High Court in Pretoria seeking to have the suspension declared unlawful. The matter is set down for 28 July.
Dlamini told Currency he believed he had to challenge the lawfulness of the board’s conduct and decision.
FSCA launches investigation
The crisis widened on 14 July when the FSCA announced a formal investigation into the PIC under section 135 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act.
The regulator said it had become increasingly concerned about governance and oversight at the PIC following reports of whistleblower allegations, board resignations, and instability within the institution.
The PIC subsequently said it welcomed the regulatory oversight and had furnished documents requested by the FSCA.
Questions about earlier communications between PIC management and the regulator later became another point of contention.
At the 16 July town hall, Masondo said the board had not been informed of earlier FSCA requests for information relating to the whistleblower matter.
According to the Treasury-shared statement, he also said legal advice obtained in connection with the PwC report had initially not been made available to him.
These were Masondo’s account of events and have not been established as findings by the FSCA.
Board resignations accelerate
The turmoil was accompanied by a succession of resignations from the PIC board.
Non-executive directors Thabi Nkosi and Nosiphiwo Balfour resigned on 15 July, shortly after Dlamini was suspended.
Godongwana said a further five board members subsequently resigned following his request to the board.
Masondo subsequently resigned as chair.
The upheaval coincided with a process that had already begun to appoint a new PIC board.
On 16 July, Daily Maverick reported, based on a Government Gazette notice, that National Treasury had called for nominations for positions on the PIC board before Dlamini’s suspension and the immediate governance crisis. The call for nominations was published at the end of May, with nominations closing on 6 June.
The earlier board-appointment process therefore predated the current governance crisis and Godongwana’s intervention in the composition of the board.
Godongwana said on Friday that he would, in consultation with Cabinet, appoint a new board in terms of section 6(1) of the PIC Act.
The GEPF, the PIC’s largest client, said in a statement on 24 July that it was concerned about the developments affecting the board insofar as they could affect investment decision-making. It said it was engaging Godongwana and the PIC for assurances that the interests of the fund and its stakeholders would not be adversely affected.
“The GEPF will continue to monitor the situation at the PIC and, where deemed appropriate, will take any action within its legal responsibilities, mandate, and fiduciary duties to protect the interests of the GEPF, its members, pensioners, and beneficiaries,” the statement said.
The precise origins and extent of the disagreements between the Masondo-led board and Godongwana are less clear. Business Day has reported that tensions arose over Dlamini’s restructuring of the PIC’s investment function and what it described as concerns about Masondo’s involvement in operational matters.
The wider context includes efforts to address the PIC’s unlisted investment portfolio – an area Masondo specifically highlighted as he departed.
He said he trusted that governance and investment reforms, “particularly in the unlisted portfolio”, initiated by the previous board would continue.
‘Not swept under the carpet’
The departure of Masondo and most of the outgoing board does not resolve the allegations, investigations, and litigation that have accumulated during the crisis.
In his resignation statement, he specifically identified the whistleblower report, the allegations against Dlamini, the Acapulco matter referred to the SIU and “other related issues” as matters that should still be thoroughly investigated and appropriately addressed, rather than “swept under the carpet”.
He said some of the matters would be before the High Court on 28 July and argued that the judicial process should be allowed to proceed unhindered despite the resignation of the previous board.
“For the sake of transparency and accountability, it is important that these issues be determined by the courts and brought to their proper legal conclusion, despite the resignation of the previous board,” Masondo said.
Although he believed the board had discharged its responsibilities faithfully, he said “leadership requires placing the institution above oneself”.
He said stepping aside was prudent to avoid uncertainty or distraction affecting the PIC’s stability or undermining confidence in its work.
The disputes at the centre of the governance crisis remain unresolved. Dlamini has not been found guilty of wrongdoing and is challenging his suspension; the FSCA investigation is continuing; and matters arising from the Acapulco transaction remain subject to further scrutiny.
