NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (NDPP) ADV ANDY MOTHIBI CONDEMNS THREATS AGAINST THE NPA AND SENIOR OFFICIAL IN THE ASSET FORFEITURE UNIT 

12 February 2026 

NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (NDPP) ADV ANDY MOTHIBI CONDEMNS THREATS AGAINST THE NPA AND SENIOR OFFICIAL IN THE ASSET FORFEITURE UNIT 

The NDPP, Adv Andy Mothibi, has seen a video that is circulating widely on social media, of an alleged Mkhonto Wesizwe Party (MKP) member who brazenly attempted to barge into the NPA head office, apparently looking for a senior official of the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU). 

In the video recorded outside the NPA building, he uttered threats designed to intimidate the AFU senior financial investigator for doing his work. He further threatened to bring a mob to block access to the NPA head office for 14 days, or until money is released to “the women of South Africa”. The NDPP strongly condemns this behaviour and views the tactic as not only unlawful, as it is an attempt to interfere in the work of the NPA, but also as an attack on the rule of law. 

The background to the matter is that two preservation orders to the total amount of over R4 million (R4 193 968.77) were granted by the Pretoria High Court to the AFU in 2024, related to the Growsave Stokvel. The Preservation Orders were in respect of funds held in various bank accounts in the name of Women Against Poverty and Hunger (Pty) Ltd (WAPH) and others. The first order was granted on 30 September 2024 for an amount of R4 057 259.00 and the second was granted on 16 October 2024 for R136,709.77. 

Subsequently, the Pretoria AFU was granted a Forfeiture Order of R136 709.77, including interest accrued by the Pretoria High Court on 19 June 2025. On 26 November 2025, the court delivered a judgment setting aside the initial preservation order of R4 057259.00 and directing the release of the frozen accounts. 

The NDPP disputes both the correctness and the legality of that judgment and has filed an application for leave to appeal against the judgment. At this stage, the matter is far from concluded, as there are two interlocutory applications pending, namely the application for leave to appeal and an application in terms of section 18(1) read with 18(3) of Superior Courts Act, to determine whether the order directing the release of the frozen accounts should be suspended, pending an appeal. 

AFU received information from the National Consumer Commission (NCC) that WAPH (and/or members associated with it) invited members of the public, via various online media platforms including Facebook, to invest a once-off amount of R300 and receive monthly groceries for 12 months. The R300 payment entitles members to 10kg bags of flour, mealie meal, and rice, as well as a 2-litre cooking oil and 2kg sugar. Members would receive these items once a month for 12 months, provided the R300 payment was made. 

A price comparison with different retailers revealed that the total value of these items amounts to R441.87 per month, meaning that WAPH promised groceries worth R5 302.44 for a once-off payment of R300. In addition, members were encouraged to recruit new members and could earn cash rewards; for example, recruiting 10 members could yield R1 000. 

The investigation determined that WAPH conducted a multiplication scheme, prohibited under section 43(3)(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The NCC calculated that the effective interest rate offered was 1,667.47%, exceeding the repo rate by more than 20%. Furthermore, WAPH is not a licensed financial services provider, in contravention of section 7 of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002 (FAIS Act); and is not licensed to receive deposits from the public, thereby violating the Banks Act. 

The primary objective of these legislative provisions is to protect the public from unscrupulous operators and to prevent them from losing their hard-earned money. WAPH is considered such an operator. The AFU therefore contends that the funds in the preserved bank accounts constitute proceeds of unlawful activities. It is important for the public to understand that the AFU does not preserve assets randomly. Assets are preserved only when believed to be proceeds of unlawful activities or instrumentalities of offences listed in Schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA). The AFU submits that WAPH contravened multiple pieces of legislation, thereby placing the public’s money at risk. 

While asset recovery processes are an important part of government’s strategy to effectively deal with corruption, they also play a role in protecting unwitting victims of such unlawful money making or investment schemes. WAHP and its organisers have not litigated their opposition to AFU asset recovery proceedings in a professional and fair manner, prompting the AFU to complain to the AJP of Gauteng Pretoria Division. Lately they have now resorted to threatening both the AFU and police officials involved in the matter. The intimidation and threats are serious and call for urgent action and a criminal case has been registered with the police. 

The NDPP urges anyone who may have legal issues to raise, to do so appropriately by following available legal avenues. 

Issued by: 

Ms Bulelwa Makeke 

Head of Communications 

National Prosecuting Authority 

Cell: 084 702 5617