AfriForum’s Private Prosecution Unit has accused the National Prosecuting Authority of “either selective prosecution or complete incompetence” in deciding not to charge African National Congress (ANC) secretary-general Fikile Mbalula over his 2016 Dubai holiday.

In a submission to National Director of Public Prosecutions Shamila Batohi, the organisation said that, despite investigative shortcomings: “there is sufficient evidence to charge Mbalula, and possibly his alleged benefactors, with corruption and money laundering.”

The case centres on Mbalula’s R680 000 family trip to Dubai, partly paid for by Yusuf Dockrat, a director of Sedgars Sport, which at the time supplied the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee. Mbalula was then South Africa’s Minister of Sport and Recreation. Mbalula and Dockrat deny wrongdoing, saying the R300 000 used to pay a travel agency was a loan. It is recorded that Dockrat paid R300 000 to the travel agency on Mr Mbalula’s behalf.

It is alleged that the remaining R380 000 was settled in cash. It is further alleged that Boxing South Africa chief executive Tsholofelo Lejaka delivered R150 000 in cash to the travel agency and that his secretary, Zukisani Nazo, made two cash deposits of R75 000 on the same day, with a final cash deposit at the First National Bank branch at OR Tambo International Airport closing the balance. Boxing South Africa is the statutory body under the Department of Sport and Recreation, which Mr Mbalula oversaw at the time, which is why the alleged involvement of its officials has drawn scrutiny. AfriForum argues the origin and routing of these funds were not properly established.

AfriForum disputes the loan version, arguing that the police: “did not properly investigate the source of the R380 000 cash” and further contends that funds also moved through a businessman who is the husband of a Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions. The unit says these flows warranted deeper inquiry.

Adv Gerrie Nel, head of AfriForum’s Private Prosecution Unit, said its representations were: “based on the NPA’s lack of understanding of the elements of corruption,” while spokesperson Barry Bateman said Mbalula repaid the: “loan” only once journalists began asking questions.

Mbalula said AfriForum was: “resuscitating a matter that has long been investigated, reviewed, and closed by the competent authorities of the Republic.” He noted that the NPA, Parliament’s ethics committee, the South African Police Service, and the Public Protector had each examined the issue. “The NPA made its decision after due consideration,” he said. “The Public Protector found no conflict of interest, only a perceived appearance of one, and merely recommended that the NPA examine a limited aspect, which was duly done.”

He added that AfriForum was conducting: “a sensational trial through media leaks” and vowed to “pursue robust protection of all my rights.”

AfriForum, meanwhile, says it will persist with its representations to have the NPA’s decision reviewed, arguing that the public interest requires a prosecution: “without fear or favour.”