Africa-Press – Eswatini. A widow businesswoman of Pine Valley survived death by a whisker yesterday morning after the car she was travelling in was purportedly shot at twice by unknown people. Ntombifuthi Maziya, it has been gathered, was from seeing her lawyer in Mbabane and headed home when the alleged shooting incident happened. Information gathered was that she was with her son who was the driver when the alleged assassination attempt was made on her life.
Ntombifuthi is the same woman who is currently embroiled in a legal battle involving her late husband’s company, Swazi Bet. This was after a dispute arose over the ownership of the sports betting company, SwaziBet, trading as EBet. Immediately after the incident, she rushed to the Mbabane Police Station, where she reported the matter. She alleged that she believed the attempt on her life yesterday was linked to the SwaziBet legal dispute. She was interviewed at the police station soon after reporting the matter.
“I am 100 per cent convinced that those involved in my shooting today are linked to the SwaziBet matter,” she alleged. “When this happened, I was from seeing my lawyer to discuss the same matter. My son was driving the car and headed down the Pine Valley road when we suddenly heard two loud sounds hitting the windscreen. It sounded like firecrackers and we panicked. Fortunately, my son did not stop the car as he continued driving until we came to a certain homestead where we immediately raised the alarm. We were advised to report the matter to the police, which we have done,” she said.
Motive
Asked to state why she was suspecting that this was linked to the SwaziBet matter, Ntombifuthi said this could be the only apparent motive to take her life. Not so long ago, Ntombifuthi, who said she is the Director of the company, approached her lawyers, Khumalo Attorneys, instructing them to write to the two South Africans who are currently running EBet in Eswatini to inform them about the termination of their alleged agreement.
On June 28, 2023, through her attorney, Mlungisi Khumalo of Khumalo Attorneys, she addressed a letter to two South African directors informing them about the termination of their agreement with EBet. The letter stated that the agreement to run EBet was to be terminated on July 12, 2023. “It will be illegal for you to continue trading with Swazibet t/a EBet as of the July 12, 2023. Further, our client instructs that you are advised to inform all your clients and business partners about the cancellation of the agreement. Our client will not be held liable for any debts accumulated during this process.
“Furthermore, we will put a notice in the local newspapers to inform the public about these developments. It is well-known that you are currently running the company as non-formal shadow directors and bearer shareholders. That is in contravention with the Money Laundering Act and the Counter Terrorism Act,” wrote Ntombifuthi’s attorney.
“Please note that the Companies Act does not provide for such conduct. Our client stands to suffer a lot from any decision that you may take and you will not suffer any consequences since you are not directors or shareholders of the company. In light of these pertinent facts, our client has decided to cancel the oral agreement she has with yourselves.”
On July 3, 2023, the South African directors, through Sibusiso Shongwe of Sibusiso B. Shongwe and Associates, responded to Ntombifuthi’s letter. They alleged that SwaziBet (PTY) LTD is a company owned by the estate of the late Mduduzi Cyprian Maziya and currently the Maziya extended family and deceased’s children were handling the affairs of the estate.
Shongwe said the law firm was currently the attorneys of record for the Maziya family and SwaziBet. He alleged that the two South African directors were the subject of a partnership agreement with the Maziya family and 90 per cent of the children of the late Mduduzi.
“It is this partnership agreement that has given life to the operations of SwaziBet (PTY) LTD after the death of Mduduzi Maziya, who died with the company not being a going concern, but only existing on paper. Your client has never contributed a cent towards the setting up of the company and she certainly cannot seek to derive any benefit from the company,” Shongwe wrote.
He further stated that there was an appeal before the Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Affairs on the decision of the Gaming Board to recognise Ntombifuthi as the lawful wife of the late Mduduzi. Before leaving office, former Minister of Tourism and Environmental Affairs Moses Vilakati ordered that the SwaziBets (Pty) Ltd bookmakers licence be renewed.
Vilakati ordered that he and the Gaming Board did not have power to hold that the marriage certificate or customary marriage concluded between Mdziniso and Mduduzi was bigamous. The appellants, according to the minister, must approach the relevant court for the determination of this issue.
Further, the former minister ordered the Gaming Board to appoint at least two people as co-licence holders by giving Mdziniso and Tamama Maziya (Mduduzi’s daughter) first preference unless wither of them was disbarred by a competent order from acting as such. The minister of Tourism heard the appeal against the finding of the chairperson of the Eswatini Gaming Control Board that the spouse of the late licence holder of EBet was a legitimate wife.
Simo Simelane is the Chairperson of the Board. In his ruling, Simelane found that at face value, none of the disagreeing parties qualified for vetting to permanently hold the EBet licence. The parties are Ntombifuthi, who was married to the original SwaziBet (Pty) Ltd, trading as EBet, licence holder and the two South Africans, who are currently running the company. The original licence holder was Mduduzi Maziya, who is now deceased. His son, Mxolisi, who took over from him, has also died.
Following Mxolisi’s death, which created a vacuum in the directorship of the company, the South Africans moved an application to run the company. However, the Board Chairperson (Simelane), in his ruling, partially upheld Ntombifuthi’s objection to the South Africans renewing the betting licence. Simelane upheld the objection only to the extent of her, at face value, being the surviving spouse to the late Mduduzi and as an eligible person for vetting on the basis of her marriage certificate.
The chairperson also ruled that Ntombifuthi and a selected party among the respondents were granted provisional renewal of the SwaziBet trading as EBet licence for a period of four months reckoned from the date of the expiry of the current provisional licence. The parties, according to the ruling, were directed to furnish the Board with the name of the executor appointed in the estate of Mduduzi or a mutually agreed representative for appointment by the Board, and/or any person pronounced as eligible for vetting by order of the court on or before the last month of expiry of the current renewal of the licence.
Suspension
The ruling stated that should the parties fail, especially with the above order, the Board would initiate possible licence suspension proceedings pending a solution or finality to the dispute between the parties. The chairperson directed that either of parties were entitled to explore appeal or review avenues laid down by law. The two South Africans, however, filed an appeal against the decision of the Board chairperson, that Ntombifuthi was the lawful wife, before the minister of Tourism.
The issue before the Board to determine who was to be given authority to hold the licence, whether each or both of the contesting parties could be said to be eligible to hold the licence in respect of the company, which is under the regulation of the Board.
Section 38 (2) of the Gaming Control Act, 2022 provides that: “Where a person who is under curatorship or deceased is the sole holder of the licence, the Board may, in its discretion authorise a husband or wife, next of kin, authorised representative or the executor of the estate of that person who has made an application for that licence to continue conducting the gaming operation under that licence’.
The Chairperson, Simelane, said it was common cause that the information establishing the legal standing of a claimant as a surviving spouse (wife), next of kin, authorised representative rested, almost entirely, or occurred through the presentation of documents.
The Board’s task, he said, was to go through the documents presented in its exercise of due diligence. Simelane stated that in practice, if the Board was presented with a marriage certificate, it was not endowed with the powers to investigate the circumstances of issue of same or whether or not the holder of the document ought to have been issued with the certificate in law.
He mentioned that this had solid backing in law since a document was prima facie proof of the contents thereof and in the absence of proved fraud it was admitted for such purpose. An issue was raised by the respondents of alleged fraudulent procurement of the marriage certificate filed by Ntombifuthi, who was represented by Mlungisi Khumalo of Khumalo Attorneys.
Simelane said it was the Board’s view that it was not within its power to investigate the authenticity of a document filed before it with forensic precision. He said it sufficed if the document was reasonably possibly true both in form and in substance. “There are lawful and comparatively competent law agencies to deal with issues of investigation of fraud. It is not the Board’s task either to pronounce on the validity of the alleged marriage between the objector and the late,” said Simelane.
For More News And Analysis About Eswatini Follow Africa-Press
