Former Public Investment Corporation (PIC) board chairperson David Masondo has alleged that chief executive Patrick Dlamini failed to provide the board with a key legal opinion on the contentious Lanseria Airport transaction, raising fresh questions about whether directors had access to all the information required to exercise oversight during the institution's governance crisis.
Masondo, the deputy finance minister, made the allegation in a statement issued in his personal capacity in response to a recent News24 report on a legal opinion by advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC.
According to Masondo, the issue extends beyond a dispute over chronology. At stake, he argues, is whether the PIC board received material information relating to one of the most controversial transactions in the institution's recent history.
"News24's report that PIC CEO Patrick Dlamini received Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC's legal opinion in March and handed it to the Board in June is spectacularly false," Masondo said.
He argued that the report distorted the chronology of events and incorrectly attributed his subsequent actions to legal advice the board had not received from Dlamini.
"Mr Dlamini did not share Ngcukaitobi's opinion with the Board," Masondo said.
He alleged that the opinion was known only to its authors and Dlamini, and that he discovered its existence while pursuing a separate legal inquiry into findings contained in a PwC forensic review of the Acapulco-Lanseria transaction.
Masondo said he sought separate legal advice, received it on 20 June and immediately referred the matter to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU). The referral was publicly announced the following day.
"The obvious question is: why did the CEO not give the March opinion to the Board?" Masondo said.
His latest allegation echoes concerns raised during the height of the PIC crisis about the flow of information between management and the board.
In July, questions emerged about whether the board had been kept informed of regulatory requests and legal developments relating to the whistleblower allegations and the Lanseria matter. Masondo subsequently complained that directors had not always been aware of information requests and legal processes under way.
The latest dispute adds to those concerns and raises again the question of whether the board was receiving the information it needed to exercise effective oversight during a period of deteriorating relations between management and directors.
At the centre of the dispute is the PIC's handling of a R411 million arbitration award paid to Acapulco Trade and Invest 164 following a dispute over its former stake in Lanseria International Airport.
A legal opinion by Ngcukaitobi and his co-authors reportedly recommended a two-track accountability process involving an SIU investigation and internal accountability measures. The opinion examined the circumstances surrounding the valuation process, the appointment of accounting firm Crowe and the conduct of officials during the arbitration proceedings.
The legal team recommended scrutiny of the failure to use an earlier BDO valuation, the appointment of Crowe and the conduct of officials during the arbitration. It also recommended examining possible bad faith or collusion, undisclosed communications and why Crowe's underlying valuation data was not tested during the proceedings.
Masondo also rejects suggestions that he sought to block attempts to investigate the settlement or recover PIC funds.
He points to a letter signed by Dlamini on 9 October 2025 advising the Government Employees Pension Fund that the arbitration award should be honoured. Subsequent submissions to the board also recorded legal advice that a review of the award had poor prospects of success and risked further losses.
"Dlamini and I spoke publicly about this and were always aligned," Masondo said.
According to Masondo, that position changed only after the PwC investigation produced new information. He said he then obtained fresh legal advice and referred the matter to the SIU.
The dispute over the legal opinion comes after weeks of upheaval at the PIC that included Dlamini's precautionary suspension, the resignation of Masondo and six non-executive directors and the appointment of a new board chaired by Seiso Mohai.
The Pretoria High Court earlier this month declared Dlamini's suspension unlawful and invalid. The judgment dealt with the former board's authority and the process followed in suspending him; it did not determine the merits of the whistleblower allegations.
Dlamini has since returned to work, while the new board has committed itself to ensuring that the whistleblower allegations are independently investigated.
Masondo's claim that Dlamini did not provide Ngcukaitobi's opinion to the board remains his account of events. But it adds another unresolved question to the PIC saga: whether the former board received all the information it needed to exercise oversight over one of the most contentious matters in the institution's recent history.