NPA condemns intimidation attempt against senior official linked to asset preservation case

The National Prosecuting Authority has condemned what it describes as an unlawful and brazen attempt to intimidate a senior official in its Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU), after a video surfaced on social media showing a man attempting to force his way into the NPA’s head office.

In the video, recorded outside the NPA building, the man is allegedly seen demanding access while looking for a senior AFU financial investigator involved in a high-profile asset preservation case.

According to the NPA, he “uttered threats designed to intimidate the AFU senior financial investigator for doing his work” and threatened to mobilise a group to block access to the offices for 14 days, or until money is released to “the women of South Africa”.

National Director of Public Prosecutions Advocate Andy Mothibi said the conduct amounted to more than mere protest.

“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 authority said in a statement. A criminal case has since been registered with police.

Legal Context

The confrontation is linked to a legal battle over more than R4 million connected to the Growsave Stokvel matter. In 2024, the Pretoria High Court granted two preservation orders to the AFU totalling R4,193,968.77.

The first, issued on 30 September 2024, froze R4,057,259.00 held in bank accounts linked to Women Against Poverty and Hunger (Pty) Ltd (WAPH) and others. A second order, granted on 16 October 2024, preserved a further R136,709.77.

On 19 June 2025, the court granted a forfeiture order in respect of the R136,709.77, including accrued interest. However, on 26 November 2025, the court set aside the larger preservation order and directed that the frozen accounts be released.

Mothibi confirmed that the NPA is challenging that decision.

“The NDPP disputes both the correctness and the legality of that judgment and has filed an application for leave to appeal against the judgment,” the statement said, adding: “At this stage, the matter is far from concluded.” Two interlocutory applications are pending, including one seeking to suspend the release of the funds while the appeal process unfolds.

Investigation Findings

The matter originated from information provided by the National Consumer Commission (NCC), which raised concerns about WAPH’s business model.

According to investigators, WAPH invited members of the public via social media platforms, including Facebook, to pay a once-off fee of R300 in exchange for monthly groceries for 12 months. The promised package included 10kg bags of flour, mealie meal, and rice, as well as cooking oil and sugar.

A price comparison with retailers found that the groceries were worth R441.87 per month or R5,302.44 over a year, for a once-off payment of R300. Members were also encouraged to recruit others, with incentives such as R1,000 for bringing in 10 new participants.

The NPA said that WAPH is not a licensed financial services provider under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act and is not authorised to receive deposits from the public under 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,” the statement said. It added: “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).”

For more stories from The Mercury, click the link THE MERCURY