Court Freezes Ex-PRASA Chief's Assets Pending Corruption Recovery Proceedings
Tribunal blocks former PRASA executive from accessing properties under investigation for alleged contract-linked acquisitions.
The Special Tribunal extended its interim preservation order against Lucky Tshepho Montana, the former group chief executive officer of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, blocking him from dealing with two high-value properties in Pretoria and Johannesburg while civil recovery proceedings advance. The tribunal acted after Montana failed to appear in person at a hearing scheduled to determine whether the July 8 order should become permanent.
The accountability question at the centre of the case is whether Montana used proceeds from PRASA’s controversial R5.6 billion ISAMS contract to acquire assets his documented lawful income could not explain. The Special Investigating Unit traced both properties through a network of entities it alleges are connected to that contract. The Waterkloof property in Pretoria carries an estimated value of R2.5 million; the Johannesburg asset is valued at approximately R13.5 million.
Montana’s legal representative did appear at Tuesday’s hearing, but informed the tribunal he had received instructions only 30 minutes before proceedings began, having been briefed at the venue itself. Unprepared to mount a substantive argument against the SIU’s application, he could not oppose the order in any meaningful way. The tribunal responded by directing Montana to comply with its directives as he continues to challenge the interim order.
The preservation mechanism remains in effect, restricting Montana from selling, transferring, leasing, encumbering or otherwise dealing with either property pending final determination.
SIU investigators established the transaction trail in detail. For the Waterkloof property, Precise Trade and Invest (Pty) Ltd received R1.85 million from ESS (Pty) Ltd, a TMM-linked company, and a further R4 million from TMM Holdings on June 18, 2014. Precise Trade and Invest subsequently transferred R2.25 million to attorneys managing the property transfer, facilitating Montana’s purchase of the Pretoria asset. The director of Precise Trade and Invest also served as legal representative for the TMM Group, a connection investigators regard as significant.
The Johannesburg acquisition involved a more intricate chain. The SIU traced that purchase through Precise Trade and Invest, Botswana-based Midtownbrace (Pty) Ltd and TMM Holdings, characterising the structure as a network of companies allegedly connected to PRASA.
Montana is actively opposing the SIU’s application and seeking to set aside the preservation order. By contrast, the tribunal has not yet set a date for final determination, leaving the relief in place on an interim basis until further notice. The order functions as a protective mechanism, preventing any disposition of the assets that might complicate enforcement of any judgment the tribunal ultimately issues.
Whether the tribunal converts the interim order into a permanent one will depend on how Montana’s legal team responds now that it has had proper time to prepare its case.
Q&A
What is the core accountability question in the Special Tribunal case against Lucky Tshepho Montana?
Whether Montana used proceeds from PRASA's controversial R5.6 billion ISAMS contract to acquire two properties in Pretoria and Johannesburg that his documented lawful income could not explain.
What was the procedural failure that led to the tribunal extending the interim preservation order?
Montana failed to appear in person at the hearing scheduled to determine whether the July 8 order should become permanent, and his legal representative was unprepared, having received instructions only 30 minutes before proceedings began.
What is the estimated combined value of the two properties subject to the preservation order?
The Waterkloof property in Pretoria is valued at approximately R2.5 million and the Johannesburg asset at approximately R13.5 million, for a combined estimated value of R16 million.
What mechanism does the interim preservation order use to restrict Montana's access to the properties?
The order prevents Montana from selling, transferring, leasing, encumbering or otherwise dealing with either property pending final determination of the case.