UNVERIFIED INFORMATION ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT OUT OF CIPC
Meantime, Nova has still not published the 2025 AFS and so we have no information on the present state of the company. Of course, the 2025 AFS are not going present an up-to-date picture anyway. And, we are already in the time period when the ’26 financials should be well under way in preparation for release
It’s mystifying that, with all of the issues re Nova that have been tabled over the years,
* their long-deemed insolvency (CIPC has a copy of the ’25 financials and will have, we are sure, already confirmed that insolvency out of their own analysis and also Debenture Trustee JP Tromp’s submissions) * their attempt (but maybe by this time actually successful) to circumvent the CIPC embargo re the further disposal off property assets and; * the ongoing failure to repay the remaining debentures,
that CIPC have not yet taken stern action
We can report that Deon Pienaar – leading activist in the sphere of the wider SARB/Financial Services Board PSPC shut-down – has recently published in his PSPC WhatsApp group :
On 31 March
“I believe that the CIPC have also filed criminal charges, and I’m just waiting for confirmation. If this is so, this is what we have all prayed for, namely for the NDPP to issue a Preservation order followed by asset forfeiture orders…… never before will a fraud case be dealt with as clinical and successful as this”
Followed on 2 April by:
“..the Cipc have given the NDPP their report…. their official prosecution will certainly restore all my indictments of the past…. we have won this war …the npa will not be able to ignore the state ( CIPC) themselves… the real criminals will now be held accountable… not fabricated crimes where their resources were wasted”
And then on 6 April he wrote:
“Only the NDPP can apply POCA ( PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT) . This Act will proceed with a preservation order within a month or so, followed by the Asset Forfeiture Unit three months later, giving the Property syndications buildings back to the original investors’, and allowing the new Directors to file delict claims for losses of income”
Today, 30 April, Deon has stated in his monthly newsletter:
“Important to note, that the CIPC have formally filed papers against our adversaries with the NDPP. This is a very big deal, and we have reason to be very grateful for what is currently happening”
We take the information about the CIPC action on board because we know that Deon is in frequent contact with Cuma Zwane of CIPC and they seem to share a lot of information on matters PSPC and Sharemax/Nova
So, it remains to be seen what action, if any, comes out of NDPP . We suggest that the asset forfeiture and “property return” envisioned by Deon are one possible outcome but one way or another, there will be a claim for loss of income plus, of course, return of capital invested
Zwane declined to provide us with any information about the above actions by way of deleting – without reading – our email sent to him on the above and asking for some clarity. Therefore, we can only surmise as to what’s going on
CIPC cannot initiate any legal action themselves hence the referral of the Investigation findings to the NDPP
This action follows CIPC’s letter to the Western Cape High Court in October ’25 informing the latter – in execution of the inter-State entity co-operation called for in section 17 of the SA Constitution – of the findings detailed in the report and to take same into account when hearing cases relevant to Deon Pienaar’s activism and to his sequestration for outstanding court costs which arose out of many court case judgements over the last decade and more
SARB subsequently wrote to Zwane through their attorneys stating that the letter constituted a “flagrant attempt to interfere with a judicial process outside of any power that he may have” and demanded that the letter be repudiated failing which, “urgent interdictory relief” would be sought No news on the outcome to hand. But, it does indicate a rejection of any obligation under the Section 17 of the Constitution’s co-operative governance requirement
Also relevant, in this scenario, is the intervention of the Judge Presidents office last year when – after receipt of the CIPC letter at Western Cape High Court – they called for submission from relevant parties involved in the activism and litigation surrounding the PSPC shut-down. That someone at the Judge President level has intervened suggests that the CIPC letter must have piqued interest at a higher level and that the false and true narratives are under scrutiny with, hopefully, production of some definitive and clear-cut instruction to the Courts and other relevant authorities
On the one hand, to have taken the above actions, CIPC must be very sure of the validity and the required future outcomes of their PSPC shut-down investigation and this, it would seem, has been re-enforced by the intervention by the Judge President’s office although, it seems that they have not yet produced any response to the submissions that they received
For the last some four years now (since the actual completion if the report) CIPC has defended its non-release of same on the grounds that it must be delivered to all relevant parties simultaneously which suggests that, maybe, some parties were not up to speed , eg because of case handler personnel changes, some were not yet even involved and still needed to be briefed and some, like perhaps with the SARB, are not willing to be on board and are pushing back (officialdom and bureaucracy at it worst?)
Do the above actions indicate that the pendulum has swung in or favour?
Unfortunately, we continue to wait for concrete information and positive developments. Our hope still lies with the Investigation’s outcomes being not only positive but also restitutional for the former Sharemax investors