In the latest twist to an acrimonious saga involving two prominent political personalities in Nelson Mandela Bay, the state has reportedly declined to prosecute former GOOD regional leader Siyanda Mayana for extortion charges that were instituted by mayor Babalwa Lobishe.
The Hawks have since closed their investigation, following the National Prosecuting Authority’s decision not to prosecute Mayana — a move he has welcomed as vindication and will pave the way for him to pursue Lobishe for legal costs and damages to his reputation.
Hawks spokesperson Warrant Officer Ndiphiwe Mhlakuvana confirmed that the matter was no longer being investigated.
“The Hawks have noted the decision by the NPA and respect the outcome,” Mhlakuvana said.
“The Hawks have communicated the outcome to the mayor.”
The NPA’s decision to decline to prosecute could not be obtained by the time of publication.
Lobishe could not be reached since Friday last week.
Mayana, who is president of the People’s Power party, welcomed the news.
“This means that I will now enforce the legal costs judgment for her to pay me about R82,000 when she lost her court case earlier this year to silence me,” Mayana said.
“I also intend to sue her to defend my name for saying that I was extorting her.”
According to a court document dated August 4, the total amount owed in legal costs was R82,970.88.
The money is owed from a separate court matter.
Mayana said he intended to institute the legal action against Lobishe next week.
Lobishe announced on social media in March that she had laid a criminal complaint of extortion against Mayana, alleging that he had been demanding money from her in exchange for his silence.
At the time, Lobishe said she saw no reason to pay Mayana and challenged him to make his allegations public if he believed they were true.
“I will never pay someone who is extorting me because I’m very much aware that I have done nothing wrong,” she said.
Lobishe said the dispute related to allegations concerning her decision to lease a transformer, which she maintained was intended to protect jobs and ensure the municipality generated revenue from the asset.
The extortion case followed a separate civil legal dispute between Lobishe and Mayana over social media posts in which Mayana made allegations concerning the mayor.
In February, Lobishe approached the Gqeberha high court seeking an interdict preventing Mayana from making further statements about her.
She initially obtained an interim interdict on February 10 prohibiting Mayana from publishing further statements until the matter was finalised.
Mayana had posted allegations that several deposits, some amounting to hundreds of thousands of rand, had been paid into Lobishe’s bank account in December.
He also reported the allegations to the Humewood police station.
Lobishe rejected the allegations and said she welcomed any lawful review of her accounts.
However, acting judge Shirley Tilana-Mabece later struck Lobishe’s application from the roll and ordered her to pay costs.
The judgment centred on whether Lobishe had met the requirements for the matter to be heard urgently.
Lobishe had argued that she had been unable to submit the necessary papers supporting her urgent application because she was dealing with power failures and water outages affecting the metro.
Tilana-Mabece was not persuaded, finding that Lobishe’s explanation for the delay lacked sufficient detail and did not account for the entire period required by the court.
“The conduct of the applicant leads to only one logical conclusion: the urgency was self-created.
“The consequence of self-created urgency is fatal to an application,” Tilana-Mabece said.
The acting judge also noted that the matter had previously been removed from the roll by acting judge Nomthandazo Ntlama-Makhanya, who directed that it be placed on the normal court roll.
During the subsequent proceedings, Lobishe’s advocate, Lyalle Windvogel, argued that the urgent application was necessary to obtain final relief because his client had suffered reputational damage and continued to experience stress as a result of Mayana’s statements, which remained accessible online.
But Tilana-Mabece found that the matter was opposed and that the appropriate process for setting an opposed matter down had not been followed.
“Consequently, the applicant has failed to convince the court that she has met the threshold prescribed in rule 6(12).
“Therefore, the application ought to be struck off the roll for lack of urgency.”
Follow The Herald WhatsApp channel today and stay connected to the stories shaping our world.