This exclusive investigation delves into how **Mashatile’s** close relatives have emerged as key actors in Sizekhaya Holdings, the new multi‑billion‑rand operator awarded South Africa’s national lottery licence for the next eight years. We unpack five critical connections that raise questions about political influence, corporate governance, and constitutional fairness.

1. Mashatile’s Sister‑in‑Law in Bellamont Gaming

One of the most striking connections is the involvement of **Mashatile’s** sister‑in‑law, Khumo Bogatsu, as co‑director of Bellamont Gaming. This company holds a stake in Sizekhaya through the Bellamont‑Sizekhaya consortium and was founded less than a year after Mashatile’s lavish wedding in March 2023. The timing raises eyebrows about whether the family link offered privileged access to the lucrative national lottery licence bid.

2. Mashatile Appeared Alongside Tembe at Key Events

Deputy President **Mashatile** has been publicly photographed with Moses Tembe—Sizekhaya’s chair and Bellamont partner—on several high‑profile occasions, including a church service in Durban and an investment delegation to France in May 2025. This visible proximity amplifies public suspicion that the lottery award may have been influenced by political connections.

3. Timeline Raises Mashatile Conflict Concerns

Investigative reports point to a suspicious timeline: Bellamont Gaming was registered in December 2023—nine months after the wedding—and Sizekhaya submitted its lottery bid just before the February 3 deadline. **Mashatile** was already in office, which critics argue created fertile ground for nepotism and undue advantage.

4. Legal Implications for Mashatile’s Office

Legal experts warn that **Mashatile** could face constitutional scrutiny under the Lotteries Act, which prohibits political office-bearers and their families from financial interest in licence applicants. Sizekhaya denies any such links, but the presence of Mashatile’s relatives in controlling positions intensifies the legal and ethical debate.

5. Public Pressure Mounting on Mashatile and Government

Civil society organizations like BOSA and political parties such as EFF have demanded transparency, invoking the Promotion of Access to Information Act to unearth adjudication details. The EFF claims **Mashatile’s** influence tainted the approval process, and public scrutiny is mounting ahead of potential court challenges.

Additional Context and Reaction

Additional Context and Reaction In the face of mounting public scrutiny, both Sizekhaya Holdings and Bellamont Gaming have issued statements firmly denying any undue political influence in the awarding of the national lottery licence. According to the consortium, Deputy President Mashatile played no role—directly or indirectly—in the decision-making process, and all corporate relationships were established and conducted within the bounds of South African law. The companies emphasized their compliance with the Lotteries Act, which prohibits any political office-bearer from holding a financial interest in the licensee or its shareholders. They described the allegations as “misleading” and “potentially defamatory,” warning that such claims undermine not only their business integrity but also public trust in the country’s regulatory and adjudication systems. Trade Minister Parks Tau, who oversaw the adjudication process, defended the government’s role. He described the evaluation of eight competing bids as a “rigorous and arduous exercise,” carried out with diligence, independence, and full adherence to the principles of fairness and transparency. Tau insisted that the outcome reflected a merit-based decision rooted in financial viability, operational readiness, and social contribution. Despite these assurances, significant doubts persist among members of civil society and the political opposition. Watchdog groups and investigative journalists continue to question whether proximity to Mashatile or other political elites may have created an uneven playing field. The fact that Bellamont Gaming was registered shortly after Mashatile’s high-profile wedding, and that its directors include close family members, has fueled ongoing speculation about cronyism and the erosion of public procurement safeguards. Further adding to the controversy, transparency advocates have noted the lack of publicly accessible scoring sheets or detailed bid evaluation metrics, which could clarify how Sizekhaya outperformed competitors. Calls for the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition to publish a full audit of the bid process have so far gone unanswered. As pressure mounts, political accountability and institutional credibility are at stake. Whether this episode will prompt a broader review of how large-scale public contracts are awarded remains to be seen—but what is certain is that the Mashatile-Sizekhaya saga has reignited national conversations about governance, ethics, and the intersection of power and profit in post-apartheid South Africa.

Why the Mashatile Connection Matters

The involvement of Mashatile’s family in such a high-stakes licence deal is more than a matter of coincidence or optics—it serves as a critical case study in the vulnerabilities of South Africa’s political and economic systems. At its core, the controversy reflects broader and long-standing concerns about patronage networks, where proximity to political power may grant privileged access to wealth-generating opportunities, such as state tenders and national contracts. Given the sheer scale of the lottery licence—valued at over R180 billion over eight years—this is not merely a business matter but a reflection of how state resources are distributed and controlled. When political figures or their close relatives are tied, even indirectly, to winning bids, it raises essential questions: Was the process truly fair? Were all competitors given equal footing? And perhaps most critically, can South African institutions remain impartial when political proximity is involved? The Mashatile case underscores a persistent dilemma: the blurred line between governance and business. In an era where public trust in institutions is waning, any appearance of impropriety—even without legal violation—can do significant damage. The perception that deals may be influenced by political connections erodes public confidence, discourages competition, and sends a worrying signal to both local and international investors. Moreover, the controversy exposes potential gaps in the country’s conflict-of-interest policies and enforcement mechanisms. While the Lotteries Act prohibits direct financial interest by political figures, it is less clear how indirect influence—such as familial ties or close associations—should be handled. The Mashatile incident highlights the urgent need for updated, robust frameworks that address modern forms of influence and indirect benefit. It also brings into question the role of regulatory bodies like the National Lotteries Commission and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition. Are they truly independent and equipped to manage such politically sensitive adjudications? Transparency, accountability, and detailed public reporting must become standard, not optional, in processes involving billions in public value. Ultimately, the Mashatile-Sizekhaya connection is a call to action. South Africa must ensure that its democratic institutions are not only protected from actual corruption but also from the perception of it. Strengthening transparency laws, empowering oversight bodies, and codifying clearer boundaries between political figures and public procurement processes are essential steps forward. If left unaddressed, such controversies could become precedents—normalizing influence and diminishing the integrity of the state.

Next Steps & Investigative Outlook

Watch this space as campaigns by BOSA and EFF may lead to court action. Government oversight agencies could also step in to review compliance with the Lotteries Act. For **Mashatile**, the stakes are high: while he denies influence, further investigations and public pressure could test both legal boundaries and political credibility.