PSA deregistration threat raises questions over president’s PIC board seat

The possible deregistration of one of the country’s largest public sector unions, the Public Servants’ Association of South Africa, raises fresh questions about the status of its president, Matimba Justice Shiburi, on the board of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC).

Shiburi was appointed to the PIC board in September 2025 as the PSA representative, while a parliamentary reply by Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana described him as a non-executive director and trade union representative appointed for a three-year term from 15 September 2025.

The PSA has not been deregistered. But a Government Gazette notice published on Monday, 29 June states that the Registrar of Labour Relations intends to cancel the union’s registration, giving the PSA and interested parties 60 days to make representations.

Gazette notice of intention to deregister

The notice, issued by Registrar of Labour Relations Lehlohonolo Molefe, says he intends to cancel the registration of the PSA for three reasons:

• the organisation is “not a genuine trade union as envisaged in the LRA [Labour Relations Act]”;
• it “cannot function in terms of a constitution as per the LRA”; and
• it has “failed to comply with the provisions of section 98, 99 and 100 of the Act”.

Those provisions go to the administrative spine of a registered trade union: keeping proper books and records, preparing audited financial statements, maintaining membership records and submitting required information to the Registrar.

The implications reach beyond labour law. The PIC manages public-sector pension and other state-linked funds. If the PSA is ultimately deregistered, it may raise questions about the basis on which Shiburi continues to occupy a labour-linked seat on the PIC board. It would not automatically remove him from the board, but it could create a governance problem for the appointing authorities if the union he represents loses its registered status.

Labour appeal court judgment

The gazette notice follows an important April labour appeal court judgment in a case between the Department of Employment and Labour and the PSA.

The case arose from an earlier dispute over the PSA’s attempt to replace its constitution.

According to the judgment, the PSA had submitted an amended constitution to the Registrar for approval. However, the Registrar refused to accept the replacement constitution because he believed the PSA was not a genuine and independent trade union.

The Registrar’s concern was rooted in the PSA’s legal structure. The judgment records that the PSA had been registered as a non-profit company since 1942 and as a trade union since 1993. The Registrar took the view that, because the PSA was also registered as a company, it was not a genuine trade union as contemplated by the LRA. He also argued that it was not independent because it operated under a memorandum of incorporation, rather than solely under a trade union constitution.

The labour court initially ruled against the Registrar and ordered him to register the PSA’s amended constitution. The Department of Employment and Labour and the Registrar then appealed.

The labour appeal court drew an important distinction. It rejected the idea that a trade union cannot be registered as both a non-profit company and a trade union. The court agreed with the labour court that the LRA does not prohibit dual registration.

But the labour appeal court still found that the Registrar was entitled to refuse to register the PSA’s replacement constitution because what the PSA submitted was, in substance, the statute of a non-profit company, not a constitution that complied with the LRA.

This is the core of the department’s case against the PSA.

The court found that the document submitted by the PSA defined itself as “the constitution of the PSA as provided for in terms of the Act and the Memorandum of Incorporation as provided for in the Companies Act”. It also found that the PSA’s own statute treated the non-profit company and the trade union as having the same foundation and the same purpose.

The court said this was a problem because a company is a separate entity from a trade union. A trade union is an association of employees whose main purpose is to regulate relations between employees and employers. A company has directors and is governed by company law.

Labour appeal court finds PSA statute defective

The labour appeal court found that the PSA’s submitted statute was defective for several reasons.

First, the PSA was described in the statute as an organisation registered as a non-profit company and incorporated under the Companies Act.

Second, the statute defined board members as directors elected under the statute, with the board made up of a president, vice-president, chairperson and additional directors.

Third, the general manager was defined as a person appointed under the statute and acting as secretary of the PSA. The court found that the general manager was not an office-bearer as defined in the LRA.

Fourth, the audited financial statements referred to in the PSA’s statute were those submitted under the Companies Act, not financial statements required under section 98 of the LRA.

The court concluded that “it is manifest from the statute submitted by the respondent for approval by the Registrar that it belongs to a company, not to a trade union”. It found that the PSA had not submitted an amended constitution that complied with section 95 of the LRA, and that the Registrar was therefore entitled to refuse the application.

The labour appeal court upheld the appeal and replaced the labour court’s order with one dismissing the PSA’s appeal, with no order as to costs.

Why the department believes the PSA should be deregistered

The Department of Labour appears to be saying that the PSA’s structure, constitution and reporting framework are so bound up with its non-profit company identity that it cannot properly function as a registered trade union under the LRA.

What happens next

The PSA and interested parties have 60 days from 29 June 2026 to make written representations to the Registrar. According to the gazette notice, only representations relating to the notice will be considered, and all correspondence must refer to case number 2026/98.

For now, the PSA remains registered, and Shiburi remains on the PIC board. But the timing and the identity of the office-bearer involved make the matter sharper than an internal union compliance dispute.

If the PSA fails to persuade the Registrar that deregistration is not warranted, the question becomes whether a person appointed as the representative of a registered trade union can remain in that seat when the union’s registration has been cancelled.

That decision would probably require a separate governance and appointment process involving the finance minister, Cabinet and the PIC’s shareholder framework.

But the governance question is now out in the open: the union representing thousands of public servants is being asked to prove that it is a genuine trade union, properly constituted and compliant with the reporting duties required by law, while its president sits on the board of the institution that manages the retirement savings of public servants. DM