--- title: "PIC paid another R21m after arbitration award was certified settled in full, PwC finds" description: "After settling an arbitration award, the PIC’s sudden R21m payment to Acapulco raises questions about financial oversight and the integrity of investment decision-making." type: "NewsArticle" publisher: "Daily Maverick" site: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za" section: "SETTLEMENT MYSTERY" author: "Neesa Moodley" author_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/author/neesa-moodley/" canonical_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-07-20-pic-paid-another-r21m-after-arbitration-award-was-certified-settled-in-full-pwc-finds/" published: "2026-07-20T20:07:19" lang: "en-ZA" word_count: 708 --- # PIC paid another R21m after arbitration award was certified settled in full, PwC finds > After settling an arbitration award, the PIC’s sudden R21m payment to Acapulco raises questions about financial oversight and the integrity of investment decision-making. By Neesa Moodley · Published 20 July 2026, 22:07 SAST ## Key points - The PIC paid an additional R21m to Acapulco just six days after an arbitration award settlement was certified as complete. - A PwC draft report highlights discrepancies and raises concerns about financial oversight and integrity in the investment process. - The case dates back to 2013, involving a R333.25 million loan that Acapulco failed to repay, leading to a costly arbitration ruling. - Questions linger over the absence of an Ethics Office assessment and potential governance weaknesses in the PIC’s decision-making frameworks. ## Content The Public Investment Corporation (PIC) paid a further R21-million to Acapulco six days after the company issued a certificate stating that a controversial arbitration award had been settled in full. The additional payment brought the PIC’s total payout to Acapulco to more than R432-million. A confidential 141-page PwC draft forensic report dated 18 May 2026, which Daily Maverick has had sight of, says it remains unclear how Acapulco could certify that the arbitration had been fully settled on 28 October 2025 when the final payment was made on 3 November. The report is marked as a draft and states that its findings remain subject to amendment or withdrawal. The dispute originated in 2013, when the PIC advanced R333.25-million to Acapulco to acquire a 25% stake in Lanseria Holdings. Acapulco failed to repay the loan when it matured in July 2023, after which the PIC exercised its security rights over the shares. A dispute over the value of the shares went to arbitration. The arbitrators accepted a valuation that placed Acapulco’s stake at R1.04-billion and ordered the PIC to pay the difference after deducting the outstanding debt. On 15 October 2025, the PIC paid just over R411-million to Acapulco’s attorneys. Correspondence reviewed by PwC shows that the PIC was warned on the same day that failure to provide proof of payment by 9am could result in the sheriff attaching assets belonging to the Government Employees Pension Fund and the Government Pensions Administration Agency. Acapulco subsequently informed the PIC that instructions to the sheriff had been withdrawn. However, PwC said it did not find an execution order in the correspondence it reviewed. Acapulco issued a certificate of discharge on 28 October, confirming that the arbitration ruling had been fully satisfied and that it had no further claims arising from the ruling. Two days later, the PIC and Acapulco agreed that another R21-million was payable after arbitration fees and associated costs were excluded from the calculation. The money was transferred on 3 November. ### **Interest stopped early** PwC also found that the outstanding loan balance used to calculate the settlement was understated. The arbitration relied on a debt balance of R629.39-million. However, the PIC’s calculations stopped accruing interest on 25 April 2024, when a binding term sheet was signed. PwC found that interest should have continued accruing until 8 November 2024, when the Lanseria shares were registered in the PIC’s name. The calculations also included an incorrect prime-rate change date, initially omitted contractual default interest and failed to include the return required under the loan agreement. Each error reduced Acapulco’s outstanding debt and therefore increased the amount payable by the PIC. PIC official Buyisiwe Ndlolo confirmed to PwC that 25 April had been used as the cut-off date: “*The reason why we stopped accruing interest on the 25th of April 2024 is because it is the date the Parties entered into the binding Term Sheet.*” PwC notes that this was confirmed by Thando Mziba on 11 February 2026, though he was not aware of who decided to apply the date of 25 April 2024. Neither could tell PwC who made that decision or explain why the accounting-based date of 8 November was not used. ### **No ethics assessment** Another discrepancy that PwC found was the absence of any Ethics Office submissions in the investment committee packs it reviewed, and no ethical issues were recorded in the corresponding minutes. PIC policy states that investment committees should request an Ethics Office assessment when they identify ethical or reputational risks in an investment. Officials interviewed by PwC maintained that the applicable policies had been followed, no conflicts of interest had arisen and there was no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. They attributed the shortcomings to the complexity of the transaction and legal technicalities. A separate whistleblower memorandum seen by Daily Maverick alleges that the PIC’s compliance and internal audit functions failed to identify and escalate wider governance weaknesses in its investment decision-making structures. Those claims are allegations contained in the whistleblower document and are not findings made by PwC. However, the unexplained post-discharge payment, the premature end to interest accrual and the absence of an Ethics Office assessment raise further questions about how effectively the transaction was scrutinised before more than R432-million was paid. **DM**