South Africa has debated the political fallout from the award of the national lottery licence. But the real story isn’t just about the government — it’s about the private company at the centre of it all: Goldrush Holdings. What’s missing from the conversation is a clear-eyed look at its corporate behaviour.
The context is that in May 2025, the minister of trade, industry & competition, Parks Tau, awarded the fourth lottery licence to Sizekhaya Holdings, a politically connected consortium in which Goldrush held a 50% stake, which is expected to dilute to 40% once shares are issued to a state entity.
Goldrush asserts that all consortium members were independently vetted under the Lotteries Act and the official request for proposals. Sizekhaya will oversee ticket sales, prize payments and contributions to the National Lotteries Distribution Trust Fund from June 2026, under an eight-year mandate.
Estimated annual revenue from lottery ticket sales is R6.5bn, and Goldrush’s own disclosures suggest a single-digit profit margin.
But this isn’t about compliance. It’s about stewardship.
From day one, the Sizekhaya consortium included politically exposed persons, some with close ties to senior ANC and MK Party leaders. These individuals brought no lottery experience to the table, only political proximity. That should have triggered an immediate ethical red flag. Instead, Goldrush’s leadership approved the move, apparently without question.
Legendary investor Warren Buffett once said: “I want them to judge every action by how it would appear on the front page of their local paper … read by their family, neighbours, and friends.”
Rather than confront the core question - why structure the bid to include politically exposed persons at all? - Goldrush defaulted to legal defensibility
Rather than confront the core question — why structure the bid to include politically exposed persons at all? — Goldrush defaulted to legal defensibility. In a Sens announcement dated July 2 2025, the company confirmed it was fully aware, before the bid was submitted, that consortium member Khumo Bogatsu is the sister-in-law of Deputy President Paul Mashatile.
“Khumo’s shareholding in Bellamont was specifically investigated,” Goldrush said. “There were no legal impediments found at the time which would preclude her participation in the consortium.” Clearly this was not an inadvertent oversight.
Goldrush has yet to offer a credible explanation for why Bogatsu — an advocate with corporate leadership credentials, but no discernible lottery or gaming experience — was granted equity in such a politically sensitive bid. Her political ties weren’t treated as a governance risk.
Worse still, the board only moved when the media brought the issue into public view. That’s not governance, it’s reaction. The board was not steering the ship — it scrambled for the wheel after it had already hit the rocks.
In its annual financial statements, Goldrush told shareholders: “Without being too glib about its prospects, we would caution shareholders to exercise appropriate judgment when reading any news about the national lottery.” The remark appeared to cast doubt on media coverage without citing any factual errors — and notably, without addressing the governance concerns behind the headlines.
Follow-up questions were directed to independent chair Zanele Matlala, but the response came from FD Jan van Niekerk — raising questions about board oversight. In his e-mail, Van Niekerk referred to the July 3 Sens announcement and said the cautionary language aimed to temper inflated expectations, not discredit the media. “Many news articles referred to the lottery contract value to be a ‘R180bn’ contract. This is a gross overestimation,” he wrote. “We wanted to make sure people don’t just accept these headline numbers but rather think critically about the value of the business.”
While this explains tone, it sidesteps the deeper ethical concerns and the board’s silence on politically connected partners.
The deeper one looks, the more obvious the vacuum becomes. Goldrush had the financial and operational capacity to run a credible solo bid — or to partner with experienced, apolitical institutions. It didn’t. Instead, it chose politically connected partners.
And where was the governance apparatus meant to serve as a backstop? Its social & ethics committee met once all year, yet it was overseeing the most politically sensitive transaction in the country. That’s not just weak governance, it’s structural failure.
While the board was missing in action, the PR department was hard at work. Such phrases as “handsome financial gain” and “immense pride” peppered communications.
As the fallout deepens, legal scrutiny is catching up. Ithuba Lottery, the outgoing operator, has initiated a second court challenge against Tau, seeking to overturn his decision to award the fourth licence to Sizekhaya. According to Moneyweb, Ithuba contends that Sizekhaya failed to meet the requirements for financial readiness and operational continuity.
Crucially, it alleges that the consortium’s political ties violate the Lotteries Act. This seems like more than sour grapes from a losing bidder. In June, the minister invoked emergency powers to extend Ithuba’s licence by 12 months — a tacit admission, Ithuba argues, that Sizekhaya was not ready to assume control.
There is a path forward for Goldrush. But it’s not through spin, silence or legal footnotes. To restore confidence, Goldrush should commission an independent ethics review; publish all declarations from the bidding process; reform its board committees; and publicly commit to zero tolerance for political ties.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.