Celebrity Breeze Bringing you fascinating stories
Related Articles
The Special Investigating Unit has obtained a preservation order freezing a Pretoria residential property allegedly bought with funds diverted from a National Lotteries Commission (NLC) grant and linked to the late actor Presley Chweneyagae.
The order, quietly granted by the Special Tribunal days before the end of the year, has drawn renewed attention to a long-running investigation into how millions meant for community upliftment were allegedly redirected for private benefit. At its centre is a modest house in Hesteapark, a northern suburb of Pretoria, now legally locked down as investigators close in.
Court papers show the preservation order was issued on 18 December 2025. It prevents the sale, transfer, lease or any form of disposal of the property while civil proceedings are prepared. The SIU has 60 court days to formally institute those proceedings.
The case forms part of a broader probe into alleged corruption and maladministration at the National Lotteries Commission, an institution tasked with distributing public funds to social development projects across South Africa.
Presley Chweneyagae, affectionately known to millions as “Cobra” or “Cobrizi”, remains a towering figure in South African popular culture. He rose to international fame with his Oscar-winning performance in Tsotsi and later became a household name through his role as the charismatic Thuso “Cobra” Mokoena on the television drama The River.
His death earlier this year prompted an outpouring of tributes from fans, colleagues and political leaders. The preservation order now places his name in a very different public spotlight.
According to the SIU, the frozen property was allegedly purchased using about R889,000 unlawfully diverted from a R15 million NLC grant. The grant was intended to support youth arts development programmes, a sector often cited as underfunded and critical for social cohesion.
Investigators allege that the funds were approved for the Southern African Youth Movement, a non-profit organisation represented by Alfred Muzwakhe Sigudla. Instead of being used for their stated purpose, a portion of the money was allegedly channelled through a private company, Domestic Baboon (Pty) Ltd.
Domestic Baboon, according to the SIU, was wholly owned by Chweneyagae. The money is alleged to have moved from the NPO to the company, before being used to buy the Hesteapark residence.
The preservation order is directed at multiple respondents, including Charlaine Christinah Chweneyagae in her personal capacity and as executrix of her late husband’s estate, Sigudla, the Southern African Youth Movement NPO, Domestic Baboon (Pty) Ltd and other parties cited in the application.
In practical terms, the order freezes the property in place. No transaction can be registered, no bond can be taken out, and no legal steps can be taken to alter ownership while the matter is before the courts.
The SIU says this is necessary to prevent assets allegedly bought with public money from being dissipated before the conclusion of legal action. Preservation orders are often a prelude to attempts to recover funds on behalf of the state.
The investigation into the NLC was authorised under Proclamation R32 of 2020, signed by President Cyril Ramaphosa. The proclamation empowered the SIU to investigate allegations of corruption, fraud and maladministration relating to the commission’s grant funding.
Since then, the SIU has pursued multiple cases involving organisations and individuals accused of abusing NLC grants. Several properties, luxury vehicles and bank accounts have already been targeted through court action.
In this case, the SIU maintains that the youth arts grant was never meant to benefit private individuals or companies. Instead, it was intended to support programmes that would create opportunities for young people in creative industries.
The commission of inquiry has repeatedly found that some NLC grants were approved with inadequate oversight, weak governance structures and poor monitoring of how funds were spent.
The SIU says the Hesteapark matter reflects those broader systemic failures. It argues that public confidence in state institutions depends on demonstrating that misuse of funds, regardless of the profile of those involved, will be investigated and addressed.
Under the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act of 1996, the SIU may institute civil proceedings in the Special Tribunal or the High Court to recover losses suffered by the state. Any evidence pointing to criminal conduct must be referred to the National Prosecuting Authority.
At this stage, the proceedings are civil in nature. No criminal charges have been announced, and the respondents have not been convicted of any wrongdoing. The preservation order is an interim measure, not a finding of guilt.
Legal analysts note that preservation orders are granted on a balance of probabilities, often where there is a risk that assets could be sold or hidden before a final determination is made.
The SIU has described the order as a significant step in promoting accountability and transparency in the management of public funds. It says recovering diverted money is essential to restoring resources meant for vulnerable communities.
For many South Africans, the case carries symbolic weight. The National Lotteries Commission exists to fund social good, and the alleged diversion of its grants continues to fuel public anger.
It also places an uncomfortable question at the intersection of celebrity, public trust and accountability. Chweneyagae’s legacy as an artist and cultural icon is well established. The investigation now asks whether money linked to his name flowed from a public grant into private hands.
That question will only be answered once the SIU completes its civil action and the courts rule on the merits of the case. Until then, the Hesteapark house stands as a frozen asset, unable to move in a property market built on constant motion.
At the heart of the matter, stripped of fame and emotion, is a single unresolved issue that investigators say will determine the outcome: whether funds meant to uplift young artists were instead used to buy a private home, turning a public grant into a personal asset.
