Sizekhaya Holdings has begun operating one of the world’s larger national lotteries under an eight-year contract widely reported to be worth around R180 billion ($10.9 billion) – a politically charged award now at the centre of a High Court battle that won’t be heard until later this year.
Sizekhaya took over the South African National Lottery on 1 June 2026, ending Ithuba Holdings’ 11‑year run and marking the first change of operator since 2015.
The transition came with R130 million jackpots, live televised draws returning to e.tv and more than 5,500 new retail terminals activated across the country. It also came with unresolved litigation that could yet see the award revisited.
The contract
The eighth licence – the fourth issued under the Lotteries Act 57 of 1997 – runs for eight years and is widely described as a R180 billion contract, based on projected ticket sales over the term. Under the licence terms, 34% of revenue flows to the National Lottery Distribution Trust Fund (NLDTF), which funds charities, sport, arts and community infrastructure.
The National Lotteries Commission (NLC) says the lottery has channelled more than R31 billion to good causes since its inception in 2000. Ithuba alone contributed R1.83 billion to the NLDTF in the 2024 financial year, on ticket sales of R7.28 billion – figures that make this handover one of the more consequential commercial transitions in the public economy.
The Sizekhaya consortium is led by KwaZulu‑Natal businessman Moses Tembe, who chairs the company, and AmaZulu FC owner Sandile Zungu.
Goldrush Holdings owns 40% of the operator, while the state‑backed National Empowerment Fund holds 20% and Tembe‑linked Bellamont Gaming about 7% through a vehicle co‑directed with Khumo Bogatsu, the twin sister of Deputy President Paul Mashatile’s wife. Sizekhaya’s lottery platform is supplied by Genlot, the Shenzhen‑based company behind China’s national lottery.
Opposition cronyism claims
Opposition parties and investigative journalists quickly focused on the Bellamont shareholding, citing its link to the Mashatile family as a potential concern. An investigation by amaBhungane, an independent non‑profit newsroom, reported that Bellamont Gaming was registered in December 2023 and that Tembe and Bogatsu were its only directors, while Sizekhaya itself was incorporated just days before the 3 February 2024 bid deadline.
Shortly after the announcement, the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) issued sharply worded statements. The EFF said it was alarmed by what it called evidence of “irregularities, conflicts of interest and political exposure” in the bid evaluation process, arguing that Goldrush and Bellamont “are not merely fronts, they are the vessels for one of the largest heists our country may witness by the ANC (African National Congress Party) and the family and friends of the deputy president of South Africa”.
In June, DA MP Toby Chance, the party’s spokesperson on trade, industry and competition, called for a comprehensive and independent investigation. The DA said the deal “points to a completely manufactured outcome” to benefit Mashatile’s family and argued that, in its view, Minister Parks Tau’s explanations “effectively admit” that he failed to detect the Bellamont‑Mashatile link – which the party says suggests the due diligence process was either incomplete or deliberately inadequate.
Sizekhaya and partners reject allegations
Sizekhaya has forcefully rejected these claims, insisting that the selection was merit‑based, that it prevailed in an open and competitive process, and that accusations of political influence are unfounded. It has also stressed that, as the deputy president told parliament, he played no role in the adjudication process or the work of the NLC, and that neither Bellamont Gaming nor Sizekhaya ever discussed the bid with him.
Consortium shareholders have echoed these denials while setting out the ownership structure. Goldrush, in a detailed statement, noted that Bogatsu – a relative of the deputy president by marriage – is a director of Bellamont Gaming, which holds around 5.6% of the consortium. It also acknowledged that some members of the evaluation committee had prior professional dealings with Goldrush and Bellamont before the tender, but maintains that these did not amount to improper influence.
Tembe, in his own statement, said the consortium won the licence on the strength of its bid, its experience in gaming and its pledge to grow contributions to the state, good causes and players.
“Sizekhaya welcomes scrutiny intended to shed light on who we are and what we bring to the table,” he said. “But we decry the baseless accusations, malicious rumour‑mongering, mudslinging and personal attacks on shareholders and directors that have grown in volume since we were announced as the winners.”
The tender and Tau’s reasons
There were eight applicants for the fourth licence – double the number that bid for the third. Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition Parks Tau delayed naming a winner for eight months and, in the meantime, granted a one‑year “emergency” licence to Ithuba Lottery, a sister company of Ithuba Holdings, to avoid a shutdown when Ithuba’s extended term ended in May 2025.
In May 2025, the Pretoria High Court ordered Tau to name the winner and finalise a licence agreement by 28 May, and ruled that his earlier decision to extend the bid validity period by 12 months was unlawful. Tau announced Sizekhaya as the winner on 28 May 2025, but initially provided no scores, record of decision or legal reasoning.
‘Sizekhaya pipped others to the post’
Lawyers for Lekalinga – a Serbian‑backed consortium that had partnered with local entities – immediately invoked the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), which gives people the right to challenge administrative decisions in court and to demand the reasons and records behind them. They asked for the full record and detailed scoring. When those requests were not met, they filed a High Court application to compel disclosure, with Ithuba lodging a similar challenge.
Under South Africa’s Uniform Rule 53, a decision‑maker facing a review must file the “Rule 53 record” – the documents and information that were before them when they took the decision – together with their written reasons. Under pressure from the Lekalinga and Ithuba cases, Tau eventually did so on 5 August 2025.
“In my view, Sizekhaya pipped the others to the post,” he wrote, praising what he called a “well‑balanced” bid with an impressive technology partner, sound financial models and “suitably ambitious, yet credible” revenue projections. Based on those projections and the percentage allocated to the NLDTF, Tau argued that Sizekhaya’s contributions to good causes were likely to be the highest.
An urgent bid to stop the handover
Ithuba did not accept the outcome quietly. In July 2025 it filed a review application, and in September, its sister company, Ithuba Lottery, launched urgent proceedings in the Pretoria High Court to halt the handover until that review was heard.
Ithuba’s lawyer, Johan Roodt, argued that Tau’s decision was “vitiated by a series of irregularities [sic]” – in other words, that it had been seriously undermined by procedural flaws. The core allegations are that Tau abandoned the scoring criteria in the request for proposals, allowed the NLC to negotiate prematurely with Sizekhaya and made the award before the consortium had fully committed funding in place.
The Pretoria High Court dismissed the interdict in late November 2025. Judge Ronel Tolmay held that Ithuba had not shown a clear right, or even a prima facie right, to the relief it sought. She rejected the claim of irreparable harm, describing any potential commercial loss as a risk inherent in the lottery industry, and found that Ithuba’s delay in bringing the urgent application created what she called “self‑created urgency”.
On the public interest question, she was unequivocal: “It is in the public interest that the lottery should continue uninterrupted. There is nothing before this court to indicate that Sizekhaya is not in a position to comply with its obligations in terms of the licence.”
What comes next?
Sizekhaya formally assumed operation of the lottery on 1 June 2026, but while Tolmay’s judgment cleared the way for the handover, it did not end the legal battle. Ithuba’s main review case, together with a parallel challenge from Lekalinga, is still before the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria and is scheduled, on the current roll, to be heard this year. The EFF has applied to join the case, arguing that the Mashatile family link is an additional reason to overturn the contract.
Across the two reviews, the applicants allege procedural flaws – from unlawful scoring and premature negotiations to weak checks on political connections – and deeper structural issues, including whether Sizekhaya met the funding and readiness requirements of the original tender when the licence was awarded. None of these claims has yet been ruled on in the review proceedings.
Political ramifications
Deputy President Mashatile is widely seen in political commentary as a potential successor to President Cyril Ramaphosa, even as he publicly downplays any presidential campaign. The unresolved questions around the lottery licence – and the family and political links it has exposed – give opposition parties a ready line of attack as that succession debate unfolds, even as Minister Tau and the National Lotteries Commission insist that the award process complied with the law.
In a May 2026 parliamentary question session, Mashatile pushed back against criticism over the multi‑billion‑rand tender, saying an investigation had already been initiated by Minister Tau and that there was no need for a new probe. He defended his relationships with businessmen linked to the bid, insisting that his friends are credible businesspeople whose success does not depend on his influence, and stressing: “My friends have not stolen anything.”
Mashatile also pledged not to interfere in government procurement to benefit his associates and argued that some of his critics have a problem with wealthy black individuals, warning against assuming that black business success is inherently tied to corruption or theft.
With the court reviews still pending – and capable of confirming the licence award as much as overturning it – the lottery tender remains a politically charged test of both the government’s procurement record and public trust.
