Former PRASA chief executive Tshepo Lucky Montana has come out fighting against an interim preservation order involving properties in Johannesburg and Pretoria, accusing the Special Investigating Unit of presenting an inaccurate and misleading version of the facts.
Montana says the public narrative surrounding the properties has been shaped by incomplete information and insufficient investigation. He has criticised sections of the media for treating the SIU’s allegations as established fact rather than claims that are still to be tested in court. For now, he has declined interview requests, saying he will respond fully through the proper legal process.
At the centre of Montana’s response is an answering affidavit that he intends filing on 19 August 2026. He says the document will deal individually and substantively with the SIU’s allegations and will include concrete evidence regarding the two properties.
His decision to place his response before the tribunal, rather than engage in a trial by media, presents the picture of a man confident that the documentary evidence will ultimately support his account. Montana has also pointed to his previous testimony before the State Capture Commission, where he says he addressed the same properties openly and under oath.
Importantly, the preservation order is an interim measure obtained through an ex parte application, meaning Montana’s full version had not yet been placed before the tribunal when the order was granted. The existence of the order should therefore not be confused with a final finding of wrongdoing.
Montana alleges that the SIU’s application contains serious misrepresentations and says officials should have known that several of the assertions placed before the Special Tribunal were false. These claims will now have to be examined against the evidence he intends presenting in his answering affidavit.
Far from retreating, Montana has indicated that he intends pursuing criminal complaints for alleged perjury, lodging professional-conduct complaints with the Legal Practice Council and considering civil proceedings for the harm allegedly caused to him and his family. His willingness to expose his own version to judicial scrutiny while simultaneously placing the conduct of the SIU under challenge suggests that he believes strongly in the merits of his case.
The matter should consequently be approached with caution and fairness. Allegations, however serious, are not proof. Montana has not yet had the opportunity to place his complete evidence before the tribunal, and any portrayal of him as already guilty risks prejudging a dispute that remains legally unresolved.
For Montana, the case is not merely about property. It is also about protecting a reputation he says has been unfairly damaged by information deliberately placed in the public domain. He has rejected the SIU’s case and made it clear that he intends confronting it directly through the courts.
Until his affidavit is filed and both versions are properly examined, the responsible position is to preserve the presumption of innocence and allow the evidence rather than headlines to determine the truth.
