PRASA’s five-year whistleblower dispute has arrived at its constitutional endpoint, with the careers and legal costs of two former executives now hinging on a single recission application.

Martha Ngoye and Tiro Holele, dismissed from the Passenger Rail Agency South Africa in early 2021, have applied to the Constitutional Court to rescind its December 2025 decision declining to hear their appeal. It is their last available legal option after the Labour Appeal Court overturned a Labour Court ruling that had ordered their reinstatement.

The financial backdrop matters here. Billions of rands were lost to corruption at PRASA during what Zackie Achmat, a director of activist organisation #UniteBehind, describes as the “Lucky Montana era.” Ngoye, who served as head of legal, risk and compliance, was central to the agency’s efforts to claw back those losses. Holele held the position of head of strategy. Both were dismissed when their five-year contracts expired, a termination the Labour Court initially found unlawful and ordered reversed.

That victory proved short-lived. The Labour Appeal Court reversed the decision in March 2024, ruling that although the termination was unlawful, the employees were not entitled to reinstatement under the legal framework they had invoked. The court also ordered Ngoye and Holele to pay PRASA’s legal costs, a punishing outcome for two executives who had spent years fighting the agency in court.

The technical reasoning behind that reversal is critical. Because the whistleblowers relied on the Basic Conditions of Employment Act rather than the Labour Relations Act, the only available remedies were specific performance or damages. They had not proven damages. No reinstatement followed. The Constitutional Court subsequently declined to hear an appeal, finding no prospects of success and describing the legal issues as already settled.

Meanwhile, #UniteBehind has applied to join the Constitutional Court proceedings as either an intervening party or friend of the court. Achmat has filed an affidavit contextualising the dismissals within PRASA’s broader corruption landscape. Under board chair Popo Molefe from 2014 to 2017, PRASA filed approximately 39 reports to the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation under Section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, which mandates reporting of corrupt activity involving R100,000 or more.

Ngoye’s contribution to that recovery effort was substantial. She oversaw PRASA’s litigation to set aside unlawful contracts and recover misappropriated funds. One notable instance involved her attempt to prevent then interim board chair Nana Makhubele from settling with corruption-implicated company Siyaya for nearly R60 million. Makhubele, simultaneously appointed a judge in the Gauteng High Court, was later found guilty of gross misconduct by the Judicial Service Commission.

After Molefe’s term ended, the interim board under Makhubele “immediately started efforts to undo the progress of the Molefe board and to paralyse the parts of PRASA driving this recovery,” according to Achmat’s affidavit. The legal department under Ngoye’s leadership became, as Achmat states, “an obvious and immediate target.” Ngoye was dismissed, briefly returned to work, then suspended on disciplinary charges related to PRASA contracts with Swifambo and SA Fence and Gate. She was later cleared of those charges.

Ngoye also worked to protect PRASA’s financial interests against Siyangena Technologies, which sought to overturn a Pretoria High Court finding that it was complicit in corruption connected to contracts valued at approximately R5.5 billion. The litigation against the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation and the National Prosecuting Authority for failing to act on PRASA’s corruption reports was eventually abandoned by the agency and has since been taken up by Open Secrets.

UniteBehind’s decade-long engagement with PRASA’s corruption challenges has frequently depended on information from whistleblowers. Molefe provided Treasury reports documenting approximately 300 unlawful contracts, collectively known as the #PRASALeaks. Through that work, the organisation was introduced to Ngoye and legal services general manager Fani Dingiswayo, who provided detailed briefings on the case.

If granted leave to intervene, #UniteBehind intends to invoke Section 172 of the Constitution, which permits courts to declare conduct inconsistent with the Constitution as invalid, or alternatively to rely on the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act to seek reinstatement with back pay. Achmat argues the Labour Appeal Court treated the case primarily as a labour dispute, failing to account for its public interest dimension.

The Constitutional Court’s decision on the recission application will determine whether Ngoye and Holele can still pursue reinstatement or whether their legal options are exhausted. More broadly, it will test whether South African courts will allow procedural technicalities to override whistleblower protections when the public cost of corruption runs into the billions.