Mpho Motsei has rejected the validity of his suspension as president of the Black Management Forum, telling Business Explainer that the process used to remove him breached the organisation’s Constitution and that he remains, in his view, the organisation’s duly elected leader.
His response follows questions put to him after the BMF Board’s 9 July statement confirming that Motsei, along with Western Cape chairperson Sonwabile Xwayi and Mpumalanga chairperson Thulani Mlangeni, had been placed on precautionary suspension pending an independent disciplinary process.
Motsei’s account complicates an already tangled picture. He confirmed that he had separately placed seven non-executive directors, deputy president Lilly Moabi among them, on precautionary suspension over unrelated governance concerns before the Board’s statement was issued. He alleges that this same group of suspended directors then convened on their own and presented themselves publicly as the legitimate board, a characterisation that puts his account directly at odds with the Board’s own statement confirming his suspension.
It is worth being precise about who is on which list. The Board’s 9 July statement names Motsei, Xwayi and Mlangeni as those suspended. Motsei’s earlier 7 July statement names a different seven individuals, including Moabi, as the ones he suspended. The two suspension processes involve almost entirely different people, and Motsei’s dispute is essentially over which of these two competing actions carries legal force.
| Suspended by the Board (9 July) | Motsei (President), Xwayi (WC Chair), Mlangeni (Mpumalanga Chair) |
| Suspended by Motsei (7 July) | Moabi (DP), Madikane (FS), Mthembu (EC), Bojang (NW), Nkwanyana (KZN), Letsatsi (GP), Klass (Young Professionals) |
| Motsei’s position | Disputes the Board’s suspension of him as procedurally invalid |
| On the Stalwarts report | Says it was circulated solely by Mzwanele Manyi, not adopted collectively |
| On legal action | Confirms legal advice sought; declines to confirm litigation |
| On AGM records | Says minutes sit with the Secretariat; points to audited financials instead |
On the Committee of Stalwarts report that underpins the Board’s case against him, Motsei maintains it does not reflect the collective view of the committee. He said his understanding is based on correspondence from a committee member, identified as Mr Mpafa, who indicated he had been instructed by Mzwanele Manyi to circulate the report while Manyi was travelling internationally, and that the document was not adopted through the committee’s collective process. Motsei suggested Business Explainer verify this directly with other committee members, which this publication intends to pursue.
Asked whether he intends to challenge the Board’s decision legally, Motsei declined to confirm any litigation, saying only that legal advice had been sought and that all rights remain reserved.
On the specific findings around a 25 percent board remuneration increase and a 2024 dividend declaration the stalwarts’ report says breached the Companies Act, Motsei said these matters had gone through audited financial reporting and were addressed at the BMF’s AGM, though he was unable to supply the AGM minutes or resolutions requested, saying those records sit with the organisation’s Secretariat.
On why he suspended the seven office bearers, Motsei said the move was unconnected to the stalwarts’ findings and instead stemmed from separate governance concerns that, prima facie, appeared to undermine organisational stability, though he declined to detail these further while investigations continue. He pointed to the 2024 labour court ruling, which found an earlier presidential suspension procedurally unlawful, as context shaping his view that his own removal must meet a higher bar of constitutional compliance than has, in his account, been applied.
Business Explainer has approached the BMF Board for comment on Motsei’s specific claims, including the allegation that the suspended directors improperly convened as the board, and will update this story with any response received.
The matter is likely headed for formal legal or regulatory resolution, a prospect that leaves the organisation’s fiftieth anniversary year clouded by an unresolved contest over who, legally, is entitled to speak for it.