Judge Charged with Graft in Church Succession Battle

Judge Portia Dipuo Phahlane, a member of the International Pentecost Holiness Church (IPHC), and three co-accused were granted bail following allegations of corruption and money laundering linked to a church succession dispute. The charges include the doctrine of common purpose, with the court proceedings highlighting a complex legal battle that has drawn attention from national anti-corruption agencies.

The Hawks acting national head, Siphosihle Nkosi, emphasized the unit’s commitment to addressing graft at all levels, citing the arrest of Phahlane and others as a result of meticulous investigations by the Serious Corruption Investigation team. The operation was prompted by serious allegations involving attempts to influence a civil case before the Pretoria High Court, which is tied to the IPHC’s succession dispute.

Phahlane, identified as the leader of the IPHC, along with her son Kagiso Phahlane, and two others—Mike Sandlana, the church’s current spokesperson, and Vusi Ndala—appeared in court. Phahlane was released on R50,000 bail. The charges include corruption, money laundering, and the doctrine of common purpose, with the investigation revealing a money trail involving millions of rands.

The IPHC, founded by Frederick Modise in the 1960s, has been embroiled in litigation since the death of Modise’s son, Glayton Modise, in 2016. Three factions are vying for the position of IPHC “comforter”: Modise’s sons Tshepiso and Leonard, and Sandlana, who claims to be Modise’s biological son. The succession dispute has led to significant legal and internal tensions within the church.

Civil society organisation Judges Matter called on Phahlane to step down from her judicial duties, expressing shock at the allegations. The case underscores the intersection of legal and ecclesiastical power struggles, with implications for the church’s leadership and governance.

The investigation has uncovered a network of individuals allegedly involved in a corruption and money laundering scheme, with the court proceedings reflecting the broader implications of such actions on the rule of law and institutional integrity. The case serves as a reminder of the need for accountability and transparency in positions of trust.

Source: Read the original report