WeeklySA_AdminTUSSLE: The bitter battle for control of Jozi FM has escalated into an urgent High Court contempt application set for Tuesday…
By Monk Nkomo
The acrimonious struggle over the leadership of Jozi FM has reached a potentially explosive new stage, with a faction claiming to be the legitimate leadership of the Soweto community broadcaster now facing an urgent application to have its members declared in contempt of court.
The application, brought by Rapitse Peter Montsho in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, accuses nine individuals associated with a rival board of continuing to exercise governance powers despite an interim High Court order expressly prohibiting them from doing so.
In a detailed founding affidavit, Montsho alleges that the rival leadership structure has continued to present itself publicly as Jozi FM’s lawful board, making pronouncements about executive appointments and interfering with efforts to convene a fresh annual general meeting (AGM).
The latest legal offensive comes amid an increasingly bitter struggle over the leadership of the Soweto Media Resource Centre (SMRC), the non-profit company operating Jozi FM. The dispute has seen rival boards, competing claims to executive authority, disciplinary proceedings and disputes over access to the station’s premises.
The question confronting the court is whether its earlier intervention has been deliberately disregarded — and what measures are now necessary to ensure that Jozi FM can return to lawful and stable governance….
At the centre of the latest application is a July 23, 2026, interim order granted by Acting Judge Dreyer, restraining members of the disputed board from exercising directors’ powers, making governance and operational decisions or representing themselves to regulators, employees and other stakeholders as the station’s legitimate leadership.
The order was intended to stabilise the broadcaster while a properly constituted AGM was arranged to elect a new board.
Montsho now argues that the very conduct the court sought to prevent has continued, effectively frustrating the judicial intervention.
The application is scheduled for an urgent hearing on Tuesday, October 13, 2026.
According to the affidavit, Montsho is also seeking an order enforcing the existing court order and restoring conditions necessary for Jozi FM to elect a legitimate board. He contends that continued resistance and competing claims to authority have frustrated efforts, including those directed by the High Court, to bring stability to the station.
The renewed litigation highlights the institutional damage threatened by the prolonged leadership battle. For Jozi FM listeners, the legal confrontation raises a more fundamental concern: whether the community broadcaster can maintain stable operations while those claiming to represent it remain locked in an increasingly hostile struggle for control.
According to Montsho’s affidavit, the rival leadership continued to issue communications identifying its members as directors and office-bearers despite the July High Court ruling.
He cites a media invitation issued on August 13 and a subsequent briefing concerning the broadcaster’s governance and executive leadership. The communications allegedly presented members of the disputed structure as chairperson, deputy chairperson, secretary and other board representatives.
Montsho contends that these were not merely disputed titles but public assertions of authority directly prohibited by the court. The affidavit further alleges that the rival board made pronouncements concerning executive leadership, employment and operational matters, thereby continuing to exercise powers the court had temporarily withdrawn.
The respondents named in the proceedings include Roseline Nkosi, Reverend Sipho Mpungose, Thembinkosi Vilakazi, Sina Mnisi, Mlungisi Mlambo, Nelson Mhlongo, Mbali Mondlana, Khanyisile Mbatha and Kgomotso Motsoari.
The affidavit also refers to Mbuyiseni Robert Mpungose as the person publicly presented as chairperson of the competing board, but expressly acknowledges that the identity associated with the different names must be verified before responsibility can be established.
Importantly, the allegations of contempt have not yet been determined by the court. The respondents remain entitled to oppose the application and present their own account of events.
Dismissed CEO drawn into dispute
The affidavit also places former CEO Hector Mpho “Njomane” Mhlongo at the centre of the dispute. Mhlongo was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings in which he was found guilty of misconduct relating to his continued assertion of executive authority during a precautionary suspension. The Montsho-led board communicated its decision to dismiss him on October 2.
However, in a letter dated October 5, Mhlongo’s attorneys, Dile Inc, rejected the dismissal, disputed Montsho’s authority and maintained that their client remained the legitimate chief executive.
The attorneys relied on the authority of the rival Mpungose-led board, which they said continued to recognise Mhlongo as CEO. They contended that Montsho and the board previously chaired by him were removed as directors by members of the organisation on November 27, 2025. Consequently, they argued, neither Montsho nor that board had the authority to act for the company.
Montsho argues in his application that this demonstrates the continued operation of the very parallel governance structure restrained by the July court order. He is asking the court to prevent Mhlongo from exercising executive authority on behalf of Jozi FM, issuing institutional instructions or controlling station systems through the disputed governance structure.
The affidavit acknowledges that Mhlongo was not subject to precisely the same restrictions as the nine board respondents and that he retains the right to challenge his dismissal through the appropriate legal processes. Another significant development concerns proposed changes to Jozi FM’s corporate records. According to Montsho, a Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) document dated August 12 recorded proposed amendments to the broadcaster’s directorship.
The document listed several disputed directors for removal, while recording Montsho, Dr Thulani Mhlongo and Carol Dyantyi as unchanged.
It also reflected a proposed appointment of Collen Hans as a director. Montsho is seeking preservation of the electronic records associated with the transaction so that the court can establish who initiated and authorised the proposed changes.
Crucially, the affidavit does not establish who was responsible for the transaction, and the proposed amendments do not themselves prove wrongdoing.
Fresh AGM sought to end crisis
The affidavit traces the governance battle through earlier judicial and regulatory interventions, including a September 2025 order by Judge Vally and a June 30, 2026, directive by retired Judge Thokozile Masipa, acting as chairperson of ICASA’s Complaints and Compliance Committee.
Masipa directed ICASA’s Licensing and Compliance Division to assist Jozi FM in convening an elective AGM to choose a valid board. Acting Judge Dreyer subsequently reinforced that objective in July, ordering that an AGM be convened within 60 days.
Montsho now argues that continued resistance and competing claims to authority have frustrated the process. He wants the court to grant another 60 days, or an alternative period it considers appropriate, to allow a properly constituted AGM to take place under the existing regulatory framework.
No contempt finding or sanction has yet been made in the latest proceedings.
The affidavit also raises the possibility of a costs order against Dile Inc Attorneys, but only if the court, after hearing the firm’s response, concludes that its conduct went beyond legitimate legal representation and materially assisted prohibited conduct. Montsho argues that employees, advertisers, financial institutions, regulators and service providers are confronted by competing sources of authority over the broadcaster.
The practical consequences extend to who may issue instructions, manage institutional systems, make employment decisions and represent the station in dealings with outside organisations.
The dispute also threatens to undermine the credibility of the fresh AGM intended to resolve the leadership impasse. The urgent court hearing could prove a significant turning point, although the application does not ask the court to determine permanently who should govern Jozi FM.
For now, the future of the troubled broadcaster remains entangled in a dispute that has moved far beyond an ordinary boardroom disagreement.
The question confronting the court is whether its earlier intervention has been deliberately disregarded — and what measures are now necessary to ensure that Jozi FM can return to lawful and stable governance.
