Afierce public dispute has erupted between businessman Zunaid Moti and the leadership of Mantengu Mining Limited, with both parties levelling serious allegations of misconduct, deception, and misinformation against each other. The row follows a media statement and podcast interview released by Moti on 27 October 2025, which prompted an immediate and detailed rebuttal by Mantengu, issued late on 31 October.
At the heart of the disagreement lies Moti’s claim that he has been falsely implicated in the affairs of Mantengu, a company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), and that its CEO, Mike Miller, is attempting to scapegoat him for Mantengu’s financial underperformance. Moti asserts that he has “absolutely no stake in the company” and “zero desire to even be associated with Mantengu or its operations”.
In a widely circulated press release and interview with BizNews’ Alec Hogg, Moti accused Mantengu of engaging in a pattern of “creative accounting, inflated valuations, and misleading reporting”, all while casting aspersions on his name in an attempt to divert attention from the company’s “poor governance and lack of delivery”.
Among the more pointed criticisms was Moti’s assertion that Mantengu’s flagship acquisition—chrome mining operation Langpan—was misrepresented to shareholders. According to Moti, while independent valuators pegged Langpan’s worth at approximately R27.5 million, Mantengu promoted it to investors at a valuation of R550 million during a 2022 reverse-listing transaction. He argued that this contributed to a crash in Mantengu’s share price and eroded shareholder value.
Moti also flagged the acquisition of Sublime Technologies, a company reportedly valued at R350 million, which was acquired by Mantengu for “zero rand”. In his view, such a deal raised serious red flags regarding Mantengu’s financial transparency and tax compliance, stating it appeared to be a textbook case of “paper profit inflation”.
Furthermore, Moti challenged the company’s debt-to-cash ratio, pointing to R600 million in debt against R30 million in cash and an operating profit of just R4 million, suggesting this imbalance was being masked by questionable financial manoeuvres. He also criticised the compensation packages awarded to the company’s co-CEOs, claiming they were excessive relative to earnings and shareholder returns.
In response, Mantengu has issued a blistering 7,000-word press statement that seeks to dismantle Moti’s accusations line by line. The company described Moti’s commentary as “defamatory,” “misleading,” and “designed to deceive the public”, while defending the legitimacy of its operations, valuations, and corporate decisions.
On the issue of the Langpan valuation, Mantengu insisted the R550 million figure was in fact a 35% discount to the JSE-approved valuation of R852 million, which was supported by a Competent Persons Report (CPR) and verified by SAMREC and SAMVAL experts. The company noted that Moti’s figure of R27.5 million had no basis in fact and amounted to a deliberate distortion of public records.
Mantengu’s leadership further asserted that the company’s PGM operations were misunderstood or misrepresented by Moti. “Chrome and PGMs are found in the same ore body,” the company stated, explaining that while chrome is extracted immediately, PGMs are currently being stockpiled until processing infrastructure is scaled. In addition, the firm noted its recent acquisition of Blue Ridge Platinum and an ongoing due diligence process to acquire Kilken Platinum, highlighting its commitment to long-term diversification and value creation in the platinum space.
Addressing Moti’s criticism of the Sublime Technologies deal, Mantengu explained that the acquisition was a bargain purchase under IFRS 3 accounting rules, valued independently by PwC, and audited by Mantengu’s external auditors. The company maintains that such transactions, while rare, are permissible and even beneficial when structured transparently and within accepted accounting standards.
Regarding the company’s financial position, Mantengu acknowledged its R600 million debt but pointed out it holds R1.1 billion in assets, including substantial investments in property, plant, and equipment during the 2025 financial year. “All companies require funding,” the statement read. “Equity is expensive; debt is cheaper but more difficult to raise. We prefer debt to avoid further shareholder dilution.”
In more personal terms, Mantengu’s statement took aim at Moti’s qualifications and knowledge of regulatory and tax frameworks, calling his analysis “laughable” and “verbal diarrhoea”. The company also challenged Moti’s criticism of CEO Mike Miller, whom it describes as a qualified chartered accountant with a master’s degree in finance and a track record of building empowerment-focused businesses in rural South Africa.
The statement also accuses Moti of dodging questions during his BizNews interview—specifically regarding alleged historical links with forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan, and mentions various historical affidavits and settlements involving both parties. These allegations were raised in what the company claims is an effort to highlight “a pattern of deflection and obfuscation” by Moti.
Mantengu concluded by reiterating its support for ongoing investigations into alleged share price manipulation and confirmed that it has provided all relevant evidence to authorities. However, the company stated that it could not publicly disclose the contents of this evidence “for obvious legal reasons,” adding that doing so might give the alleged perpetrators an unfair opportunity to prepare defences.
In what has now become a very public and combative standoff, both Moti and Mantengu claim to be operating in the interest of shareholder transparency. Moti maintains that his only involvement with Mantengu was as a third-party facilitator of a meeting, and that the only reason he began examining the company’s affairs was due to public allegations against him. Mantengu, for its part, insists that Moti’s criticisms are disingenuous, and perhaps motivated by jealousy or vested interests not yet fully disclosed.
While it remains unclear whether this dispute will escalate into legal proceedings, what is certain is that the feud has drawn widespread attention to Mantengu’s corporate governance, valuation practices, and investment strategy. It has also opened broader questions about regulatory oversight, investor education, and the challenges of transparency in South Africa’s junior mining sector.
For observers and investors, the next steps will be critical. With both parties promising documentary evidence, and at least one regulatory body—the FSCA—reportedly reviewing aspects of the case, outcomes in the weeks to come may shift public sentiment and investor behaviour significantly.
Until then, the public remains caught between two sharply divergent narratives—each fortified with facts, allegations, and accusations, but with little common ground.
