Mapisa-Nqakula’s trial puts political access under scrutiny

Retired deputy surgeon-general Noel Ndhlovu says his military career collapsed after his wife refused to pay R2 million for his promotion.

It is a striking allegation, and only one part of the much bigger story unfolding in former defence minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula’s corruption trial.

Mapisa-Nqakula faces 12 corruption charges and one count of money laundering. The state alleges that she solicited about R4.5 million from defence contractor Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu and reportedly received more than R2.1 million in cash between 2016 and 2019.

Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu has told the court that she made repeated payments to Mapisa-Nqakula while trying to resolve problems affecting her defence contracts. One alleged demand went beyond business: R2 million to help her husband, Major General Noel Ndhlovu, become Surgeon General (that’s the person who heads up the South African Military Health Service).

Ndhlovu believed he was the strongest candidate. His wife says she refused because he should have received the job on merit. He was instead suspended for about four years, returned under an officer he considered junior and retired in 2025 without the promotion.

Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu is not merely accusing Mapisa-Nqakula of demanding money. She admits making other alleged payments herself and is seeking protection from prosecution through her testimony. Supporting witnesses have also contradicted parts of her account, including where one alleged R300,000 handover happened.

Those contradictions do not automatically destroy the case. People can remember old events differently. But when alleged bribes were paid privately, mainly in cash, credibility becomes central. The state must prove more than that the witnesses knew Mapisa-Nqakula or visited her. It must show that money changed hands and was linked to the misuse of her office.

The defence department controls valuable contracts and senior appointments inside the military. If access to those decisions was for sale, the damage extends beyond one contractor or one general’s career. It means public power may have been treated like private currency.

If the state proves its case, the scandal will be bigger than bags of money. It will show that public office became a marketplace, where careers and contracts may have depended less on merit than on who could pay.