South African media personality Minnie Dlamini has publicly pushed back against allegations linked to a long-running investigation, issuing a blunt and emotionally charged Instagram statement in which she questioned why authorities appeared to single her out. In the post, titled “Official Statement,” Dlamini firmly denied any wrongdoing and challenged the approach taken by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), saying she was being unfairly portrayed as the face of a case in which she insists she played no unlawful role.
“I have no idea why the SIU is trying to make me the face of this case,” she wrote. “I DID NOT steal any money.” Dlamini further questioned how she could reasonably be expected to know the origin of funds used to pay her for a professional booking, arguing that such responsibility does not rest with service providers.
According to Dlamini, she was “deeply disappointed” by the SIU’s public statements, which she believes have caused unnecessary damage to her reputation. She said the matter relates to a professional engagement dating back to 2016, when she was booked to provide services for an event. For that booking, she said, she was paid R50,000, a fee she described as standard for her work at the time.
Dlamini Maintains Innocence, Questions Purpose of SIU Investigation
Dlamini explained that the event in question never went ahead, but maintained that the booking itself was a normal commercial transaction. She stressed that she had no involvement in organising the event, nor any insight into how the organisers sourced their funding. “I do not involve myself in unlawful activities,” she stated, adding that she “categorically” rejects any suggestion that she knowingly benefited from stolen or irregular funds.
She argued that expecting entertainers, presenters, or other service providers to investigate the origin of funds behind every booking is both unreasonable and unrealistic. In her view, her role was limited strictly to providing professional services once contracted, with no obligation or ability to audit the finances of those who hired her.
Dlamini also addressed the issue of repayment, which has featured prominently in public discourse around the case. She said investigators later approached her requesting documentation relating to the 2016 engagement. However, given the passage of nearly a decade, she explained that some records were no longer available. Faced with what she described as a growing reputational risk, she opted to repay the R50,000.
She was emphatic that the repayment should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt. “I paid the amount back not because I did anything wrong,” she said, explaining that the sum was insignificant compared to the potential long-term damage to her name and career. For Dlamini, the decision was a pragmatic one, taken to bring closure to the matter rather than prolong public speculation.
The SIU, however, released a media statement dated 19 December 2025 confirming that Dlamini had agreed to repay R50,000 received in 2016. The statement linked the payment to funds that were allegedly irregularly received from the Mshandukani Foundation, a non-profit organisation. According to the SIU, those funds were connected to a National Lotteries Commission (NLC) grant intended for a 2016 Rio Olympics Roadshow.
While the SIU framed the repayment as part of its broader efforts to recover misused public funds, Dlamini took issue with what she described as being publicly singled out. She said her name had been highlighted across multiple platforms in a way that suggested culpability, despite her insistence that she acted in good faith as a service provider.
“It is critical to be clear,” she wrote, reiterating that she was booked for a job and paid for services, nothing more. She maintained that she was neither an organiser nor a beneficiary of any alleged scheme involving public or donor funds.
In closing, Dlamini said she remains resolute in defending her integrity and made it clear that she has not waived any of her legal rights. “My rights remain fully reserved in this regard,” she stated, signalling that while she has repaid the money to avoid further harm, she does not accept the narrative surrounding her involvement.
The controversy has reignited debate about accountability, public perception, and the fine line between legal process and reputational damage, particularly for high-profile figures whose careers depend heavily on public trust.
Source- iHarare
