--- title: "Naspers and MultiChoice: testimony, SABC proceedings and later ownership" language: en canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/naspers/multichoice-sabc-and-later-separation/ as_of: 2026-09-21 keywords: ["Naspers","Prosus","voting control","Nasbel","Keerom","Wheatfields","Takealot","PayU","Media24"] --- # Naspers and MultiChoice: testimony, SABC proceedings and later ownership **Question.** Which historical links and procedural outcomes survive the 2019 unbundling? **Answer.** Carrim’s allegations, the companies’ responses, merger-notification litigation and the former group’s later Canal+ transaction are separate episodes. The latter does not restore a Naspers holding. ## Carrim’s testimony, contemporary responses and limited conclusions - Analysis: Historical reporting and former communications minister Yunus Carrim’s testimony alleged that MultiChoice used its commercial position and dealings with the SABC to influence digital-television encryption policy. Reporting on the Gupta emails also questioned payments connected with ANN7. These matters concern the period before MultiChoice’s 2019 unbundling from Naspers. [s-d232] [s-d294] [s-d295] [s-d296] [s-supp-zondo-lobbying-outcome] - Qualification: Carrim’s testimony, journalists’ allegations and the 2017 Pomerantz announcement are different kinds of evidence. A law firm announcing an investigation on behalf of shareholders is not a filed shareholder action or a court finding of securities fraud. - Response: Naspers said it supported MultiChoice’s review of possible governance failures and took malpractice allegations seriously; it said it had not been informed of investor legal action. In response to Carrim, its spokesperson argued that his allegations did not assert illegal conduct by Naspers and said the company would not exercise its rights to give or test evidence at the inquiry. The Guptas and Jacob Zuma denied wrongdoing in the wider allegations reported by Reuters. The commission’s final report records MultiChoice’s denial of improper lobbying and its statement that it played no role in Carrim’s non-reappointment. It also records a company review acknowledging mistakes in ANN7 dealings and recommending stronger channel-ownership due diligence and escalation. - Outcome: The final State Capture Commission report, Part V Volume 2, printed page 516, found no evidential basis for fraud or corruption in the MultiChoice lobbying concerned. That limited favorable conclusion must accompany the allegations; it is not a blanket clearance of every contract or a ruling in the separate competition proceedings. ## Investigative power, merger notification and distinct appellate outcomes - Analysis: The SABC–MultiChoice agreement also generated a competition-law dispute about whether it conferred sufficient influence to be a notifiable merger. The complainants were Caxton, the S.O.S Support Public Broadcasting Coalition and the Media Monitoring Project Benefit Trust. The 2018 Constitutional Court ruling confirmed the Commission’s investigative powers; it did not itself decide all disputed merger facts. [s-d179] [s-d323] [s-d361] - Qualification: The Commission’s November 2018 report and April 2021 supplement concluded that the agreement could influence the SABC’s strategic direction. MultiChoice disputed that the pleaded facts constituted a merger and sought dismissal by exception. - Outcome: On 14 April 2025 the Tribunal dismissed that exception. It held that disputed factual and legal questions required oral evidence in their proper context. This allowed the main case to proceed; it was not yet a final merger-liability decision or a criminal finding. ## The former group’s later Canal+ and LicenceCo structure - Analysis: MultiChoice’s later Canal+ transaction concerns a business unbundled from Naspers in 2019. The February 2025 structure described MultiChoice (Pty) Ltd—the South African licensee, referred to as LicenceCo—as the entity to be carved out. It was not described as a newly discovered subsidiary with an independent incorporation merely because the label LicenceCo was used. [s-d86] [s-d385] [s-d391] [s-d402] - Qualification: The proposed allocation distinguished a 49% economic interest and 20% voting rights for MultiChoice Group from a 27% economic interest for Phuthuma Nathi, with other empowerment consortia and an employee plan involved. Economic and voting percentages are different denominators. The consortia’s leaders are not automatically personal direct shareholders in LicenceCo. - Response: The companies said the proposed structure addressed foreign-control and empowerment requirements, with services supplied under commercial agreements by other group entities. - Outcome: Later 2025 reporting records conditional competition approval and commencement of reorganisation steps. Those reports must retain their proposal and implementation dates; approval alone is not proof that every step was already completed. None restores a current Naspers ownership link. ## Sources - [s-d232] Other source · s-d232 - [s-d294] Media source · s-d294 - [s-d295] Media source · s-d295 - [s-d296] Media source · s-d296 - [s-supp-zondo-lobbying-outcome] Judicial Commission of Inquiry into State Capture, Report Part V Volume 2, www.gov.za, 2022-06 - [s-d179] Court record source · s-d179 - [s-d323] Court record concerning Naspers or the identified participant, South African Competition Tribunal - [s-d361] Court record source · s-d361 - [s-d86] Other source · s-d86 - [s-d385] Media source · s-d385 - [s-d391] Media source · s-d391 - [s-d402] Media source · s-d402