It has since emerged that the contractual dispute Between Sminofu whose real name is Mphile “Sminofu” Gumede from Hluhluwe in the far North of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and his Manager Celimpilo “Matshitshi” Manyathi is the reason his music was removed from all music platforms.

According to reliable sources, Sminofu who has since changed his name to “Smiramira” is facing a tough battle under Manyathi who demanded that he receives 50% from his booking fees.

The sources told MDNtv that before Sminofu released his album in December, Manyathi amended his management contract and demanded 50% for billing fee and informed him that his booking rate was now going to be R45000.

“The contract did not make sense at all. Matshitshi was being a bully and wanted Sminofu to slave for him. This is the painful thing that many maskandi artists are facing. This meant that in every gig that Sminofu gets, Matshitshi takes home R22500. This is daylight robbery. It was very painful to see them fight like that and the fight nearly endef badly as threats were mentioned,” the first source said.

Another source said that Manyathi decided not take Sminofu’s bookings in December.

“This is the reason why Sminofu had few higs. The person who was supposed to take his bookings ad his manager was noy seeing eye-to-eye with him which made it impossible for him to get gigs. This is the sad reality for maskandi artists to be abused in such a manner. The situation he is facing is exactly the same that was faced by Menzi when he was under Insika Music,” the source said.

Another source said that Celimpilo’s brother Bongani who used to Manage Maskandi Legends Shwi noMtekhala tried to intervene but there is still no solution.

“Other maskandi managers tried in vain to intervene and find a solution to this matter but all parties involved failed to find s solution. We feel for Sminofu because he is talented and he trusted Matshitshi but he became greedy and saw a cashcow in him. Many people who have worked with Matshitshi jumped because of his greediness. Sminofu must open his own label like Menzi, Ntencane and others and be independent,” the source said.

Another third source familiar with this matter alleges that Sminofu was back in studio working on another album to release it on Easter Weekend.

When Sminofu was contacted for contacted for he said: “Hhaibo! Where did you get all that information? No comment for now bafo.”

When Manyathi was contacted for comment he said: “Sminofu just texted me , unfortunately will not entertain you.”

Sminofu’s legal team sent MDNtv a statement where they confirmed the ongoing allegations.

“We sincerely appreciate and thank you for your concern and your positive reporting on Sminofu. Your support means a great deal to us.

“At this stage, the Sminofu matter is now a legal issue and is being handled through the appropriate legal channels. We kindly ask for your understanding as we allow the process to take its course.

In the meantime, please let the fans know that Sminofu is currently in the studio working hard and promises a hot new album. We are excited about what’s coming next.

We will communicate further details in due time regarding the sudden name change and share more about the plans for the future,” the letter reads.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post Contractual Disputes And Music Rights Are The Reasons For Maskandi Artist Sminofu’s Songs Are Removed From Youtube appeared first on MDNtv.

The case stems from a public feud where Mathibeli accused Mkhwanazi of harassment and ordering raids on his properties.

As if that was not enough, Mathibeli made allegations that the commissioner calls baseless attempts to tarnish his reputation amid ongoing probes into alleged corruption and criminal ties.

Court papers show Mkhwanazi is seeking declaration that Mathibeli’s statements are false and defamatory, an interdict preventing repetition of the claims and removal and retraction of posts on social media, radio and TV.

The courtroom showdown is being closely watched as they has been two attempts by national SAPS to raid his offices from Fourways to Durban’s Umhlanga and his house too.

Mkhwanazi filed his urgent court papers on Friday in Durban High and the proceedings have begun.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post SAPS KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Provincial Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi In Durban High Court To Force Businessman Calvin Mathibeli To Withdraw The Statement He Made About Him Social Media appeared first on MDNtv.

All these are likely to be set in motion as soon as the court returns from the 2025 year end recess early to mid January 2026.

While the church thinks that the State wants to raise instruments with which to ‘control the church through the back door’, the State believe there must be a standard which church actors must maintain like other professionals – lawyers, doctors and the like. This, it claims, would keep people in line and protect the vulnerable in society.

The Heart of the Dispute

With the looming legal duel, South Africa is in the midst of a serious constitutional showdown, one that places religious independence face-to-face with the state’s responsibility to shield citizens from harm. On one side stands the SACD, a coalition of churches and faith leaders. On the other is the CRL Rights Commission. The clash has landed in the Gauteng High Court, where the SACD is challenging the Commission’s Section 22 Committee and its proposed Draft Christian Sector Self-Regulatory Framework, which the coalition says amounts to unlawful state intrusion into religious life.

The CRL Rights Commission is a constitutionally established body tasked with safeguarding cultural, religious, and linguistic rights. Its decision to form the Section 22 Committee and propose a regulatory framework emerged after years of public concern about a small number of churches implicated in highly publicized cases of abuse, exploitation, and harmful practices. According to the Commission, the aim is simple: accountability, protection of the public, and the restoration of trust.

To the SACD and its supporters, however, the initiative represents something far more troubling. They see it not as protection, but as an expansion of state power that cuts directly into the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. In their view, the Commission has moved beyond its advisory role and is attempting to impose a bureaucratic system that effectively places churches under state control.

Ask the church how she sees the action and consequences, fingers would be pointing to the stepping up of anti-Christ activities, a mark of end-time activities against the church in which persecution steadily increases until Christ the Savior returns as the Bible explains.

SACD’s Case Before the Court

In November 2025, the SACD filed a detailed application with the Gauteng High Court. The case does not deny that criminal conduct should be confronted wherever it occurs. Instead, it challenges the authority of the Commission to regulate religious institutions in the manner proposed.

Their legal arguments rest on several key points:

Constitutional Violations: The SACD argues that the framework infringes on Section 15 (freedom of religion), Section 18 (freedom of association), and Section 31 (rights of cultural, religious, and linguistic communities) of the Constitution. They maintain that churches are being singled out for a level of oversight not imposed on other civil society organizations.

Procedural Overreach – Central to the case is the claim that the Section 22 Committee was unlawfully established. According to court papers, the committee was formed by the CRL Chairperson without a formal resolution of the full Commission, rendering its actions invalid. The SACD also accuses the Commission of mischaracterizing Parliament’s rejection of similar regulatory proposals in 2018.

The SACD also contends that the process has disproportionately focused on Christian churches particularly Charismatic and Pentecostal movements while excluding other faith traditions such as Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. They further point to the inclusion of “the mushrooming of charismatic churches” in South Africa’s 2024–2028 National Security Strategy as evidence of a prejudicial narrative shaping official policy.

Through the court, the SACD is seeking a declaration that the Section 22 Committee is unlawful, that all its work be set aside, and that the state be prohibited from regulating church doctrine or internal governance.

Regulation Versus Autonomy

At its core, the dispute reflects two fundamentally different visions of how ethical conduct within religious spaces should be ensured.

The CRL Commission’s Proposal

The Draft Self-Regulatory Framework outlines a formal structure for the Christian sector that includes:

Mandatory Registration and Accreditation that Churches would be required to register and meet standards facilitated by the state. However, one of the sorest points is issue of the “Seal of Good Standing”which is a Certification for compliant churches, and as far as SACD is concerned, this is repugnant as it fears this could sideline or stigmatize those without it.

An Independent Christian Practice Council: A new body tasked with reviewing and certifying churches based on ethics and governance is being planned.

Future Mandatory Compliance: Although initially framed as voluntary, the CRL Chairperson has indicated that compliance is expected to become compulsory for all churches operating in South Africa.

The SACD’s Response: Independence and Existing Law

The SACD rejects the framework outright, arguing instead for an approach grounded in two principles:

Religious Autonomy: They maintain that calling, doctrine, and church governance fall within the realm of conscience and accountability to God and congregants not the state. In their view, faith cannot be licensed, and the government cannot position itself above spiritual authority.

Use of Existing Laws, which the SACD insists that crimes such as fraud, abuse, and exploitation are already covered by South Africa’s criminal justice system. These offenses, they argue, should be prosecuted through established legal channels rather than through a separate regulatory regime that blurs the line between criminal accountability and spiritual oversight.

Why This Case Matters

Constitutional democracy with reference to the church is on trial and this dispute goes far beyond policy details; it raises fundamental questions about the nature of freedom in this setting.

The court’s ruling will help define the boundary between the state’s duty to prevent harm and the constitutional protection of religious independence. It will shape how South Africa balances freedom and regulation in the years ahead. It is a case under intense watch all over the world and promises to be quite interesting.

Here are implications for all faith communities: while the current framework targets the Christian sector, its success could pave the way for similar oversight across all religious traditions.

However, the case has sparked intense public discussion around power, trust, and accountability. Some see the Commission’s actions as part of a wider global shift toward state control of religious expression, while others argue that stronger oversight is essential to protect vulnerable people from abuse.

South Africa At Crossroads

The confrontation between the SACD and the CRL Rights Commission marks a defining moment in South Africa’s democratic journey. It forces the nation to confront a difficult but vital question: how can society enforce the rule of law and protect citizens from harm without encroaching on the sacred, constitutionally protected space of faith and worship? While the Church is wont to watch over errant ministers, which she agrees should be subject to the existing criminal justice system, the end time events such as increasing challenges and persecution against her is building up, all be it subtly. She should prepare for ‘war’.

For the SACD, this is a stand in defense of the Constitution against bureaucratic overreach. For the CRL Commission, it is a necessary intervention to safeguard the public from unchecked abuse.

As the Gauteng High Court prepares to hear the matter, its decision will do more than settle a legal dispute. It will either reaffirm or redraw the delicate boundary between church and state shaping South Africa’s understanding of religious freedom for generations to come.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post Battle for Soul of the Church: SACD Tests Clout Against CRL Rights Commission appeared first on MDNtv.

Speaking during a live-streamed press conference watched across South Africa, Madonsela said she was forced to break her silence after months of what she calls a “relentless character assassination campaign” linked to the estate of her late partner, businessman Richard “Dick” Foxton, who passed away on 21 June 2025.

“I Come With a Heavy Heart”: Why Madonsela Spoke Out Now

Madonsela opened the briefing by explaining that she had tried to deal with her partner’s passing privately and with dignity, but escalating developments left her with no choice.

“I come to this platform reluctantly with a heavy heart… Nearly six months since the passing of my late partner,” she said.

According to Madonsela, shortly after she filed court papers challenging a will she believes does not reflect Foxton’s true wishes, she became the target of damaging media reports portraying her as greedy and embroiled in a “bitter family dispute”.

She strongly rejected that narrative.

“I have had no fight with the Foxton family. The only party that has had issues with me since hours of bereavement is someone my partner trusted with his business and finances.”

Shock Eviction Attempt Days After Foxton’s Death

One of the most disturbing revelations was an attempted eviction just two days after Foxton died.

Madonsela told journalists that while she was mourning, a message was posted in a family WhatsApp group instructing that the Johannesburg apartment she shared with Foxton be locked and vacated immediately.

“This was not a court order. It was a chilling WhatsApp message,” she said.

She stressed that the apartment was their primary home, where they spent holidays, Christmases and years together, while a Stellenbosch house was mainly for work and future retirement.

The attempted eviction, she said, traumatised not only her but also her children and Foxton’s son, Justin Foxton, who had travelled to Johannesburg to mourn his father.

Life Partner, Not a “Casual Relationship”

Madonsela was emphatic that her relationship with Foxton was public, long-term and deeply committed, lasting nearly a decade.

She revealed:

They met in 2016 and became engaged in 2018

She was introduced publicly as his partner

She lived with him and supported him until his final weeks

She cited messages from Foxton’s own family members acknowledging her role in his life and confirming that he regarded her as the love of his life.

“Every speaker at the funeral treated me as his spouse. Our relationship was never secret.”

She described as “bizarre and hurtful” demands that she stop calling herself his partner, despite the very will being defended referring to her as such.

Alleged Fraud, Missing Documents and a Disputed Will

At the centre of the legal battle is a disputed will, with Madonsela challenging what she described as a purported 2025 will that allegedly:

Does not comply with legal requirements

Is missing the original document

Contradicts earlier valid wills

She also raised serious concerns about estate reporting, claiming that documents lodged with the Master of the High Court:

Incorrectly listed the deceased as having no children

Misrepresented who the “nearest relative” was

Underreported assets

Madonsela confirmed she has formally asked for the removal of the executors, arguing they lack impartiality and failed in their fiduciary duties.

R10 Million Property Valuation Sparks Safety Fears

One of the most alarming moments of the briefing came when Madonsela addressed reports that the home she currently lives in was allegedly valued at R10 million without her knowledge or consent.

“I never authorised anyone to access my home for a valuation,” she said.

She explained that professional valuations require physical access, raising fears that someone may have entered her home without permission.

Security experts, she revealed, advised her to make the issue public in case “anything happens” to her.

“The thought of unauthorised access to my home left a chilling effect on my family.”

“This Is Not About Money”

Madonsela firmly rejected claims that she is seeking more than what was provided for in earlier wills.

“I am not asking for double the bequest. That would be unlawful.”

Her court application, she said, seeks only:

A declaration that the disputed will is invalid

Enforcement of valid earlier bequests

Removal of executors appointed under questionable circumstances

Appointment of an impartial executor

She also confirmed that her rights as a surviving life partner are grounded in constitutional and statutory law following key Constitutional Court judgments.

A Call for Justice and Transparency

In closing, an emotional Madonsela said the last six months had forced her to grieve while simultaneously defending her dignity, her safety and her partner’s legacy.

“I consider these grave injustices.”

She called on the Department of Justice to conduct a forensic investigation into the estate, particularly what she described as potentially fraudulent reporting.

“I did not invite you to judge these matters. I expect the court to judge them.”

Madonsela ended by thanking her children, supportive members of the Foxton family, colleagues, friends, and South Africans who have offered prayers and messages of support.

Why This Story Matters

This unfolding legal battle involving one of South Africa’s most respected public figures raises profound questions about estate administration, women’s rights, life partnerships, and the abuse of power during bereavement.

As the courts prepare to rule, the nation will be watching closely.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post Thuli Madonsela Breaks Silence on R10 Million Legal Battle, Eviction Threats and Safety Fears After Partner’s Death appeared first on MDNtv.

The case, filed on 17 November 2025 in the Johannesburg High Court, comes after months of tension between Christian groups and the CRL, following the Commission’s decision to form what it called a “Section 22 Committee.”

According to the SACD, this committee was created illegally and is part of a broader attempt to place churches, doctrines, and religious leadership under state control — something Parliament had previously rejected.

Tensions Reach Breaking Point

The dispute escalated on 2 October 2025, when SACD says the CRL reignited an old regulatory agenda without legal authority or public consultation.

The move sparked outrage among Christian organisations, who accused the CRL of ignoring constitutional limits and acting in defiance of Parliament’s earlier decisions.

Thousands of believers marched from Pretoria to Cape Town on 8 October and again on 13 November, presenting a memorandum to both the President and Parliament.

But SACD says the CRL refused to back down, dismissing calls for restraint and showing “disturbing indifference” to the rights of the Christian community.

A ‘Moment of Truth’ for Religious Freedom

SACD argues that South Africa has now reached a critical turning point.

The organisation wants the High Court to:

Declare the Section 22 Committee unlawful

Strike down the CRL’s attempts to regulate church doctrine, leadership and training

Reject the CRL’s classification of charismatic churches as a “national security threat”

SACD describes the case as a direct challenge to a Chapter 9 institution it believes has gone far beyond its mandate and interfered in the “sacred terrain” of worship and church autonomy.

The Fight Moves to the High Court

The application was officially served on 18 November 2025 on the CRL’s chairperson, Ms Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva, Mr Musa Xulu and the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs.

With the matter now heading to the High Court, the future of religious freedom in South Africa is set to be contested with “unprecedented intensity.”

SACD Vows to Continue the Battle

In a firm statement, SACD said it would pursue the case relentlessly to defend the Church and protect constitutional rights:

“We will not allow any institution to erode the freedoms guaranteed to every believer in this nation.”

The organisation promised to provide further updates as the court proceedings unfold.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post Church Defenders Take CRL to Court as Battle Over Religious Freedom Reaches Breaking Point appeared first on MDNtv.

Andre McKechnie, who is currently behind bars in Victoria, says the long-standing ban on Vegemite in the state’s prisons is unfair and strips him of the chance to enjoy a part of his national culture. Vegemite has been off-limits in Victoria’s jails since 2006 because officials believe inmates could use the strong-smelling spread to hide contraband or even ferment alcohol.

McKechnie, now 54, argues that the ban goes too far. In his lawsuit, he claims the restriction violates his right to cultural expression as an Australian and that prison authorities have failed to provide food that supports his well-being. He wants the ban scrapped entirely.

His case is expected to go to trial next year.

Vegemite has been a beloved — and sometimes divisive — part of Australian life since it first appeared in 1923. The thick, salty, yeast-based spread is deeply tied to Australia’s identity, especially in its birthplace, Melbourne. Yet for all its cultural weight, the spread has also found itself at the centre of quirky controversies over the years, including taste debates and even international disputes over its sale.

Whether adored or avoided, Vegemite remains a powerful symbol of Australian culture — and for McKechnie, it’s something worth fighting for, even from behind bars.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post Australian inmate fights for his right to enjoy Vegemite in prison appeared first on MDNtv.

The case dates back to 2018, when SARS notified Maphorisa of plans to conduct an income tax audit, alleging that he had not submitted his tax returns. The agency requested supporting documents, including bank statements, income records, and tax certificates.

Maphorisa later explained during a pre-trial conference that he had filed his returns after the audit began, citing mental health challenges as a cause of delay. However, SARS concluded that funds paid into his bank account formed part of undeclared income and accused him of intentional tax evasion.

Following the audit, SARS imposed a 200% penalty and raised assessments totalling over R3.3 million. Maphorisa challenged the findings, arguing that the calculations were unfair and that his business expenses were not considered. His objections were dismissed in 2022, prompting him to lodge a formal appeal before the South African Tax Court.

The “Mnike” hitmaker is now seeking to overturn the multi-million-rand assessment, insisting that the penalties were unreasonable and that he has been unfairly treated. The case is still under review, with a ruling yet to be made.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post DJ Maphorisa Battles SARS in Court Over R3.3 Million Tax Dispute appeared first on MDNtv.

The dispute stems from a 2021 ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal, which found Zuma was not entitled to taxpayer-funded legal aid and ordered him to reimburse the government. However, Zuma’s legal team argues that the ruling was unfair and that the fault lies with the state, not him.

The Presidency maintains that Zuma must settle the amount, saying it’s too late for him to challenge the issue. The court has reserved its judgment on the matter.

Visit MDNtv YouTube Channel for our video content

The post Jacob Zuma Fights Back in Court Over R28 Million Legal Bill appeared first on MDNtv.

The South Gauteng High Court ruled that she is entitled to take back her vehicle without paying the charges, after finding that she never agreed to the storage arrangement.

The case began in 2022 when the vehicle developed mechanical problems and was taken to a repair workshop. After disputes over the cause of the breakdown and repair responsibilities, the car was eventually moved to a storage company without the owner’s permission. She later discovered she was being billed daily storage costs despite not authorising the transfer.

Frustrated, she turned to the courts, arguing that she faced irreparable harm as she was still paying off the car loan. The judge agreed, noting that the workshop had only issued her with a repair quote and not a storage contract. The court found that she had even attempted to recover her car before it was moved, but the vehicle was no longer on site.

The judge ordered both the repair workshop and the storage company to return the Hyundai H1 within 10 days, without any storage fees. If they fail to comply, the sheriff has been instructed to seize the vehicle wherever it may be and deliver it to her.

The post Court Orders Return of Car Held in Storage Over R237,000 Dispute appeared first on MDNtv.

The post Anglo American Lawsuit Dismissal: Kabwe’s Lead Poisoning Case appeared first on MDNtv.