Government Spokesperson Alpheous Mfana Nxumalo will only agree to terminate his fixed-term contract if the government pays him more than E1.9 million in outstanding and future earnings, along with all contractual benefits and gratuity.
This figure represents the full value of his three-year contract, which carries an annual basic salary of E653 651 under salary grade F3. Nxumalo’s position was outlined in a strongly worded letter from Magagula Attorneys rejecting a settlement offer made by the government in the ongoing Industrial Court matter.
According to the letter, Nxumalo has rejected the offer in its entirety, arguing that it fails to address the real issue before court, enforcement of an existing order compelling the government to pay his salary, which has been withheld since October 2025.
The correspondence makes it clear that Nxumalo is not interested in partial compensation or damages, but insists on full compliance with his employment contract. His lawyers stated that any proposal to cancel the agreement must include payment of the entire 36-month salary, estimated at over E1.9 million, as well as all benefits due for the duration of the contract.
These benefits include a commuted car allowance of E12 085 per month, a cellphone allowance of up to E3 000 monthly, and other entitlements provided under government policy. In addition, Nxumalo is demanding payment of a 25 percent gratuity stipulated in his contract.
“Anything less than this is unacceptable to client,” the attorneys stated.
The letter was addressed to the government’s legal representatives in the matter registered as Industrial Court case number 396/25. It follows an offer reportedly made by the respondents proposing eight months’ salary as damages, a proposal Nxumalo has dismissed as irrelevant.
“The issue before court is not an action for unfair dismissal wherein the kind of offer you made is permissible and normal. Client has not been dismissed from work hence your offer to give him eight months’ damages in settlement is irrelevant,” the letter reads.
Nxumalo’s lawyers emphasised that the matter before court is a contempt of court application, arising from a January 21, 2026 order directing the government to pay his outstanding salary. They argued that any settlement must strictly relate to enforcement of that order.
“Any settlement has to be confined to the four corners of that application and not on collateral issues not covered by the application before court,” they stated.
The attorneys further accused the government of showing disregard for the court order, suggesting that the respondents were selectively choosing which directives to comply with.
“It is now apparent that your clients are not ready to repent from the attitude of contempt of the order of court and have the guts to inform our client the type of order that they choose to comply with,” the letter reads.
Nxumalo, who approached the Industrial Court after his salary was stopped shortly after the commencement of his contract in October 2025, has maintained that the withholding of his earnings is unlawful. He argues that he signed a valid three-year agreement with the Civil Service Commission and was ready to assume his duties, but was instead placed on suspension without a hearing and without pay.
His legal team reiterated that the dispute does not relate to termination of employment, but rather the government’s failure to honour contractual obligations and comply with a court order.
They also criticised the involvement of the Attorney General’s office in proposing settlement terms relating to termination of the contract, arguing that such matters fall under the mandate of the Civil Service Commission.
“It cannot be that your office now usurps the duties of the employer and purport to canvass issues not relevant before court which are the exclusive preserve of the Civil Service Commission,” the letter states.
Nxumalo’s lawyers stressed that if the government intends to terminate the contract, it must follow proper procedures, including affording him a hearing and providing reasons for the decision. They referenced an earlier arrangement in December 2025, where a special holding post was allegedly created for Nxumalo under the Ministry of Public Service, saying any changes to that arrangement must be properly explained.
“All these details cannot be ventilated under the umbrella of contempt of court litigation before court, let alone through your office,” they wrote.
The legal team also raised concerns about Section 4 of the Government Liabilities Act of 1967, arguing that it appears to shield the government from full accountability to court orders. They indicated that Nxumalo is, in the alternative, seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the law.
The latest developments come despite Nxumalo having already secured a favourable ruling earlier this year ordering payment of his salary. However, with the government yet to comply fully, the matter has escalated into contempt proceedings.
Discussion about this post