A whistleblower’s damning allegations against the Industrial Development Corporation paint a picture of an organisation characterised by fear, retribution, bullying and disregard for employee rights.
In a letter to IDC chief executive Mmakgoshi Lekhethe last month, Tebogo Vincent Modika, suspended for transgressing the IDC’s employment policies, accuses the company of abusing its powers and policies including the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, Public Finance Management Act and the Anti-Workplace Harassment Policy.
“I find it apposite and much prudent to highlight the key and relevant provision of the Companies Act, which you are advised to consider in determining my escalation to you – Section 77(3) of the Companies Act, which imposes personal liability on directors for loss, damages or costs sustained by the company due to breaches of fiduciary duties, reckless trading, fraud or ultra vires act,” read the letter.
Modika, who until his suspension was the company’s senior employee relations specialist, further accuses his boss, the IDC’s head of talent management and organisational effectiveness and law firm Werksman Attorneys, of unethical conduct in managing issues that led to his suspension.
However, Modika, who is litigating against his employer, has repeatedly failed to overturn his suspension in both the CCMA and labour court.
He has since appealed to the Constitutional Court for urgent intervention while running a parallel matter with the Public Protector.
The question at the centre of the battle is whether Modika’s allegations are an accurate reflection of the IDC’s employee relations/work culture. Cynics and employees who spoke to the Mail & Guardian point to a trust deficit between staff and the organisation’s human capital division, which is one reason for the increase in number of disaffected employees running to a chapter 9 institution for arbitration of labour disputes.
An IDC employee, who is also a shop steward in the Public Servants Association (PSA), the largest union in the organisation, told the M&G that IDC employees were sceptical of their employer to deal fairly with labour disputes.
Whether this scepticism is borne out of experience or perception is a different matter altogether. But the fact that the Public Protector has taken a keen interest in resolving some of these disputes is concerning.
The fact that Modika’s boss who suspended him and is conflicted in the matter allegedly contracted a law firm to oversee a disciplinary process against him raises questions of impartiality.
“While true that the courts have ruled against him in some of his matters, it’s concerning that his boss who is the accused in his matters is managing these processes,” said the shop steward.
The M&G understands that the IDC has spent over R54 million in the last three years on various law firms just on ER matters alone.
Modika said the escalation of the complaint to Lekhethe was triggered by the IDC’s proposal, sent by the human capital division on 7 April 2026.
“Despite the aforementioned proposal and prior to IDC receiving my formal response to the proposal made thereof, I then discovered that, during this period of engagement, the corporation’s legal representatives under the instruction of (his boss) had already prepared an urgent court application seeking to compel a continuation of the internal process.
“This came to my attention when the draft affidavit, which was drafted in preparation of the anticipated urgent application, was erroneously sent to me on 16 April 2026 by the IDC’s legal representative. He alleged that the negotiations were tainted and the outcome predetermined.
“The discovery of this draft affidavit and the anticipated urgent application is in my view a confirmation that the corporation has been dealing with me in bad faith,” said Modika.
He added: “This latest development affirms what I have always alleged that I am being targeted, set up and subjected to abuse of power, bullying and victimisation.
“These latest developments further raise serious concerns regarding the bona fides of the engagement process and whether the corporation has acted consistently with its obligations of fairness, transparency and in good faith.”
During his precautionary suspension, Modika had begun working on the disciplinary enquiry of Ken Ogwang. Ogwang, he said, was implicated in the Kivu Boats Water Activities matter and the internal audit report, which was circulated around April 2024.
Modika alleges that this report was not shared with him as the senior employee relations and transformation specialist. He said several meetings were set with the relevant divisional executive to implement the recommendations of the report.
“Strangely, our efforts were resisted until we wrote an advisory note on 13 February 2025.“
“This matter was still dragged until 15 June 2025, when Ogwang was eventually suspended. On 31 July 2025, I escalated the discovery of further incriminating evidence against Ogwang to you (Mmakgoshi Lekhethe), head of internal audit and human capital leaders,” he said in his letter to Lekhethe.
Said a steward: “There is a suspicion that outcomes of these disciplinaries are predetermined. They just walk you through the process. They spend millions to get you out of the business for standing up for what is right … You are on your own.”
Werksman, ENS and CDH are the go-to law firms. Two whistleblowers and a former head of department who was forced to resign following a serious breakdown in a working relationship with his divisional executive corroborated this view.
Results of a recent cultural survey in the M&G’s possession shows that staff morale was extremely low in the organisation, while bullying and intimidation were high among some of the concerns raised by employees who took part in the survey.
Modika is adamant he was suspended for standing up against bullying and insisting on pursuing disciplinary charges against an employee accused of defrauding the IDC.
On how many grievances the IDC employee relations had handled in the past 36 months, the IDC said the figure was negligible.
“Like any organisation, IDC Employee Relations has handled several grievances, as expected, given that it employs over 890 employees. The number of grievances in relation to the total staff complement is negligible.”
None of the grievances, it said, had resulted in the dismissal of IDC employees as “grievance processes generally do not lead to dismissal”.
In response to questions from the M&G on how much money the IDC’s Human Capital had spent on paying law firms to preside over employee relations matters over the last 36 months, the IDC said: “Due to client confidentiality and other contractual obligations, the IDC does not disclose such internal information.”
Trust deficit in HC is driving disaffected employees to the PP