Business Eswatini (BE) has rejected Maloma Colliery’s bid to rejoin the country’s leading private sector representative body and is returning more than E249 000 paid by the mining company in membership subscriptions.
The decision demonstrates the membership impasse involving companies within Inyatsi Group Holdings, a week after this publication revealed that several of the Group’s companies were struggling to secure new membership, re-admission or upgrades at BE.
In a letter addressed to Maloma Colliery, BE, informed the company that ‘its application had been unsuccessful after the organisation’s board considered its previous membership record, including what BE described as outstanding subscription obligations and a history of accounts not being settled within the prescribed membership period.”
BE is now refunding Maloma E249 102.83, with its finance department tasked with coordinating the payment and confirming the necessary banking details, according to the letter signed by the organisation’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), E. Nathi Dlamini.
The rejection adds a new dimension to a membership dispute involving one of the country’s largest corporate groups and the organisation representing private-sector employers.
Inyatsi Group Holdings, chaired by businessman Michelo Shakantu, has interests spanning construction, telecommunications, mining, healthcare, insurance, manufacturing, property and media. Last week, the group confirmed to this newspaper that an executive decision had been taken to align its entities with BE through new membership applications, re-admissions and upgrades.
Maloma was among the companies identified by Inyatsi as having experience within BE. The Group told the Sunday Observer that Maloma Colliery, Lidwala Insurance, The Clinic Group and Eswatini Mobile had been active members of the organisation, while Inyatsi Construction and Eswatini Meat Industries (EMI) had previously belonged to it before their subscriptions elapsed.
The Maloma letter now provides a specific explanation for why at least one of those attempts to return has failed.
In explaining its decision, BE said membership applications were governed by its Constitution and specifically cited Article 2.1.2(c), which provides for applications to be assessed against membership qualification criteria established by the Board.
It also referred to provisions governing the timely payment of subscriptions and cessation of membership where subscriptions remain unpaid beyond the prescribed period.
BE then turned specifically to Maloma’s previous record.
The organisation said the mining company’s membership history reflected ‘outstanding subscription obligations’ as well as accounts that had not been settled within the required membership period.
“Having considered this history against the applicable membership requirements, the Board has determined that your application for membership has not been successful,” BE told Maloma.
The organisation said its decision related specifically to its membership requirements and Maloma’s previous membership account history. That explanation is significant because it provides, for the first time, a documented reason for BE declining an application from one of the Inyatsi Group companies.
Last week, BE declined to discuss the individual applications when approached by this newspaper, maintaining that the membership status and applications of individual companies were confidential.
It did, however, explain that applications were considered in accordance with its governing instruments and established internal processes and that matters requiring further consideration were dealt with through the organisation’s governance structures.
The Maloma letter shows those structures have now produced a definitive outcome in at least one case: rejection of the application and repayment of the money received.
The E249 102.83 refund is also noteworthy against the scale of the wider membership bid. Sources previously told this newspaper that several Inyatsi Group companies were seeking places within BE’s Platinum and Gold categories, with their combined annual subscriptions potentially exceeding half a million Emalangeni.
Inyatsi had said the applications had received different responses. Some were held in abeyance, others had received what the Group described as ‘technical responses, while some had gone unanswered.
Insiders have, however, continued to draw a wider link between the membership impasse involving Inyatsi Group companies and the bitter governance battle that engulfed the Eswatini National Provident Fund (ENPF).
That alleged connection has not been independently established, and neither BE nor Inyatsi has attributed Maloma’s rejection or the handling of the other applications to the ENPF dispute.
The questions arise from the confrontation over the appointment of former Inyatsi Construction Chief Executive Officer Derrick Shiba as chairman of the ENPF Board. BE was among the social partners that challenged the process surrounding Shiba’s appointment. The resulting stand-off prevented the board from becoming fully operational and eventually culminated in Minister of Labour and Social Security Phila Buthelezi dissolving it on July 17.
A parliamentary select committee later concluded that legislative ambiguity, competing governance traditions and a breakdown of trust among stakeholders were central to the crisis.
Shiba made it known to the committee that he resigned from Inyatsi Construction in November 2024 after 19 years with the company, and maintained before Parliament that the dispute was not fundamentally about him.
BE has itself continued to publicly emphasise the seriousness with which it viewed the ENPF dispute. At its annual general meeting on Friday, the organisation identified the ENPF governance impasse as one of the most serious institutional challenges it faced during the 2025/26 year.
Its Industrial Relations and Social Policy Strategic Overview said BE had advocated for a governance framework prioritising fiduciary integrity and protection of members’ contributions, while opposing unilateral executive appointments it believed could undermine the Fund’s stability.
BE Head of Industrial Relations and Company Secretary Nelisiwe Mtshali told the meeting that the organisation had a vested interest in the ENPF matter because the Fund was a private-sector institution. There remains no evidence, however, establishing that those disagreements played any role in the Maloma decision.
