The celebrated South African gospel choir, Joyous Celebration, is facing a deepening internal dispute involving allegations of financial mismanagement and a significant tax liability. The conflict, playing out between co-directors Lindelani Mkhize and Jabu Hlongwane, has escalated to the point of legal action, threatening the legacy of the multi-award-winning group.
According to reports surfacing this week, Hlongwane has accused Mkhize of multiple financial irregularities related to the choral group’s business activities. These allegations include a failure to disclose and properly account for funds owed to the close corporation that manages Joyous Celebration, ultimately leading to a tax demand of R1 million (approximately $53,000 USD) from the South African Revenue Service (SARS). The claims were initially reported in a weekend newspaper and have since been formalized in an alternative dispute resolution application lodged with the Companies Tribunal last month.
Hlongwane further alleges that Mkhize secretly secured sponsorships from a premier telecommunications company and a banking institution, without full transparency to the other directors. Details regarding the specific terms and value of these sponsorships remain undisclosed, but the accusations point to a pattern of unilateral decision-making and a lack of financial accountability.
Lindelani Mkhize, however, has vehemently rejected these allegations. In a statement released on , Mkhize characterized the claims as stemming from longstanding governance disputes within the organization, dating back several years. He asserts that there has been no improper or unlawful conduct on his part.
The core of the dispute appears to center around changes in the administration of the group’s finances. Historically, major events, sponsorship receipts, and bookings were managed through an external agency. Upon the agency’s departure, these functions were brought in-house, managed through the Joyous Office. Mkhize’s statement suggests that it was during this period of internal administration that “significant liabilities, including tax-related obligations, accumulated and accounting concerns became apparent.”
Further complicating the situation, allegations have surfaced regarding the personal use of company funds. Hlongwane and a third director, Mthunzi Namba, accuse Mkhize of using company assets to fund over R1 million in personal travel and car rentals over a three-year period. They also claim Mkhize took a R300,000 loan from Joyous Celebration in and has yet to repay it. The accusations extend to directing payments received for secured events to personal accounts or companies.
Joyous Celebration has a long and distinguished history in the South African gospel music scene. The group has garnered numerous South African Music Awards (SAMAs) and is internationally recognized for its dynamic live performances. It has also served as a launching pad for several successful solo artists. The current legal battle threatens to tarnish this reputation and disrupt the group’s operations.
The dispute highlights broader issues of governance and financial transparency within the organization. The allegations filed with the Companies Tribunal reveal that in , Hlongwane and Namba had even discussed plans to exit Joyous Celebration, suggesting a deep-seated and prolonged dissatisfaction with the existing management structure.
The outcome of the alternative dispute resolution process remains uncertain. However, the legal showdown underscores the challenges faced by even well-established and respected organizations in maintaining sound financial practices and resolving internal conflicts. The case is being closely watched within the South African entertainment industry, as it raises questions about accountability and the protection of artistic legacies.
As of , neither Joyous Celebration nor its representatives have issued a comprehensive public statement addressing the specific allegations beyond Mkhize’s initial denial. The group’s future direction and the resolution of these financial disputes will likely depend on the findings of the Companies Tribunal and the willingness of all parties to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
