Why was Roy Moodley never charged after the Zondo Commission? State capture question that remains unanswered

More than four years after the Zondo Commission began exposing the machinery of South Africa’s State Capture project, a central question remains unanswered: why has businessman Roy Moodley not been charged in connection with the allegations that emerged about his role at the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa) and his relationship with former president Jacob Zuma?

Moodley’s name featured prominently in evidence before the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, particularly during its examination of Prasa and the network of businessmen alleged to have benefited from the state-owned railway agency.

Yet, unlike several other individuals implicated in State Capture-related investigations, Moodley has not appeared in court facing criminal charges arising from the allegations aired before the commission.

That does not mean Moodley was found innocent, nor does it establish that he committed a crime. The Zondo Commission was an inquiry rather than a criminal court, and evidence sufficient to raise serious questions at an inquiry does not automatically meet the standard required for a criminal conviction.

But the absence of a prosecution raises questions that the law-enforcement authorities should be able to answer.

Moodley and the Prasa allegations

When the Zondo Commission turned its attention to Prasa in March 2020, Moodley emerged as one of the businessmen at the centre of the evidence.

Evidence leader Advocate Vas Soni identified Moodley and businessman Makhensa Mabunda among the alleged principal figures involved in the capture of Prasa’s procurement processes.

Witnesses described Moodley’s influence inside the state-owned railway company in striking terms.

Former Prasa board chairperson Popo Molefe testified about attempts by Moodley to cultivate a relationship with him, including invitations involving golf and overseas travel.

Other evidence painted a picture of a businessman whose influence allegedly extended well beyond the normal relationship between a private contractor and a state-owned entity.

One Prasa official referred to Moodley as “Mr Prasa”.

Another witness, Jacob Rakgoathe, testified about Moodley’s alleged political influence and his claims concerning his ability to influence appointments at state-owned enterprises.

The testimony did not, on its own, establish criminal guilt. But it placed Moodley firmly within the commission’s examination of how private interests allegedly gained access to state resources.

The R64,000-a-month question

Perhaps the most politically sensitive evidence concerned Moodley’s relationship with Zuma.

The commission heard that Royal Security, a company founded by Moodley, paid Zuma approximately R64,000 a month between 2007 and 2009. The payments reportedly totalled more than R1.5-million.

The payments were made before Zuma became president and stopped around the time he assumed the presidency. Royal Security subsequently secured substantial business from Prasa.

The commission heard that Royal Security received more than R471-million from the state-owned railway agency.

That sequence raises an obvious question: what was the relationship between the payments to Zuma and the subsequent business received by companies associated with Moodley?

The question is particularly important because Zuma’s relationship with Moodley predated his presidency, while Moodley’s business interests later intersected with state procurement.

However, it is important to distinguish between an unexplained or controversial payment and a proven bribe or criminal offence.

The 2024 Western Cape High Court judgment dealing with Royal Security’s later provincial tender made precisely this kind of distinction. The court referred to the Zondo Report’s discussion of Moodley’s direct and indirect interests in companies providing services to Prasa, including Royal Security, but noted that the report did not find Royal Security itself guilty of criminal or improper conduct.

That distinction is central to understanding why a criminal prosecution cannot simply be assumed from the evidence presented at the commission.

So why was there no charge?

The National Prosecuting Authority has previously explained that evidence heard by a commission of inquiry cannot simply be transferred wholesale into a criminal prosecution.

Following the release of the Zondo Commission’s reports, the NPA and the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, commonly known as the Hawks, said they were reviewing the findings and recommendations to identify matters requiring investigation and possible prosecution.

A criminal case requires more than allegations or testimony raising suspicion. Investigators must gather admissible evidence capable of establishing the elements of a specific offence beyond reasonable doubt.

That raises an important distinction in Moodley’s case.

The question is not whether the Zondo Commission heard allegations concerning him. It clearly did.

The question is whether law-enforcement authorities subsequently investigated those allegations sufficiently to determine whether a criminal case could be brought.

There is an additional complication.

In May 2025, civil society organisation Open Secrets announced that it had taken the Hawks and NPA to court over what it described as prolonged delays in investigations into corruption at Prasa.

Open Secrets specifically identified Moodley among individuals it described as alleged Prasa profiteers whose activities had been under investigation for more than a decade.

If those investigations remain unresolved, the absence of charges may reflect an unfinished investigative process rather than a definitive prosecutorial decision that there was no case to answer.

That distinction matters.

A history that predates Zondo

Moodley’s controversial association with state contracts did not begin with the Zondo Commission.

Royal Security had already attracted scrutiny over its dealings with state-owned entities, including Prasa.

The Public Protector’s 2015 Derailed report identified serious procurement problems at Prasa, while subsequent investigations examined contracts, security arrangements and alleged irregular extensions and deviations.

A separate Prasa contract involving Siyangena Technologies also became a major focus of State Capture investigations.

Evidence before the Zondo Commission concerned Siyangena’s contracts with Prasa and alleged payments made to Hail Way Trading, a company linked to Moodley.

The Siyangena contract was ultimately set aside by the High Court after serious procurement irregularities were identified.

Again, however, an irregular contract does not automatically establish that every person or company associated with it committed a criminal offence.

It does, however, underline why the activities of the people and businesses involved warranted close scrutiny.

The 2009 corruption case

There is also an important piece of Moodley’s history that predates the Zondo Commission.

In 2009, Moodley was arrested in connection with allegations relating to a payment made around Zuma’s inauguration.

The case did not proceed. The National Prosecuting Authority withdrew the charges after determining that the payment could not be established as a bribe.

Moodley maintained that the money was a legitimate payment rather than a corrupt inducement.

That episode is significant because it demonstrates that Moodley was not entirely untouched by law-enforcement scrutiny. At least one criminal investigation involving him resulted in charges being withdrawn.

It also illustrates why any question about a new prosecution needs to distinguish between allegations, investigations, arrests, withdrawn charges and convictions.

The 2023 Western Cape contract

The issue became politically uncomfortable again in 2023 when Royal Security was awarded a R282-million, two-year security contract by the DA-led Western Cape government.

The award drew criticism because of Moodley’s history and the evidence concerning his business interests presented to the Zondo Commission.

The provincial government defended the procurement process, arguing that it could not simply exclude a company because allegations had been made against it.

Royal Security had not been blacklisted and had not been convicted of unlawful activity.

The controversy exposed a wider problem in South Africa’s public procurement system: what should government do when a company is not legally barred from tendering but its owners or associates have been repeatedly linked to serious allegations involving the state?

The answer cannot simply be to declare a company guilty without due process.

But neither should allegations involving billions of rands in public contracts disappear without a transparent investigation.

What happened after Zondo?

This is where the unanswered questions become most important.

Was Roy Moodley investigated by the NPA or Hawks following the Zondo Commission?

Was a criminal docket opened specifically into his alleged role in the Prasa network?

Were the payments made to Zuma investigated as possible proceeds of crime, corruption or another offence?

Were the financial flows between Prasa contractors and Moodley-linked companies traced?

Was Moodley interviewed by investigators?

Did prosecutors ultimately conclude that there was insufficient evidence to charge him?

Or has the investigation simply remained unresolved?

These questions can and should be answered without presuming guilt.

The absence of charges does not prove that Moodley was protected. It does not prove that prosecutors had enough evidence to secure a conviction. And it certainly does not amount to a finding that he committed a crime.

But after years of testimony, investigations and the work of a judicial commission costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of rand, the public is entitled to know what happened to the evidence concerning one of the businessmen repeatedly associated with the Prasa chapter of State Capture.

The Zondo Commission exposed how political influence, business interests and state procurement became intertwined during the Zuma era.

The next question is whether South Africa’s criminal-justice system was able to follow that evidence to its logical conclusion.

In Roy Moodley’s case, that conclusion remains unclear.

If there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, the authorities should say so. If an investigation is still under way, the public deserves to know why it has taken so long. And if there is evidence supporting criminal charges, the obvious question is why those charges have not been brought.

Until those questions are answered, Roy Moodley’s case remains one of the unresolved chapters of South Africa’s State Capture story.