JSE asks Ayo Technology for information after PIC Commission submission

Andre Visser
Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) has requested information from executives of Ayo Technologies in relation to evidence given at the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) commission.

General Manager at JSE’s issuer regulations division, Andre Visser, says Ayo Technology executives Khalid Abdula, Malick Salie and Naheid Gamaldien have been asked to answer to reports about the adjustment of Ayo financials prior to its listing.

Visser says Ayo has also been advised to engage with auditors to provide a factual findings report, as well as to have their interim financials for February 2019 reviewed.

The PIC invested R4.3 billion in Ayo Technology in a controversial transaction said to have flouted PIC regulations.

Visser says there was a problem with the listing of Ayo Technology on the JSE. He says one of the requirements of the listing was that Ayo raises capital of R4.3 billion. A few days before the listing, JSE received a letter through Ayo’s sponsor that there was a liquidity constraint on the part of the PIC and that the R4.3 billion could not be injected.

Earlier the commission heard that former PIC CEO Dr Dan Matjila ordered for other shares to be sold to enable PIC to fund the transaction. The JSE said it had received an irrevocable undertaking from the PIC, signed by Matjila, that said the PIC would pay the money in two tranches, which is when the listing was then approved.

The commission also heard that the PIC board has rescinded the decision to part ways with former IT head Vuyokazi Menye. Menye was suspended during an investigation into information leaks at PIC. She told the commission in March that she was forced to settle and leave the organisation as she was told she was no longer wanted there.

Recently, the commission heard that the board took a similar decision with regard to Company secretary Bongani Mathebula. Mathebula also went through a disciplinary hearing accused of leaking confidential information. The disciplinary hearing found her guilty and recommended that she be dismissed, but the board decided to not uphold the recommendation and she is back at work.