Severally” is a word Kenyans love to use—and quite frankly, often abuse. In fact, Kenyans severally use the word severally incorrectly, which drives my nitpicking and pedantic mind absolutely nuts. And yes, that was a deliberately incorrect use of the word severally, which is defined as: separately, individually, singly, discretely; respectively. The antonym for the word is jointly. But enough of the English grammar lessons for now.

Let me tell you who recently showed up on the road to severally: three not-so-distinguished South African gentlemen, Mbulaheni Maguvhe, Ndivhoniswani Tshidzumba, and Maleshane Raphela, who were held jointly and severally liable for corporate malfeasance as former board members of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC).

SABC is a state-owned enterprise operating as a public broadcaster. It is owned by the Government of South Africa, with oversight provided by the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies. While it functions independently in terms of editorial content, its governance is managed by a 12-member board of directors appointed by the President of South Africa after a public nomination and parliamentary vetting process.

Back in the year of our Lord 2016, the Chief Operating Officer (COO), Hlaudi Motsoeneng, was involved in a landmark transaction with Multichoice, the pay-TV giant that we are all giving major side-eye in this recent age of YouTube Premium and Netflix. The deal in question involved the licensing of SABC’s archives to Multichoice in exchange for a little over a billion rand or Kshs 7.5 billion. In light of this mouthwatering organizational windfall, Motsoeneng claimed personal credit for the deal and received a “success fee” of R11.5 million, or Kshs 87 million in today’s terms.

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) is an independent statutory body in South Africa tasked with investigating serious allegations of corruption, maladministration, and malpractice in state institutions by public officials. The SIU focuses on civil recovery and brings cases to court to reclaim misappropriated public funds. It is similar to our own Kenyan Asset Recovery Authority, which has a broader mandate of recovering assets purchased from criminal activities, corruption proceeds being just one of many.

For whatever reason, the SIU landed on Motsoeneng’s status as a former villager turned recently minted rand millionaire and started digging. After all, the deal was made in the ordinary course of business, and there was no framework for awarding bonuses for exceptional deals such as this one. The case was taken to court and two weeks ago, on 29th September 2025, the Johannesburg High Court agreed that the bonus was irregular and unjustified. The court ruled that negotiating such deals fell within Motsoeneng’s scope of duties as COO, for which he earned a substantial annual salary of around R3 million (Kshs 21 million). Consequently, the payment was found to be unlawful and must be repaid.

Here’s where it gets (insert Kenyan-speak font) severally interesting. The SIU had previously recovered R6.4 million (Kshs 48.4 million) from Motsoeneng’s pension. As he watched his dreams of retiring to the village go up in smoke, the former COO was reminded that the debt was not fully repaid. After all, the total amount owed was R18 million (Kshs 136 million), as interest had accrued over and above the original R11.5 million bonus amount. The court brought in the three former board members to the refund party. Holding them jointly and severally liable, Judge Crutchfield ruled that Maguvhe, Tshidzumba, and Raphela had to pay the full amount to the SIU, including interest, and ordered them to cover the SIU’s legal costs as well.

Evidence presented by the SIU identified the three board members as the signatories who approved the payment. Legal liability in this case seems to have been assigned only to those who actively participated in authorizing the transaction, via a clear paper trail of decision-making authority, as opposed to the board as a collective. As members of the broadcaster’s governing board, they had been entrusted with oversight and fiduciary responsibility. In simple terms, the trio were held individually accountable for a governance failure that led to the misuse of public funds.

Look, the trio are probably going to appeal this ruling up to heaven’s gates if they have to. The million-dollar winner here is governance. The Johannesburg High Court set a thoughtful precedent for directors of state-owned agencies: We can come after you, even if it takes nine years. We can come after you even if there is no apparent evidence that you directly benefited from the financial misconduct of executives you were supposed to oversee. We can come after you for being asleep at the governance wheel. To all other non-executive directors on this, our blessed African continent, this provides great food for thought…severally!

X: @carolmusyoka

Nitpicker podcast