R19million gone: Bakwena fights back as SABC axes Pimville

The South African Broadcasting Corporation’s Pimville disaster has now descended into open warfare.

What began as complaints from unpaid actors and crew has exploded into a catastrophic public showdown involving executive suspensions, legal threats, allegations of financial sabotage.

On Monday 25 May 2026, the South African Broadcasting Corporation formally discontinued Pimville, pulling SABC2’s flagship telenovela off the air with immediate effect. Within 48 hours, Bakwena Productions struck back.

In a six-page media statement dated 27 May 2026, issued through Kyprianou Attorneys & Conveyancers on behalf of Bakwena Productions Media Group (Pty) Ltd and its director Rashaka Muofhe, the production company “categorically rejected the misleading narrative created by the SABC”

What the SABC said

The SABC’s 25 May statement, published on its official website, set out the broadcaster’s position in carefully constructed language.

The SABC said that Pimville was discontinued “due to unresolved contractual obligations and breaches identified and communicated formally to Bakwena Productions.”

It said that a formal notice of breach was issued to Bakwena in April 2026. The SABC insisted that its commissioning of Pimville “followed the Corporation’s standard approval and commissioning processes applicable to SABC productions,” including “editorial, operational, commercial, and governance approval mechanisms.”

However, the SABC conceded that “concerns emerged during the production process” and that it introduced “enhanced oversight and risk mitigation measures.” It also admitted that “certain approved oversight mechanisms were not implemented consistently and to the required standard.”

Three executives including the head of content Lala Tuku were suspended on 13 May as part of an “internal consequence management process.”

The SABC said that it has “duly fulfilled its contractual obligations to Bakwena Productions” and is “fully up to date with payments.”

The statement concludes that the discontinuation “does not necessarily mean the end of Pimville” and that the SABC is “assessing various operational options regarding the future of the production.”

What Bakwena said

Bakwena’s 27 May response, issued through attorney Alexia Tsatsoulis of Kyprianou Attorneys & Conveyancers, tells an entirely different story.

Bakwena claimed that on 12 May 2026, its attorneys sent a “comprehensive legal notice” to the SABC leadership setting out what it describeds as:

“repeated contractual breaches, operational failures, governance inconsistencies, approval delays, funding failures, and payment defaults committed by the SABC and certain officials acting under its authority.”

According to Bakwena, this notice was supported by extensive documentary evidence, including payment schedules, approved cashflow frameworks, production records, WhatsApp communications, financial reconciliations, invoices, operational reports, budget approval trails, deviation approvals, proof of continued performance by Bakwena, and evidence of repeated requests for intervention and resolution.

The statement makes three explosive financial claims:

• First: the SABC “remains indebted to Bakwena in a substantial amount exceeding approximately 27% of the total approved production budget, excluding VAT, interest, and consequential damages, including unpaid milestone obligations.”

• Second: the original approved production budget “was materially reduced by approximately 38% without proper due process being followed,” and Bakwena was informed that the reductions were “being implemented in favour of supporting new productions at the SABC.”

• Third: milestone payments due to Bakwena were “repeatedly delayed, withheld, underpaid, or improperly processed” despite Bakwena Productions “continuing production under commercially impossible circumstances.”

They said that the SABC has “not meaningfully refuted” the evidence placed before it. Instead, according to Bakwena, while legal engagements remain active, the SABC “elected to release a public statement attempting to shift responsibility onto Bakwena, despite the SABC itself remaining in material breach of the Production Agreement.”

Bakwena further claimed that the production environment was severely undermined by delayed approvals, governance inconsistencies, contradictory directives, operational interference, payment failures, internal restructuring, audit-driven paralysis, and "ongoing funding instability originating from within the SABC itself.”

The statement strikes an emotional note, describing Pimville as “not merely another production to the Muofhe family” but “the creative legacy, vision, and life’s work connected to Mrs Brenda Muofhe” what the family calls her “grandchild.”

They threatened urgent High Court interdictory relief if the SABC attempts to replace the production, transfer it to another entity, or appropriate the intellectual property and production infrastructure already established.

Claim against claim: The contradictions

The two statements cannot both be true in their entirety. They stand in direct contradiction on the central question of who owes whom.

• The SABC says it paid everything it was supposed to pay. Bakwena says the SABC owes it 27% of the total approved budget.

• The SABC says Bakwena is in breach. Bakwena says the SABC is in material breach.

• The SABC says it issued a notice of breach in April 2026. Bakwena says its attorneys sent a comprehensive legal notice to the SABC leadership on 12 May 2026, before the SABC issued its public statement on 25 May and that the SABC has not meaningfully refuted it.

• The SABC says it is exploring whether to continue Pimville with a different producer. Bakwena says any such attempt would be “a further serious and unlawful breach” and will be met with urgent court interdicts.

Both sides claim documentary evidence. Neither has made that evidence public. The public, whose licence fees and government grants fund the SABC is left to choose between competing legal narratives without access to the underlying documents.

There is, however, one claim in Bakwena’s statement that, if true, raises profound questions about the SABC’s conduct as a public entity: the allegation that the approved production budget was slashed by 38% without proper due process and that the cuts were made “in favour of supporting new productions at the SABC.”

If the SABC unilaterally reduced the budget of a production it had already commissioned, effectively taking money allocated for Pimville and redirecting it to other shows while expecting Bakwena to continue delivering the same number of episodes, that would be a matter of serious concern under the PFMA.

Section 51(1)(a)(iii) requires the SABC to maintain a procurement system that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.

Equally, the SABC’s claim that it paid R19 million and is now trying to recover it raises its own questions. If the money was paid and Bakwena did not use it to pay workers, where did it go? If the money was paid but was insufficient because the budget was slashed by 38%, then the SABC’s claim of full payment is technically true but materially misleading.

What nobody is talking about: The workers

Buried in the legal posturing is a human catastrophe that neither institution’s statement adequately addresses.

Cast and crew have not been paid since February 2026. Some have published open letters describing going to bed hungry. Workers were held at a Soweto location for several hours because Bakwena had not paid the property owners. Insiders report that the Producer, Rashaka Muofhe has been making threats in the production WhatsApp group. Some actors have already left the production permanently.

The SABC’s statement says it “has also engaged with cast and crew representatives regarding concerns raised” and is “committed to supporting the affected stakeholders.” It does not say it will pay them.

Bakwena’s statement says it is “fully aware of the devastating impact the current production pause is having on cast members, crew members, technical personnel, suppliers, and their families.” It blames “certain individuals within or associated with the SABC” for “escalating instability and pursuing actions that threaten the livelihoods of countless South Africans.” It does not say it will pay them either.

Both institutions express sympathy. Neither offers to pay.

• Under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997, employers are required to pay remuneration on the agreed date and at the agreed intervals.

• Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993, employers must provide a safe working environment. Workers were made sick by food on set. They were held at locations against their will. They have been unpaid for nearly four months.

These are not allegations caught between competing legal narratives. These are facts confirmed by multiple sources and not denied by either party

The pattern that nobody broke

This is not an isolated incident. It is a pattern. Muvhango, the programme Pimville replaced, collapsed under years of non-payment by Duma Ndlovu’s Word of Mouth Pictures. Cast staged walkouts in 2019, 2022, 2023 and 2024. Background actors were left unpaid for over seven months. The SABC told reporters that production contracts were “not the responsibility of the SABC.”

Before Pimville, Bakwena Productions left approximately 500 background actors unpaid on Pound 4 Pound. The CCMA ruled against Bakwena. Service providers are still owed over R200,000. An outstanding R4.2 million debt to Black Brain Pictures is in litigation.

Despite this documented history, the SABC commissioned Bakwena to replace the cancelled Muvhango. SABC CEO Nomsa Chabeli acknowledged the risk in writing in April 2025. Her solution was a supervising producer.

The SABC replaced one production company that did not pay workers with another production company that did not pay workers. Now it says it will “assess various operational options.”

What must happen

The competing claims between the SABC and Bakwena cannot be resolved by media statements and legal letters. They must be resolved by evidence , evidence that the public has a right to see.

The Portfolio Committee on Communications and Digital Technologies must summon the SABC Board and the principals of Bakwena Productions to appear before Parliament.

The R19 million must be forensically traced: when it was paid, in what tranches, to which account, and how it was disbursed. If the budget was slashed by 38% as Bakwena alleges, the committee must establish who authorised the reduction, when, and whether it followed the SABC’s own procurement policies and the PFMA.

The Auditor-General must flag the Pimville commissioning for review. Whether the fault lies with Bakwena, with the SABC, or with both, public money was spent and the public received a show that lasted three and a half months before imploding. That is either fruitless expenditure or wasteful expenditure or both. The PFMA does not tolerate either.

Both the SABC and Bakwena must be compelled to release the documentary evidence they each claim supports their position.

The public cannot be expected to arbitrate between two lawyered-up statements without seeing the payment schedules, cashflow frameworks, invoices and WhatsApp communications both sides say they have.

And the workers must be paid. Whatever the outcome of the legal war, the people who showed up on set, performed, operated cameras, dressed sets, drove to locations at their own expense and ate food that made them sick are owed money for work they did. That is not a contested fact. That is the one thing the SABC and Bakwena Productions agree on. They just refuse to be the ones who pay it.