The lawyers representing television personality Minnie Dlamini have asked the Equality Court to subpoena podcaster MacG’s company to submit its financial records ahead of their looming legal showdown.
In papers filed in April, Rosengarten & Feinberg Attorneys demanded that MacG’s company, M2N Services, hand over extensive financial and operational documents linked to the controversial Podcast and Chill platform.
Dlamini dragged MacG, whose real name is MacGyver Mukwevho, and his co-host Sol Phenduka to the Equality Court on allegations of unfair discrimination.
The celebrated sports presenter is seeking R1 million in damages for herself and a further R1.5 million to be paid to a women’s organisation.
The legal battle stems from inflammatory comments made by MacG during an episode of the widely followed Podcast and Chill with MacG, where he suggested that Dlamini’s romantic relationships fail because her private parts allegedly have an unpleasant smell.
MacG also labelled Dlamini a “gold digger”, claiming she dates wealthy men “to secure the bag”. His comments sparked widespread outrage, with many accusing him of misogyny and degrading women for entertainment.
Following the backlash, MacG issued what many critics described as a half-hearted apology to Dlamini.
Court papers seen by Africa Daily reveal that Dlamini’s legal team now wants a detailed breakdown of M2N Services’ finances and revenue streams.
“M2N’s agreements and other documents reflecting profit-sharing, bonus or commission arrangements linking personnel compensation to content performance metrics, including viewership, engagement and revenue,” the lawyers stated.
The legal team also wants the company to provide records showing revenue generated by individual podcast episodes, sponsorship agreements attached to specific episodes and platform revenue reports.
“The complete breakdown of such revenue specifying the source, exact amount, and date received or accrued; and the internal calculation, report, or allocation model showing what proportion of the Podcast and Chill network’s total annual revenue for the relevant year was attributable to each episode,” the papers read.
Dlamini’s attorneys are further seeking remuneration agreements, payslips and performance-based incentive arrangements involving MacG.
They are also demanding M2N Services’ annual financial statements and management accounts from 2021 to 2025, including internal systems used to allocate profits and revenue generated by specific content.
“M2N’s annual financial statements and management accounts for the financial years 2021 to 2025, and its internal model or dashboard for allocating revenue or profit from specific content,” the papers state.
In his replying affidavit, Sol Phenduka distanced himself from the controversial remarks, insisting it was MacG who made the statements.
He argued that he was not involved in editing or uploading the episodes and therefore should not be held liable for the comments.
However, Dlamini’s lawyers are now pushing for documents that could clarify decision-making roles within the Podcast and Chill operation.
Among the records requested are employment contracts, service-level agreements, job descriptions and scope-of-work documents for Sol, MacG and a production team member referred to as “Ghost Lady”.
The legal team also wants documents outlining decision-making powers and publication approval processes within the podcast network.
“The edit history and original project files from the software used to edit each episode, the publication authorisation records for each episode, including signed approval forms, final sign-off checklists, or equivalent documentation identifying the person or persons who gave final approval for each episode’s publication,” the papers state.
The lawyers are additionally seeking internal communications — including emails and instant messages — involving the “podcast final editing team” regarding the planning, recording, editing and publication of the episodes.
They also requested post-publication reports and discussions analysing audience reactions, legal risks and the commercial impact of the controversial content.
“The post-publication analyses and communications concerning each episode, including reports, summaries, memoranda, emails or instant messages that assess or discuss the episode, its audience reception, associated legal risk and commercial impact,” the court papers read.
MacG couldn’t be reached for comment.
