Kaya FM and its majority shareholder, African Media Entertainment (AME), have thrown down the gauntlet to the lawyer who investigated allegations of sexual harassment and financial misconduct against former station CEO Greg Maloka to produce evidence backing the adverse findings contained in her report.
The challenge was made in a letter sent through Fluxmans Inc to advocate Brenda Madumise-Pajibo on 25 August 2026, after she accused the station’s current board of normalising the harm that comes with sexual harassment by allowing Maloka back into the Kaya FM “sphere”.
Madumise-Pajibo was appointed by the previous Kaya FM board, chaired by Sizwe Mncwango, to investigate allegations against Maloka.
In a letter dated 7 August, she approached the current board, chaired by Connie Molusi, and accused it of disregarding the findings of her investigation and minimising the alleged harm suffered by women at the station.
She said the decision to bring Maloka back into the Kaya FM “sphere” was particularly concerning given the findings of her investigation that he had violated sexual harassment laws.
Madumise-Pajibo also warned that the conduct had exposed Kaya FM to potential litigation and reputational damage.
However, Kaya FM, its current board and the AME board have rejected the way she characterised both the 2020 report and their conduct.
In their response written by Fluxmans Attorneys, the entities said her letter appeared to present allegations, interview accounts, opinions and recommendations as established findings against Maloka, Kaya FM and the current boards.
The attorneys further accused her of relying largely on conjecture and of incorrectly attributing conclusions from a report prepared in August 2020 to decisions taken by the current boards in 2026.
They said her letter also omitted relevant facts and context and appeared to draw conclusions about the knowledge, conduct and motives of the current boards without establishing a causal link between events in 2020 and decisions made years later.
“Our clients are not obliged (and are not in a position) to accept your interpretation without examining the underlying facts and supporting evidence,” Fluxmans said.
The lawyers asked Madumise-Pajibo, who wrote the letter in her capacity as one of the representatives of anti-gender based violence organisation called Wise, to provide the complete version of the report titled Inquiry on Sexual Harassment Complaints and Other Related Matters at Kaya FM, including all appendices, schedules, annexures and recommendations.
They also requested the report’s mandate, terms of reference, commissioning arrangements and intended audience.
The attorneys want confirmation of when the report was delivered and to whom it was originally submitted.
They further asked whether the report was intended to be confidential and, if so, for details of the confidentiality terms or restrictions that applied to it.
Kaya FM and AME also demanded the factual and evidential basis for several allegations contained in Madumise-Pajibo’s 7 August letter.
These included her claims that the current Kaya FM and AME boards had acted with “disdain” towards the 2020 process or its outcomes and had knowingly normalised or minimised harm.
The lawyers also challenged allegations that the current boards had ignored or dismissed the findings of the report.
They demanded evidence for the claim that Maloka had been brought back into the Kaya FM “sphere” in circumstances involving interaction with people who were allegedly victims of his conduct.
Other claims they challenged included allegations that the current board was aware of gender discrimination, abuse of staff, fraternisation or alleged illicit relationships.
The attorneys also disputed the suggestion that the board’s conduct demonstrated an “immunity from accountability” or that it had acted without regard for the safety and welfare of women employees.
They then turned their attention to the allegations contained in the 2020 report itself.
The lawyers demanded the factual and evidential basis for claims involving alleged unwanted physical contact, sexual advances, inappropriate comments and other conduct attributed to Maloka.
They also sought evidence concerning the conduct and outcome of a sexual-harassment workshop or meeting referred to in the report.
The response questioned the existence, content and communication of Kaya FM policies relating to sexual harassment, fraternisation, equal pay and substance use.
The lawyers also requested evidence supporting allegations of discrimination or inequality in remuneration, bonuses and employment opportunities.
They sought information relating to any alleged disclosure or leak of employee remuneration information, as well as claims concerning alcohol or substance use during working hours or at work-related events.
The attorneys also challenged allegations concerning recruitment or employment interviews allegedly conducted by Maloka alone or away from Kaya FM premises.
They requested evidence relating to alleged failures in employee induction, onboarding, policy communication, human resources support and employee welfare.
The legal team further sought the evidential basis for allegations of management failures, intimidation, fear, abuse of authority and a lack of ethical leadership.
They also demanded evidence concerning claims that management, the boards or any board representative knew about alleged misconduct, discrimination, fraternisation or other wrongdoing.
The circumstances surrounding a staff meeting mentioned in the report were also placed under scrutiny.
The attorneys requested information about any retrenchments, terminations, loss of employment or alleged loss of income referred to in the report.
They also asked for the basis of every statement presented in the report as a finding, conclusion or recommendation rather than as an allegation, perception or opinion.
Fluxmans said the requests were intended to allow the parties to engage with the allegations on the basis of verifiable facts and to avoid unnecessary escalation.
“The above reasonable requests are made to prevent avoidable escalation while the parties engage in good faith,” the attorneys said.
They stressed that the request for supporting evidence should not be interpreted as an acceptance of the allegations contained in either Madumise-Pajibo’s letter or the report.
“All of which are denied,” the attorneys said, adding that the letter was not exhaustive and that all of their clients’ rights were reserved.
