Somizi Mhlongo Says He Has No Connection to Controversial Company

Media personality and radio host Somizi Mhlongo has denied claims that one of his companies disappeared and owes money to employees.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Somizi (@somizi)

In a recent statement, Somizi addressed an article published by Sunday World that suggested he was involved with a company called Search Light (Pty) Ltd. He said, “It has come to my attention that Sunday World has published an article titled ‘Somizi Mhlongo’s company vanishes as the sheriff comes knocking.’ I would like to clearly state that the company referred to in the article does not belong to me, has never been registered under my name, and I have no association with it whatsoever. The claims made are completely false and misleading.”

Somizi expressed concern about false information being shared in the media. “It is deeply concerning that such misinformation is published without proper verification, as it has the potential to harm reputations and mislead the public. I urge media outlets to uphold the principles of accuracy and accountability when reporting,” he said.

The Sunday World article, published on 16 October 2025, claimed that Somizi and his associates’ company were being pursued by the sheriff for not paying employees their salaries. Hotellica union representative Thabiso Putswe told the paper that the sheriff visited the company’s former Sandton offices three times but found them empty.

“They used to operate from Sandton, but it looks like they’ve moved out. The sheriff went there three times and found no one. We later received information that they now work from home,” Putswe said.

The article also said, “We are now exploring other avenues to seize their assets as per the enforcement order. And we know they may still have an office at the Carlton Centre. And we believe there could be attachable assets there.”

Court documents from the Randburg Magistrates Court, seen by Sunday World, showed that the enforcement order could not be carried out because “the respondent has no movable goods at the given address,” according to a receptionist. The sheriff visited the offices on September 22, 23, and 29. On the first visit, staff said they were working remotely. On the second, the doors were locked. By the third, a sign showed that the office had been vacated.

Somizi’s statement makes it clear that he has no connection to the company mentioned in the article. He urges the media to verify facts before publishing so that false information doesn’t harm people’s reputations.