River Ministries pastor Andre Roebert and his wife Jenny were attacked by stone-throwing thugs while driving home around midnight on Friday. The attack is deplorable and I extend my good wishes to them.
In his sermon at River on Sunday, which was also aired on the re-named Faith TV station, Roebert used the attack as a metaphor to preach about God’s protection. In times of great adversity, he said, men and women of faith would not be kept down, but would rise above the difficulties – not least because of the intercessions of saints who have gone before.
He related the physical attack to the Dispatch report on the same day on his role as executor of the estate of Butterworth businessman Nash Mayekiso.
“When they write absolute rubbish about you in the newspaper,” Roebert said, people of faith need have no fear, they would rise up.
Roebert disparaged the article under my name despite stating repeatedly in a telephone discussion after the article appeared in print that he had no problem with the contents, even as he was clearly unhappy with the headline and photographic elements.
In that discussion, Roebert also challenged me firstly to indicate if I am a Christian or, more correctly, a born-again Christian. He suggested that if I was a Christian, I should never associate myself with “bringing the church down”.
Alternatively, if I am not a Christian, I suppose the article should be read as coming from someone who is part of the evil that stalks men and women of God.
In this, Roebert follows many other interest groups, whether political parties, cultural groupings, sports clubs, or academic communities, who hold to the idea that anyone from outside questioning the group will always be antagonistic and must be discredited.
Secondly, he criticised my failure to acknowledge his title – doctor – in the article and, instead, to focus on his pastor persona. I had asked Roebert what particular expertise he had for being appointed executor.
“Well, firstly,” he said, “I have a qualified doctorate … in ministry. I have 22 years of business experience and I was chosen as the executor by the deceased because of my friendship with him.”
Roebert’s business acumen is certainly not in dispute and is valid in this case. But he also, on the one hand, lays claim to a ministry doctorate as professional justification for his appointment to a legally recognised role and then, on the other hand, argues that the role of executor must stand apart from his role as a pastor.
I disagree.
The Mthatha High Court judgment by Judge Igna Stretch piqued my interest in two respects. Firstly, the R250000 a month being sought as maintenance for five of Mayekiso’s children is a significant amount of money, by any household living standard.
Secondly, I wondered why Roebert hadn’t moved to allay the concerns of the mother of the children when she first appealed for maintenance since he is allowed to release money to avoid hardship for the deceased’s family pending the winding up of the estate.
Stepping into the breach to maintain dependent children was not only the responsibility of Roebert as the executor of an estate – it was surely the godly mandate of a pastor also to interact with a potential maintenance claimant long before the matter became litigious.
Surely, more must be expected of a pastor with a doctorate in ministry than what Roebert has exhibited by his actions in this matter, waiting six months until he communicated with the mother via an e-mail sent by an assistant.
But Roebert was appointed executor also (perhaps primarily) because he was a close friend and confidant of Mayekiso, who would have needed little encouragement to reach out to all those mourning the loss of a loved one, especially dependent children.
In her judgment, Stretch was at pains to recognise the role of the high court as upper guardian of the rights of minor children in our country. But she also went to the trouble of setting out the legislated roles of an executor in circumstances similar to the Mayekiso estate.
“It is only my concern for these children as their upper guardian which has motivated me not to simply dismiss this application without further ado. The executor has not been joined as a party in these proceedings and I am accordingly reluctant to make any adverse findings at this stage with respect to the conduct he has been accused of,” she said.
It is within that context that she ordered that Roebert should receive a copy of her judgment.
She also ordered that if appropriate steps were not taken by Roebert to provide interim subsistence for the children within one month of her order, the children’s mother could approach the court “for urgent appropriate relief”, once Roebert was cited as a party in the case.
In a previous instance of questionable ethics linked to his church, Roebert painstakingly tried to put distance between himself and the donation by Manjo Maphuma of at least R90000 and perhaps as much as R200000 to Trinity Broadcast Network (Bhisho), money to which the Maphuma family claimed they were rightfully entitled.
Roebert chaired TBN Africa at the time and insists he had no role in TBN Bhisho except to intervene on behalf of his father who was the Bhisho operation’s CEO.
This is a strange blurring of personal and corporate governance lines which raises further questions about his complicity in decisions which were taken then.
He also said the money from Maphuma could not be returned as this would have set a dangerous precedent for churches which receive gifts. In any case, the Maphuma relatives were not members of the church so there was no obligation towards them, apparently.
As executor of Mayekiso’s estate, Roebert will be allowed to earn up to 3.5% of the gross asset value of the estate. Given confirmation that a sale is currently underway of some properties in Butterworth valued at R100-million, his fee for settling his friend’s estate will be at least R3.5-million and, ultimately, probably much more.
Equating a Dispatch report – one with which he found no error – with the behaviour of stone-throwing thugs on a road late at night is Roebert’s free speech entitlement.
But his televised sermon offers no explanation for his problematic action or inaction in the Mayekiso estate debacle.
Any self-respecting journalist, Christian or not, will continue to raise the necessary questions.
Ray Hartle is a senior writer for the Daily Dispatch
Roebert's response to report raises questions
In his sermon at River on Sunday, which was also aired on the re-named Faith TV station, Roebert used the attack as a metaphor to preach about God’s protection. In times of great adversity, he said, men and women of faith would not be kept down, but would rise above the difficulties – not least because of the intercessions of saints who have gone before.
He related the physical attack to the Dispatch report on the same day on his role as executor of the estate of Butterworth businessman Nash Mayekiso.
“When they write absolute rubbish about you in the newspaper,” Roebert said, people of faith need have no fear, they would rise up.
Roebert disparaged the article under my name despite stating repeatedly in a telephone discussion after the article appeared in print that he had no problem with the contents, even as he was clearly unhappy with the headline and photographic elements.
In that discussion, Roebert also challenged me firstly to indicate if I am a Christian or, more correctly, a born-again Christian. He suggested that if I was a Christian, I should never associate myself with “bringing the church down”.
Alternatively, if I am not a Christian, I suppose the article should be read as coming from someone who is part of the evil that stalks men and women of God.
In this, Roebert follows many other interest groups, whether political parties, cultural groupings, sports clubs, or academic communities, who hold to the idea that anyone from outside questioning the group will always be antagonistic and must be discredited.
Secondly, he criticised my failure to acknowledge his title – doctor – in the article and, instead, to focus on his pastor persona. I had asked Roebert what particular expertise he had for being appointed executor.
“Well, firstly,” he said, “I have a qualified doctorate … in ministry. I have 22 years of business experience and I was chosen as the executor by the deceased because of my friendship with him.”
Roebert’s business acumen is certainly not in dispute and is valid in this case. But he also, on the one hand, lays claim to a ministry doctorate as professional justification for his appointment to a legally recognised role and then, on the other hand, argues that the role of executor must stand apart from his role as a pastor.
I disagree.
The Mthatha High Court judgment by Judge Igna Stretch piqued my interest in two respects. Firstly, the R250000 a month being sought as maintenance for five of Mayekiso’s children is a significant amount of money, by any household living standard.
Secondly, I wondered why Roebert hadn’t moved to allay the concerns of the mother of the children when she first appealed for maintenance since he is allowed to release money to avoid hardship for the deceased’s family pending the winding up of the estate.
Stepping into the breach to maintain dependent children was not only the responsibility of Roebert as the executor of an estate – it was surely the godly mandate of a pastor also to interact with a potential maintenance claimant long before the matter became litigious.
Surely, more must be expected of a pastor with a doctorate in ministry than what Roebert has exhibited by his actions in this matter, waiting six months until he communicated with the mother via an e-mail sent by an assistant.
But Roebert was appointed executor also (perhaps primarily) because he was a close friend and confidant of Mayekiso, who would have needed little encouragement to reach out to all those mourning the loss of a loved one, especially dependent children.
In her judgment, Stretch was at pains to recognise the role of the high court as upper guardian of the rights of minor children in our country. But she also went to the trouble of setting out the legislated roles of an executor in circumstances similar to the Mayekiso estate.
“It is only my concern for these children as their upper guardian which has motivated me not to simply dismiss this application without further ado. The executor has not been joined as a party in these proceedings and I am accordingly reluctant to make any adverse findings at this stage with respect to the conduct he has been accused of,” she said.
It is within that context that she ordered that Roebert should receive a copy of her judgment.
She also ordered that if appropriate steps were not taken by Roebert to provide interim subsistence for the children within one month of her order, the children’s mother could approach the court “for urgent appropriate relief”, once Roebert was cited as a party in the case.
In a previous instance of questionable ethics linked to his church, Roebert painstakingly tried to put distance between himself and the donation by Manjo Maphuma of at least R90000 and perhaps as much as R200000 to Trinity Broadcast Network (Bhisho), money to which the Maphuma family claimed they were rightfully entitled.
Roebert chaired TBN Africa at the time and insists he had no role in TBN Bhisho except to intervene on behalf of his father who was the Bhisho operation’s CEO.
This is a strange blurring of personal and corporate governance lines which raises further questions about his complicity in decisions which were taken then.
He also said the money from Maphuma could not be returned as this would have set a dangerous precedent for churches which receive gifts. In any case, the Maphuma relatives were not members of the church so there was no obligation towards them, apparently.
As executor of Mayekiso’s estate, Roebert will be allowed to earn up to 3.5% of the gross asset value of the estate. Given confirmation that a sale is currently underway of some properties in Butterworth valued at R100-million, his fee for settling his friend’s estate will be at least R3.5-million and, ultimately, probably much more.
Equating a Dispatch report – one with which he found no error – with the behaviour of stone-throwing thugs on a road late at night is Roebert’s free speech entitlement.
But his televised sermon offers no explanation for his problematic action or inaction in the Mayekiso estate debacle.
Any self-respecting journalist, Christian or not, will continue to raise the necessary questions.
Ray Hartle is a senior writer for the Daily Dispatch
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos