Santam & Legal Team Face Malicious Prosecution, Fraud & Crimen Injuria Allegations in Shocking Insurance Scandal!!

A routine insurance claim has spiralled into a legal and ethical nightmare that’s sending shockwaves through South Africa’s financial sector. Santam Limited – the nation’s largest short-term insurer  – stands accused of malicious prosecution, privacy breaches, and SLAPP tactics in its handling of a client’s claim. The case of Dr. Gavin Pretorius, a policyholder who sought coverage for a theft and damage incident, has erupted into a high-stakes battle raising grave questions about corporate power, personal rights, and the lengths to which an insurer might go to avoid paying a claim.

A Claim Turns into a Nightmare

• What began as a straightforward insurance claim for stolen and damaged household items has morphed into an ordeal worthy of a crime thriller. In November 2024, Pretorius filed a claim with Santam after his personal belongings – including high-end fashion collectibles – were stolen or damaged during a professional home relocation. The claimed losses were substantial (estimated replacement value around R2.5 million), but nothing prepared Pretorius for Santam’s response. Instead of prompt assistance, Pretorius says he was met with stonewalling, suspicion, and court process.

• Santam’s Complex Claims Unit assigned multiple assessors to scrutinise the claim, yet weeks passed with little progress. Frustration mounted. “I provided all reasonable documentation and proof of ownership,” Pretorius notes, yet Santam kept demanding more irrelevant information from us, and never providing any feedback or valuable responses to requests for information via email. By January 2025 – nearly two months after the incident – Pretorius’s claim remained untouched and unresolved. Santam then escalated the matter in a shocking direction: it launched an investigation into Pretorius himself, treating the victimised client as a potential fraudster rather than a customer in need.

Private History Used Against the Client

• In a move that has alarmed privacy advocates, Santam’s investigators “uplifted” sensitive personal information about Pretorius to justify repudiating his claim. Specifically, Santam’s attorneys (the law firm Savage Jooste & Adams, or SJA Inc.) dug up an expunged criminal record from Pretorius’s past. This record – an old fraud allegation that let to Pretorius’ wrongful arrest – had no bearing on the 2024 theft claim, and Pretorius vehemently maintains it was the result of a wrongful arrest.

• Santam was fully aware that the expunged incident was unrelated to any insurance matter – Pretorius had even disclosed during the claim process that he’d once been arrested “for unrelated reasons” not pertinent to Santam . Nonetheless, Santam’s agents demanded full details of that arrest and extensive legal processes, pressuring Pretorius to hand over court records. In a letter on 15 January 2025, Santam’s appointed loss adjuster warned him to “reconsider [his] stance” and provide information about the old case, threatening to disqualify his claim if he refused . Pretorius was stunned: his legitimate claim for stolen property was being held hostage unless he relived a painful, irrelevant chapter of his past.

• Legal experts point out that criminal history records are classified as “special personal information”under South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), due to their sensitive nature . The processing of such data is strictly prohibited except in very limited circumstances – none of which, Pretorius argues, applied to his insurance claim . In an email response to Santam’s lawyers, he accused the insurer of violating POPIA by prying into his protected personal data. He noted that Santam had no lawful basis to demand his criminal record, calling it an irrelevant and prejudicial attempt to tarnish him and deny a valid claim  . “Forcing me to disclose irrelevant, sensitive personal information under threat of claim repudiation contravenes the law,” he wrote, highlighting POPIA’s Section 26 (which forbids processing criminal records without consent) and Section 100 (which makes unlawful data handling a crime).

• Rather than back down, Santam seized upon Pretorius’s past to turn the tables. On 28 January 2025, SJA Inc. – acting for Santam – issued a stark letter voiding Pretorius’s insurance policy altogether. The firm declared that Santam was “avoiding” the policy from inception on grounds of material non-disclosure. In plainer terms, because Pretorius had not disclosed the expunged arrest/conviction when he bought the policy, Santam was cancelling his cover as if it never existed. This drastic step not only meant no payout for the November 2024 claim but also that Pretorius’s premiums had been collected under what Santam now deemed a void contract. Santam’s letter, citing the public court record in extensive detail and over-processed specifics, coldly recounted the details of the expunged case – effectively branding Pretorius a fraudster unworthy of indemnity .

• Pretorius was left financially devastated and feeling betrayed. “I lost irreplaceable valuables to criminals, and now my insurer was treating me like the criminal,” he exclaims. He describes Santam’s conduct as a secondary victimisation: “It’s sickening. I was the one robbed, yet they dug through my personal life to find an excuse not to pay, and then smeared my name with it.” By voiding the policy retroactively, Santam absolved itself of liability, leaving Pretorius with millions in losses and no recourse – unless he could somehow overturn their decision in court.
  
• Santam issued a Claims History Report stating that 2 household content claims to the value of roughly R2.3million was settled and paid out to Pretorius, but this is patently misleading, as the claims have not even been evaluated and Pretorius has never in his past, had any home contents claims. With Santam voiding the policy from inception, they offered Pretorius a consolation prize of refunding his premiums for the entire window covered by his policy. Considering his premiums were in the region of R20,000 every month, Santam realised this was a high profile and large nett worth client when time for payment came, and now 9 months later Santam has not shown a single sign of good faith by even paying their offered refund of premiums, they simply ignore the existence of Dr Pretorius. 
  
• Pretorius consulted with a specialist insurance ‘claim repudiation’ law firm, and once he presented all the blatant dishonest statements, defamatory terms and discriminatory accusations by Santam, found in their correspondence and legal papers, Pretorius was guided about the criminal element in these actions by the insurer and on the 10th of August 2025, Pretorius officially lodged a sworn affidavit with the National Prosecuting Authority’s Director of Public Prosecutions, detailing the criminal conduct of Santam and Savage, Jooste & Adams Incorporated. The case was accepted by the NDPP and Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit and Santam is most probably facing up to 10 years imprisonment for those involved in the nightmare claim handling. 

Malicious Prosecution and SLAPP Tactics Alleged

• What happened next has sent a chill through consumer circles and raised accusations that Santam crossed into malicious prosecution. According to Pretorius, Santam and its associates weren’t content with simply denying his claim – they moved to intimidate and silence him. As Pretorius fought back, writing complaints and refusing to go quietly, Santam’s stance grew increasingly aggressive. The insurer’s representatives began treating him not just as a liability risk, but as an adversary to be legally neutralised.
  
• Santam’s attorneys (SJA Inc.) directed Pretorius to cease all direct communication with the company and to speak only through lawyers, effectively gagging him from pleading his case to Santam’s staff . They accused him of “intimidating and harassing” their client and warned that “urgent steps” were being taken through the criminal justice system and civil courts to address his “threats” . (which were lawful threats of legal action, not bodily harm)

• In early February 2025, the threats from their side materialised: Santam launched an extraordinary High Court application against Pretorius. In a highly unusual move for an insurance dispute, the case was brought ex parte – a secret application without notifying Pretorius – and even cited South Africa’s Minister of Police as a respondent . Insiders say this could indicate Santam sought an Anton Piller-type order (a civil search-and-seize warrant) or some form of urgent injunction, possibly to have police oversee the process . For a corporate insurer to pull in the Minister of Police against a single consumer is virtually unheard of. Pretorius was stunned when he learned of the secret court action: “They went behind my back to paint me as some kind of dangerous criminal. It was a gross abuse of process and a cowardly attempt to shut me up,” he says.

• Legal commentators note that if a company’s main aim in litigation is to silence or intimidate a critic rather than resolve a legitimate dispute, it falls into the category of a SLAPP suit – Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. SLAPPs are lawsuits (often defamation or spurious charges) used by powerful entities to censor or intimidate critics by burdening them with legal defence costs and fear. In this case, Pretorius asserts Santam’s heavy-handed legal offensive – voiding his policy, implicating him in fraud, and obtaining gag orders – is a textbook SLAPP tactic intended to punish him for speaking out and to deter him from fighting back.

• This isn’t just Pretorius’s opinion: the concept of SLAPP suits has gained judicial recognition in South Africa. In 2022 the Constitutional Court acknowledged the existence of SLAPP cases, allowing activists to use it as a defence against powerful companies’ legal onslaughts. Typically, SLAPPs involve a mighty plaintiff using the courts to bully a defendant into silence. Here, Santam – a R50-billion financial giant – deployed civil and possibly criminal action in what Pretorius describes as an attempt to bury him in legal trouble so that his outcry over the claim would vanish. “They turned me from a customer into an accused, just to avoid their obligations. It’s the ultimate David vs. Goliath struggle,” he says.

• Indeed, Santam’s approach has drawn comparisons to recent SLAPP controversies. Observers point out eerie parallels to cases where companies sought gag orders in secret. (In one notable instance, a Johannesburg court slammed an ex parte gag order obtained by a wealthy businessman as “an egregious abuse of process”.) Dr. Pretorius contends that Santam’s ex parte manoeuvre was no different – an abuse of the system to tilt the playing field. He emphasises that he has never been found guilty of any insurance fraud, and there was zero evidence of wrongdoing in his claim. Yet Santam’s legal filings, he says, cast him as a criminal mastermind, even dragging his life partner into the fray. (The court papers named Pretorius’s partner as a co-respondent, suggesting Santam suspected both of them in a conspiracy.) To Pretorius, this was malicious prosecution in all but name: a baseless, vindictive attempt to criminalise a legitimate claimant. “They’re trying to make an example out of me, to scare off anyone else who would challenge them, but they have a rather large surprise awaiting them in 2026…” he argues.

Blacklisted and Left Uninsurable

• Beyond the courtroom drama, Santam’s actions have had severe real-world consequences for Pretorius. By voiding his policy and effectively accusing him of material non-disclosure (and implicitly, fraud), Santam blacklisted Pretorius in the insurance industry. Now, whenever he applies for coverage elsewhere, he faces a dreaded question on the forms: “Has any insurer ever cancelled your policy or refused to insure you?”Because of Santam, Pretorius must truthfully answer “Yes” – and as a result, other insurers slam the door. No company wants to touch him, even for basic coverage, after hearing Santam cancelled his policy. In effect, one insurer’s unilateral decision has made Pretorius uninsurable across the board.

• “I’m left in a terrifying position – I cannot insure my home, my car, my belongings, nothing,” he says. Future insurance applications are automatically rejected, thanks to Santam’s blacklist. The implications are dire: he must either go uninsured (exposed to enormous risk) or pay exorbitant premiums through high-risk underwriters, if he can find any willing to take him. And all of this stems from an incident where he was the victim of theft. “Santam didn’t just abandon me; they’ve tarnished my name industry-wide,” Pretorius explains. This kind of blacklisting is a little-known consequence that consumers only discover when it’s too late. Pretorius wants to warn others: “If your insurer unfairly cancels your policy, it can destroy your financial security for years. You’re treated as a pariah by the entire sector.”

Regulatory and Legal Authorities Step In
The gravity of this saga has now drawn the attention of regulators and law enforcement. Determined to seek justice, Pretorius has lodged formal complaints with multiple oversight bodies, laying out the disturbing details of Santam’s conduct:

• National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) – A complaint has been filed urging prosecutors to investigate criminal aspects of the case, such as any unlawful access of personal data or other offences. Within the NPA, the Specialised Commercial Crime Unit (SCCU) has been notified, given the financial and corporate nature of the allegations. Pretorius is effectively asking authorities to consider whether Santam or its agents committed crimes – be it under POPIA (for data abuse), perjury, malicious prosecution, or other statutes.
  
• Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) – The regulator of insurance companies is now seized with a complaint about Santam’s behaviour. Pretorius alleges that Santam breached the Treating Customers Fairly principles and several Financial Sector and insurance laws by voiding his policy on a flimsy pretext and by failing to handle his claim in a fair, transparent manner. The FSCA could investigate Santam’s claim practices, the legality of demanding a client’s criminal record, and whether avoiding the policy was a proportional response. Regulatory action – including hefty fines or license conditions, possibly complete disbarment – could follow if the FSCA finds that Santam acted improperly. The optics are not rosey for Santam and they should be concerned for their future in South Africa at present because the evidence is stacked up against them.
  
• Information Regulator – Given the central role of the POPIA privacy issue, Pretorius is preparing to involve the Information Regulator (South Africa’s data protection watchdog). In his correspondence, he already warned Santam that he would file a complaint with the Information Regulator over the unlawful processing of his special personal information. That complaint is expected to argue that Santam and SJA Inc. violated multiple sections of POPIA, and could seek sanctions or orders against the insurer for the privacy breach. Since the privacy breach was of such a nature involving protected personal data, regardless if it is in the public domain (court records), SJA has processed this information, disseminated it to the LPC, the brokers, and quoted full paragraphs from the court records with granular detail that they seem to still enjoy spreading like wildfire to anyone that would care to listen. They have no lawful reason to process this information excessively, or at all, and uplifted it when Pretorius explicitly denied them permission to do so, which renders their conduct as an offence that could have their responsible parties face up to 10-years in prison if the Regulator decides that the conduct was indeed as egregious as it sounds.
  
• Legal Practice Council (LPC) – Pretorius has also reported the conduct of Santam’s attorneys (SJA Inc.) to the Legal Practice Council, which governs attorneys’ ethics. This complaint highlights the law firm’s role in “uplifting” his confidential court records and in pursuing the aggressive legal strategy against him. If SJA Inc. is found to have breached ethical rules – for instance, by abusing court process or violating client confidentiality norms – they could face serious disciplinary sanctions. Pretorius insists that SJA’s tacticsamounted to intimidation and harassment under the guise of legal procedure, and he wants the LPC to scrutinise whether the attorneys crossed professional lines in zealously defending Santam. He requested that the responsible attorneys or the entire incorporated firm be struck from the bar and have their licenses to practice law in SA, completely revoked.
  
• Ombudsman and Others – The National Financial Ombudsman of South Africa (previously the OSTI) has been informed of the dispute as well. Earlier, Pretorius had approached the ombudsman when Santam was dragging out the claim investigation, citing Santam’s apparent non-compliance with claims handling timelines. (Insurers are supposed to update clients every 15 days on a pending claim; Santam allegedly failed to do so) Now, with the claim repudiated and legal fireworks underway, the Ombud’s office and other consumer protection forums have been updated on the case’s latest developments. The message is clear: this is no ordinary claim complaint – it’s a battle over fundamental rights. As Pretorius puts it, “I have taken this through every possible channel. The consensus is that Santam is in the wrong. I will fight to prove my innocence and hold them accountable, even if it means going all the way to the Constitutional Court”
  
• The involvement of so many authorities underscores the severity of the allegations. It is exceedingly rare for an insurance claim dispute to escalate to this level. A spokesperson at one of the regulatory bodies (speaking off-record) commented that if Pretorius’s claims are substantiated, Santam’s conduct could represent one of the most egregious breaches of customer trust seen in the industry. “It would basically tell consumers: no matter how faithful you are in paying premiums, an insurer might trawl through your life for any excuse to cancel coverage when you need it most,” the official said. “That strikes at the heart of insurance ethics and will not be taken lightly.”

A Call for Accountability – and for Others to Come Forward

• As this high-stakes confrontation unfolds, Pretorius is not only seeking justice for himself but also sounding the alarm to fellow consumers. He suspects he may not be alone – that other policyholders could have been similarly mistreated by Santam or other insurers, especially regarding the misuse of personal information or heavy-handed legal threats. He is urging anyone with similar experiences to break their silence. “If you’ve been bullied by an insurer, if your claim was unfairly denied or your privacy violated, now is the time to speak up,” Pretorius says. In an unprecedented move, he has set up a dedicated tip-off line (via email at investigations@zynetix.com) to collect leads from the public. Any other Santam clients – or clients of any insurer – who feel they were wronged in comparable ways are encouraged to reach out. Pretorius’s team will treat the responses confidentially and hopes to identify patterns of misconduct. “This isn’t just about me anymore,” he adds. “It’s about shining a light on an industry practice that could be hurting many others in the shadows.”

• Consumer advocacy groups are already watching the case closely. The prospect of a class action lawsuitor collective redress is on the table if multiple victims emerge. At the very least, Pretorius’s crusade is poised to spark a much-needed debate on how far insurers can go in the name of “risk management.” Should a decades-old indiscretion bar someone from ever getting insurance? Can insurers trawl public records to cancel your policy after a claim? Where is the line between fraud prevention and invasion of privacy? These are questions now being asked at the highest levels – in courtrooms, regulatory offices, and perhaps soon in Parliament.

• Meanwhile, Santam’s top executives and the partners at SJA Inc. are reportedly in crisis mode as the company scrambles to defend itself. The potential fallout is enormous. Santam could face not only reputational ruin but also legal liability and regulatory penalties if Pretorius’s allegations are vindicated. The insurer has so far been tight-lipped publicly, citing the ongoing proceedings, but the story has already gained traction on social media and in industry circles. There is growing outrage that a household-name insurer – one entrusted by millions of South Africans for peace of mind – would unleash such tactics on its own client. “It’s simply unbelievable. This is the kind of story that undermines public trust in insurance,” commented one insurance analyst.

• As for Pretorius, he remains determined. Despite feeling “raped and abused” by criminals and then “vilified by the insurer”, he refuses to be silenced. “They picked the wrong person to cross with illegal conduct” he says resolutely. Having already endured a wrongful arrest and the stigma of a record, Pretorius is resolute about clearing his name in this matter and making Santam answer for its actions. “I will destroy them in court with the truth, because they tried to destroy me with lies,” he vows. It’s dramatic language, but this saga is nothing if not dramatic – a Carte Blanche-worthy exposé of an insurance giant’s darkest manoeuvres, as told by the man who lived it.

• This developing story has sent tremors through the insurance industry. It serves as a stark warning to both insurers and insured: justice, transparency, and fairness must prevail, or public accountability will. Santam and SJA Inc. have been thrust under the spotlight of global scrutiny. All eyes are now on them to see how they respond to these explosive claims. Will they stand by their hard-line stance, or will the pressure of public opinion and regulatory oversight force a change? One thing is certain – the world is watching, and the clock is ticking. The era of quiet corporate bullying may be over, as one man’s fight for fairness threatens to ignite a wildfire of change in its wake.

For any reader who has insight into this matter or has faced similar issues, please contact investigations@zynetix.com. Pretorius’s battle could become a rallying point for consumer rights, and his call extends to you. In his own words: “I have nothing to lose now except my voice – and I intend to use it to make sure this never happens to anyone else.”

Dr Pretorius is available for comment and further details surrounding the ongoing litigation and complaints on the whistleblower email address of the SAPS Investigations on behalf of the corporate entity Zynetix, and Dr Pretorius will receive any requests directly at saps@zynetix.com