Picture: Greg Bortz (Chase Liebenberg Photography)
Following former NHA Chairperson Susan Rowett’s open letter to the racing community and NHA members, the Sporting Post approached the ‘Concerned Stakeholders’ for a response.
Greg Bortz responded and his letter is published as incoming below.
Dear Mr Editor
YOUR REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON A LETTER DISSEMINATED AND PUBLISHED BY MS SUSAN ROWETT ON NOVEMBER 1, 2025
I confirm I received an email sent by Ms Susan Rowett of Varsfontein Stud on November 1st, 2025.
I am aware that this email has also been published in certain racing publications.
The email was addressed to “all members of the NHRA and the racing community”.
Your publication has requested my comments on Ms Rowett’s correspondence. In response:
In my opinion, Ms Rowett’s letter is highly inflammatory, self-serving, and inaccurate.
My thoughts and insights are shared below.
Please note that I am writing to you in my personal capacity as a racehorse owner and longstanding member of the NHA. While I serve as the Chair of the operator of horseracing in the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal (“Race Coast”), I do not write in that capacity.
I suspect that lengthy correspondence may be glossed over by your readers, who are no doubt suffering from “NHA Fatigue”. For that reason alone, I will endeavour to keep my comments to a minimum.
A detailed response to the considerable inaccuracies in Ms Rowett’s letter will be dealt with separately (and will be shared with you at that point) in a more official capacity. However, in this personal communication, I wish to address three of the more salacious and “headline-grabbing” narratives of Ms Rowett before making some other brief points.
False allegation of “CAPTURE” by Ms Rowett
Ms Rowett writes that “the proposed constitution would facilitate the capture of the NHA”.
We live in a country where the negative impact of “capture” is still being felt. Thus, the word “capture” has an enormously emotive impact on all South Africans, let alone the lovers of the sport of horse racing who have experienced their fair share of capture, turmoil and pain. For Ms Rowett to use the word in this context is scandalous, but no doubt deliberate.
Perhaps Ms Rowett needs reminding of the meaning of “capture”. In the case of the state capture we experienced and remember only too well, our government and representative institutions were plundered by their captors.
Those doing the capturing benefited financially. In fact, ridiculously so. Our economy has still not recovered.
In this case, the two owners of the racing operators – affiliates of Mrs Mary Slack and affiliates of Mr Owen Heffer – have contributed billions of rands to SAVE racing. The money is going in the wrong direction – from their pockets into racing!
Capture implies the opposite – from the “captured entity” to the “capturer”. Is Ms Rowett seriously implying that Mrs Slack and Mr Heffer have BENEFITED from saving the racing operators from their demise?
The answer is painfully apparent. The two ultimate beneficial owners of the racing operators have been SAVING racing, not capturing racing! Not a penny has come out – billions have gone in!
Ms Rowett no doubt enjoys the reactions to the negative headlines associated with the words “racing operators” and “capture”.
I suspect Ms Rowett would not be so quick to allege “capture” if she used the names “Mary and Owen” and not the nomenclature “racing operators”. Make no mistake, if Ms Rowett alleges the racing operators are capturing racing, she is in essence alleging Mary Slack and Owen Heffer are capturing racing. We all know this is not the case.
I believe that Ms Rowett, through her “capture” rhetoric, is tapping into pain felt after the failed Phumulela/Jooste era. Phumulela was clearly mismanaged and abused – as evidenced by its ultimate failure and subsequent liquidation.
The use of 3rd party debt to fund the payments and dividends (allowing for the enrichment of some) was reprehensible. The wounds are still fresh, so the word “capture” hits all horseracing lovers hard.
The only problem here is that it is a false narrative in this context. Money has gone the other way, leaving the alleged “capturers” significantly poorer! Ms Rowett would be better served using the word “SAVE” as opposed to “CAPTURE”. Mrs Slack and Mr Heffer are saviours, not capturers.
Incorrect Interpretation of Clause 26 of the Constitution – Resolutions
Ms Rowett states that “it is clear from clause 26” that separate resolutions should be required for every proposed change to the constitution.” Ms Rowett’s interpretation is incorrect. It is most certainly not clear! The Racehorse Owners’ Association (ROA), the Thoroughbred Breeders Association (TBA), the South African National Trainers Association (SANTA), 4Racing, and Race Coast (collectively, the “Concerned Stakeholders”) have received legal advice from three different sets of lawyers.
The lawyers’ guidance is overwhelming – Ms Rowett’s contention that a separate resolution is required per change is incorrect.
The Concerned Stakeholders are proposing an ENTIRELY NEW CONSTITUTION to members for consideration. Members will either vote in favour of the new constitution or against it. It would be impractical and infeasible to vote on every word or sentence changed.
The new constitution cannot be read in parts – it must be read in its entirety. Hence, only one resolution is needed – members must either approve the new constitution in totality or not.
Furthermore, in the interest of complete transparency for all members, a detailed “RATIONALE” document was circulated to all members. Every material change is highlighted and explained in this document. Members can determine for themselves whether they are pleased with the new constitution. If members dislike any single proposed change, they can simply vote “NO” on the resolution.
False Portrayal of the New Proposed Nominations Committee
Ms Rowett self-servingly and incorrectly states that the new Nominations Committee “would be entrenched, controlling the Board, and members having NO SAY AT ALL”.
Unfortunately, most readers of Ms Rowett’s letter are unaware of the current Nominations Committee mechanism under the existing constitution. Currently, should the Nominations Committee propose a candidate, it is the board that can simply say “NO” to the newly proposed directors.
The board can, in essence, choose who it wishes to allow into its special “club”. The new proposed Nominations Committee removes the board’s ability to veto new proposed directors.
Ms Rowett suggests this is a bad thing. Once again, she has it the complete opposite way around – it is a good thing!
The proposed Nominations Committee is comprised of all stakeholders – the two racing operators, two existing board members (one of whom must be an owner) and a representative chosen by SANTA on behalf of trainers and jockeys.
In short, all stakeholders are represented. And Mr Editor, most of your readers are well aware that the racing operators (4Racing and Race Coast) have competed fiercely with each other over the past years.
What is proposed now is a highly independent Nominations Committee. Mrs Rowett purposely portrays the racing operators as one, when in fact the reality is much different.
I would now like to make a few points of my own in response to the tone and implications of Ms Rowett’s letter.
Ms Rowett’s Resignation from the Board of the NHRA
Ms Rowett, until very recently, served as the Chair of the NHA.
In that capacity, the Concerned Stakeholders were engaging primarily with Ms Rowett. Ms Rowett had her own firm views on the running of the NHA, the composition of its board, and the constitution.
Ms Rowett was aware that the two operators, the trainers, the jockeys and the breeders rarely agreed and did not move in unison. Ms Rowett thought, as a result, that the Concerned Stakeholders were unlikely to reach consensus and resolution on a new constitution.
Ms Rowett was wrong. Upon learning that the Concerned Stakeholders had a clear way forward, rather than engaging, Ms Rowett resigned, preferring to avoid being forced to resign at the Special General Meeting.
The bitter irony here is that if Ms Rowett feels so strongly about the issues she raises, why not debate them and advocate for these positions from the position of Chair of the NHA?
Ms Rowett sat in the most powerful seat in the NHA. Instead, she resigned. Sadly, instead, she now advocates her position through letter writing and social media.
The Need for Change and the Risks to our Sport if it is Not Forthcoming
Mr Editor, I have been forwarded volumes of correspondence and comments from your readers over the past few years regarding the poor performance of the NHA.
Unnecessary lawsuits, bloated costs, questionable decisions, NHA penalties or judgments subsequently overturned when challenged on appeal, and so on. The dissatisfaction has come from all quarters, from all stakeholder groups. Change was needed. Change is needed.
The stakeholder groups, with the mission of “CHANGE” in mind, came together and proposed a new constitution for voting by the members. The sole purpose – for CHANGE. Not for change’s sake, but to create a fairer, more equitable, more transparent NHA. The current constitution makes this impossible. It is not fit for purpose.
The new constitution provides us with the opportunity to have a functioning, fair regulator that oversees our sport, ensuring integrity, while doing so with compassion and understanding.
Sadly, the “old guard” is resisting change. Should the new constitution not be voted in at the upcoming Special General Meeting, I fear for the future of our sport. I fear being an owner under the current “not-fit-for-purpose” constitution.
I fear that our sport will lose the vital, life-saving benevolence and generosity of Mrs Slack and Mr Heffer because of racing continuing its sad heritage of shooting itself in the foot.
Mr Editor, in conclusion, our sport needs an independent, effective and compassionate regulator.
The new constitution makes this a possibility; the existing constitution makes it an impossibility.
We must change the constitution.
I hope all the NHA members take the time to review the documents on the NHA website (especially the RATIONALE document), and complete a Proxy form (also on the website).
This is not the time for apathy. It is not the time to sit on the sidelines.
The new constitution will ensure that we have a sport run with integrity, while ensuring fairness in dealing with jockeys, trainers, and other stakeholders.
The NHA has lost its way – it must do better.
We can assist in this regard. Thus, I urge all members to vote IN FAVOUR of the new constitution.
Sincerely,
Signed – G M Bortz
