Nkosana Makate opens up about his fight against Vodacom
‘Please Call Me’ inventor, Nkosana Makate has opened up about his long battle with Vodacom and the lessons he’s learned.
Businessman Nkosana Makate aka Please Call Me creator opens about how he joined Vodacom in an interview with King David.
ALSO READ: How to set up Apple CarPlay for your older-model car
NKOSANA MAKATE: ‘EVERY TROUBLE PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY’
Nkosana Makate, who’s been fighting Vodacom for 20 years discusses his long battle with the service provider and what he’s learned.
The Please Call Me inventor reveals in the interview that he joined Vodacom after matric because his mother couldn’t afford his varsity fees.
He also reveals that he’s been a fighter from a young age because of his family and shares how he invented Vodacom’s Please Call Me.
‘I’ll never be in a depressive state for a long time. Through challenges we always find solutions. Even if I lose, my life will go on.”
Makate adds that he thought of a way for people to communicate with each other without using airtime when his mother didn’t want to use money to buy airtime to call him.
“We had to come up with a way, even those phones without airtime could generate a message to entice me to make a call.”
“When I wrote the proposal it was broader. I was a young guy; I was 24 years.”
WATCH FROM 1 HOUR 19 MINUTES
VODACOM CHALLENGES ORDER TO PAY R20 BILLION
Business Report revealed on Wednesday, 28 February that Vodacom South Africa is fighting back the order to pay Nkosana Makate.
This comes after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ordered the service provider to pay out almost R20 billion to the ‘Please Call Me’ creator.
It revealed in a statement, “As a responsible corporate citizen, Vodacom is respectful of the judicial system and abides by the laws of South Africa.”
“Having considered the SCA judgment and order, it is Vodacom’s view that there are key aspects of this matter which do not accord with the spirit of the law and that the judgment and order are fundamentally flawed.”
“It is apparent from the dissenting judgment of the SCA that the majority judgment overlooked or ignored many of the issues between the parties and their evidence and submissions relating to those issues.”