APSS

There are weekly operational meetings with all service providers where challenges with monitoring and related functions are discussed.

“there are weekly meetings held with all service providers ... there is what we call an operational meeting”

Service providers were deployed to site without purchase orders, overseen by Director Malatji who should have ensured procedures were followed.

“They were deployed within APSS. I think the Director... Director Malatji... is the one who is overseeing those services ...That is correct”

Invoices from service provider Gubis must be certified by APSS for services rendered and signed off before payment.

“If Gubis ... issues an invoice ... it goes to APSS ... They must certify that services have been rendered ... It must come either ... with those penalty clause being indicated to say they were penalised”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini explained that the outstanding invoice related to the 23-24 financial year and was never accrued at the end of that financial year, requiring a post-factor report generated by the section APSS.

“I explained to them since this invoice relates to the 23-24 financial year, it was never accrued accordingly at the end of financial year. There should be a post-factor report which must be generated by the section. ... That is Director Malatji's section.”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini told the representatives that the payment process must go through APSS and Director Malatji who will take them through finance for processing and payment, but he refused to be on board to work directly with them.

“I told them the process that they should work through the APSS. Director Malatji, he will take them through to finance for processing and payment. But they prefer to say I should be on board, I meant to work with them and I refused.”

Major Phiri was not involved in the deployment of the company in May 2024 and started being involved only in January. The usage of Gubis at sites in May 2024 was without his knowledge, and Mr Herman Segolela or his bosses must explain this use.

“while following the proceedings, there were assertions that in May 2024 this company was deployed to certain sites and I was involved. And I cannot... I will just say it is incorrect... I started being involved in January... I want to put it clear that if Mr Herman Segolela or his bosses come here, they will have to explain why they were using it without the knowledge of APSS. So, I was not involved in that one.”

In the experience of Major Phiri at Protection Services (now Watchman Services) and APSS, the selection and allocation of service providers lies with them, and bringing multiple companies to the same site causes "double pegging" which loses accountability.

“In my 15 years’ experience at the Protection Services which is now called Watchman Services and APSS, it lies with us when we allocate to them ... if you bring another company to come and work with company X ... it is called double pegging ... accountability will be lost there.”

While invoices had already been confirmed and signed off by relevant departments including APSS, the Deputy Chief was coordinating a deadlock over budget and cost centre consumption to proceed with purchase orders, but did not give step-by-step feedback on his location in the process.

“Yes. So, while this was happening, a lot was happening in the background, Commissioner. A lot was happening in the background, where the Deputy Chief was obviously in engagements with individuals from APSS, Supply Chain Management. He played a role that coordinated all parties. He did not give a step-by-step feedback where he was. What is important for us to take note of, at this stage, invoices had already been confirmed and signed off by the relevant departments, by APSS, as seen with one example here. So, invoices were not being submitted from scratch, and the process was not starting from scratch. The process had halted at this stage and was at a stage where purchase orders needed to be processed on the system.”

The correct procedure for resolving payment issues starts with engagement with the relevant department that issued the deployment letter, in this case TMPD, and if unresolved escalates to procurement and then higher offices.

“From my perspective, whichever department has given them a deployment letter, if it is TMPD, they need to engage TMPD accordingly. So, in this instance, they would have gone back to the necessary people within APSS and make follow-ups or clarity-seeking questions from them... If they cannot, they should escalate it to procurement. And if they still cannot, they can then raise it with you.”

During the escalation process, they must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the invoice is due and payable, otherwise the CFO will not consider it without proper motivation and evidence from APSS.

“During the escalation process, they need to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that this invoice is due and payable. Hence, I do not want us to leave the step that they needed to start with an APSS first. An APSS needs to make a motivation now. So, for me to even consider this, I would have to get the invoice from the service provider along with the motivation from APSS on why I should even think about considering an invoice from a previous financial year that is closed.”

Gubis was obligated to engage with TMPD and APSS to make necessary submissions and motivations for the invoice approval; the CFO cannot act until this process is done.

“Formally, the onus was on Gubis to make sure that they make the necessary submissions, and they make a motivation to APSS. APSS is a division within TMPD where DC Revo Spies is in charge. Once that has been approved, it would have automatically been transferred to Deputy Chief Dlamini, who is the Support Services and Finance Head within TMPD. That is when I can now assist in terms of taking the way forward.”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini testified he never discussed payment and allocation of work with Sergeant Nkosi or other persons not employed by the City of Tshwane or Tshwane Metro Police Department.

“I have never discussed any payment with Sergeant Nkosi. ... The allocation of work is the responsibility of APSS.”

The head overseeing APSS must be informed when there is an operational, financial, or contract impact in the unit.

“I must, as the head, as the overseer of APSS, I must be informed”

Director Malatji runs the APSS unit and manages the contract day-to-day but does not attend the top management budget meeting.

“Director Malatji runs that unit or section division, he runs it basically into totality, day-to-day running, managing the contract. If it starts affecting the budget, he does not sit in the top management budget meeting”

Information about ad hoc security services that affect the budget should have been communicated to the head of APSS office but was not.

“there is no way that the management of APSS could have thought there is no need for the head, the overseer, the Deputy Chief, not to inform him about these adhoc services, which will have a severe effect on our budget and operational implications”

While caretaker of APSS, the witness was not approached or made aware of any ad hoc allocation of sites to any security service provider in January and February 2025.

“While acting as the caretaker of APSS, specifically during January and February 2025, I was not approached nor made aware of any adhoc allocation of sites to any security”

Director Tshukudu Malatji managed the APSS function from a management point of view and the day-to-day running of the function including management of the security contract.

“the very next level under me, while I was the caretaker of APSS, was Director Tshukudu Malatji, who managed the APSS function from a management point of view and the day-to-day running of the function, including management of the security contract in place”

Commissioner Faro stated that he did not sign the security level agreement because the security tender was withdrawn and readvertised, and the current security tender is being handled since APSS returned to Metro Police.

“No, we, I did not sign because we only had two tenders, and then obviously we have the service animals one. But the security one, remember the security tender was withdrawn and re-advertised, and then this was the land invasion one. So I have not signed the security level agreement because that one, as you know, the only one that we are starting now since APSS came back to Metro Police is this one that we are currently busy with.”

APSS only became aware of the investigation on 1 July 2024 and began their investigation at that time, despite the investigation relating to events prior to that date.

“And I need to just remind the Commission that APSS only came to me 1st of July 2024, and we have discovered that even prior to that, as I said, the investigation is vast, and upon it came to me, we actually became aware of it and we started the type of investigation.”

The APSS investigation and remedial process is complex involving tenders, staff, and sites requiring assessments.

“And also, as Commissioner Khumalo yesterday also said in terms of the APSS, it is very complex. You deal with tenders, you deal with staff, you deal with sites, sites that you had to do your own assessment.”

Most issues related to the Commission's focus happened during the tenure of Commissioner Spies as caretaker of the APSS unit before March 2025.

“the Commission would have heard evidence from Commissioner Spies ... this evidence was limited to his arrival at the TMPD, which was in March 2025 ... before Mr Spies took over in March, he was the caretaker in what we call now the APSS ... most of the issues ... would have happened during his tenure as caretaker of that unit”

No proper handover report was provided when the APSS transfer occurred, but a handover report was emailed to the Chief of Police by Ms Paledi Marota 10 months later.

“I was not provided with a handover report as one would expect... that a handover report was ultimately emailed to the Chief of Police by Ms Paledi Marota... on 10 April 025.”

Monthly budget meetings were held involving Deputy Commissioners and Chief of Police where APSS budget performance was discussed.

“We [the Deputy Commissioners and Chief of Police] had monthly budget meetings and APSS budget performance was mentioned/discussed.”

APSS security function was continuously under-budgeted, and the yearly security services budget was insufficient.

“we were on a continuous basis under-budgeted for the function. So, the yearly budget allocated on a regular basis for security services were not sufficient.”

Deputy Chief acknowledged having about 15-20% of his time devoted to high-level management and oversight of the APSS division due to its large scale and complexity.

“Some high-level management and oversight over APSS probably took about 15 percent or 20 percent of my energy and time to just ensure...”

Deputy Commissioner Bolhuis indicates uncertainty whether the relocation of the APSS from city manager's office to TMPD itself constitutes misuse or exploitation of officials.

“Deputy Commissioner, can I just, just to make sure that I understand... are you saying that the movement of APSS from the office of the city manager to TMPD... is that what you are referring to when you say you were used? And had you known better, you would have responded better? Not necessarily, but that could be the case, I do not know.”

Commissioner Bolhuis states that upon the transfer of APSS unit, he inherited the tender TMPD 02-2016-017 related to the supply of physical security services in the City of Tshwane, starting from March 2022.

“I inherited the above tender with the transfer of APSS. In this tender, the city appointed 22 security service providers to supply the physical security [guarding] services to protect the property, asset, and personnel of the city of Tshwane for a period of three years, with effect from March 2022.”

Between January 2025 and February 2026, purchase orders were created for ad hoc security services from Gubis 85 Solutions (Pty) Ltd, amounting to approximately R13,635,333.60 inclusive of VAT, for services allegedly provided during Commissioner Bolhuis' tenure as caretaker of APSS.

“The purchase orders created out of this process were registered on the TMPD system only on the following day, 6 March 2025. These included purchase orders for ad hoc services, ostensibly procured from Gubis 85 Solutions (Pty) Ltd. In the aggregate amount of R1363533.60. ... Though these purchase orders were created and loaded on 5 and 6 March 025, after my acting stint as caretaker of APSS, some of these purchase orders refers to work and services allegedly provided during my tenure as caretaker.”