A postponement application related to the inquiry has been submitted late today and raises non-frivolous issues requiring response, resulting in the application being scheduled for the next available evidence slot on next Friday.
“The postponement application is a substantial application that raises non-frivolous issues to which we need to respond ... The result is that the application will now have to be heard at the next available evidence slot, which is next Friday.”
The ruling on the postponement application provides a timeline for filings and hearings between 17 July and 24 July 2026, including furnishing Mr Carrim with factual and investigative material, reply affidavits, and written rulings on in-camera applications.
“The ruling in paragraph 1 deals with the postponement application ... The postponement application will be heard at 11:30 on Friday, 24 July ... The Commission will furnish Mr Carrim with a list of non-medical factual issues ... and any other investigative material currently in its possession... The Commission will serve and file an answering affidavit to the founding papers ... Mr Carrim will serve and file a consolidated founding affidavit ... The ruling for in-camera application to be decided by written ruling handed down on or before 18:00 on Thursday, 23 July.”
Mr Carrim has not provided details such as financial statements and auditor identities for three of his companies, despite repeated requests.
“we cannot get , through a simple request from Mr Carrim , details like financial statements of three of those companies in the group , the identity of the auditor of three of those companies who we still have not been able to ascertain from repeated requests to Mr Carrim .”
If Mr Carrim can continue managing his businesses remotely from his sick bed, he should also be able to provide the external information when requested, but he has not done so for months.
“if he can keep his businesses ticking over remotely from his sick bed , he can also issue an instruction that the information that exists external to him can be made available to us . And he has not done that for months now .”
There is a suggestion that Mr Carrim should make himself available for an independent medical examination, but it was said that the commission does not have the power to compel this.
“there was a suggestion on the table that Mr Carrim should make himself available for independent medical examination and we were told , oh no , you do not have the power to do that . You are not a High Court with powers under the rules . You cannot do that . He will not make himself available without your , you know , and you do not have the power to do that .”
Asset forfeiture is an effective sanction for disclosure violations and can be linked to unexplained wealth or order regimes seen in other jurisdictions.
“In paragraph 33 you get to the sanction that would really bite, which is asset forfeiture ... I would like, if you can, also to link that issue to the unexplained wealth or deterrence regime ...”
There is a need to balance improved substantive content of disclosure forms with practical compliance burdens, as overly complex requirements could deter public service participation or lead to excuses for non-disclosure.
“Now, a question ... balance ... utility ... onerous ... drive people away ... presents a defence on non disclosure”
General Khan has a tendency to share Crime Intelligence documents to friends to show off his importance, which is probably not appropriate.
“General Khan has a tendency to show off to friends by sharing Crime Intelligence documents that sort of reflect on his importance...it is probably not appropriate”
General Khan leaked internal delegation documents within Crime Intelligence which should not be shared with friends, although this activity is not considered sinister by counsel.
“It is probably not appropriate...internal delegation documents within Crime Intelligence ought to be shared with friends...It is really...not sinister”
Chats of General Khan should be dealt with in-camera because disclosure would reveal identities of informants within organised crime gangs, putting their lives and others at risk, and could prejudice ongoing investigations or alert suspects.
“that traversing those chats would disclose the identity of informants who are placed within organised crime gangs and are supplying information to General Khan and if we were to disclose their identities... that would put the lives of those informants and possibly other people at risk... if we were to disclose that information we might well either prejudice the investigations or possibly signal to the suspects that they are under investigation and that there is evidence against them”
General Khan flagged the confidentiality of some information and personally brought an in-camera application prior to being shot, which was subsequently withdrawn.
“General Khan had flagged the confidentiality of some of the information and had brought an in-camera application himself, which was subsequently withdrawn”
They seek permission for in-camera presentation of chats and evidence to protect identities of informants and ongoing investigations, requesting leave to lead that evidence without opposition.
“I would ask that we are granted leave to lead that evidence in-camera... in the absence of any opposition to the in-camera application”
If General Khan's health does not permit his attendance, an affidavit from his hospital bed or other places of convenience would be provided, or he might attend in person later to make up for lost time.
“General Khan may, based on what has already transpired in these proceedings, commit to an affidavit from his hospital bed, or from another place of convenience... or the ideal scenario is that this health permits him to actually attend, and then we can make up for the time that he was not here”
They seek guidance from the Commission regarding proceeding in the absence of General Khan and express reservations about such proceedings.
“I would be looking to the Commission for guidance, and at the same time, still record our reservations about the matter proceeding in the absence of General Khan”
Mr Mogotsi says he was told by Advocate Chaskalson to get him anything against Suleiman and he would help, noting that Suleiman had implicated Mr Mogotsi and that he (Mogotsi) should find a way to defend himself; Chaskalson expressed belief that Suleiman was lying and had thrown Mr Mogotsi under the bus and wanted Mr Mogotsi to do the same.
“During the call, he told me, get me anything against Suleiman and I will help you ... he expressed his belief that Suleiman was lying, that Suleiman had thrown me under the bus, and that he wanted me to do the same to Suleiman”
Adv. Chaskalson SC suggests Mr Mogotsi should take legal advice about the refusal to answer questions based on fear of self-incrimination, which may lead to referral for prosecution under relevant Act provisions.
“it is possibly appropriate for Mr Mogotsi to take some legal advice on this, because certainly the attitude of the Evidence Leader is that subject to any plausible reason for a fear of self-incrimination, the Evidence Leaders would want a refusal to answer questions to be followed by a referral for prosecution under the relevant provisions of the Act.”
A person described as Mr Mogotsi's co-handler confirms awareness that Mr Mogotsi was being run as an informant but emphasizes he was never an agent, only an informant.
“He does confirm that you were being run as an informant. He, however, was emphatic that you were never an agent, only an informant.”
Mr Mogotsi described himself as a contact agent in his affidavit, but the person he referred to as his co-handler denies such a role exists.
“In your affidavit you described yourself as a contact agent. The person who you referred to as your co-handler says there is no such thing as a contact agent.”
Mr Mogotsi admits sowing suspicion between General Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi, who was the Provincial Commissioner of KZN and General Khumalo was Head of the PKT in KZN and Head of Crime Intelligence nationally.
“You were sowing suspicion between the Provincial Commissioner of KZN and General Khumalo, who was the Head of the PKT in KZN, and also the Head of Crime Intelligence nationally.”
There is substantial evidence that Mr Matlala arranged through Sergeant Nkosi for impalas to be delivered to General Sibiya's home on 8 January.
“We have seen evidence that Mr Matlala arranged through Sergeant Nkosi for impalas to be delivered to the home of General Sibiya. Now, if you go to page 86 of the annexure bundle, BM 7.45, this is when you are in Cape Town for January the 8th.”
Mr Mogotsi acknowledges the WhatsApp exchange included a follow-up message referencing 'Impala' and laughing emojis later.
“And he does not get back to you, and two hours later you say: 'Impala?' And then there are some laughing emojis straight after that on the next page.”
Mr Mogotsi agrees to write down and provide the name to Adv Chaskalson for investigation, after persistent questioning about the name of the person who holds files and documents.
Adv Chaskalson SC confirms he knows the name Mr Mogotsi will provide and expresses readiness to investigate, warning that he will remember the name if there is an attempt to destroy it.
“It is a name I know. I am happy. If you want to destroy that so that it goes no further, I will remember that name.”
Advocate Chaskalson counters that Sergeant Nkosi was getting privileged information that nobody else could get at that time, since the website was down.
“he was getting information that nobody else could get”
Advocate Chaskalson stated it does not make sense to communicate with the CFO for the single outstanding old invoice once the process is followed and if Director Malatji makes the appropriate motivation, there is no need to go to the CFO for payment.
“Telling them to use the CFO as a gateway for the one single outstanding old invoice does not make sense... If Director Malatji makes the appropriate motivation, they will be paid. There is no need to go to the CFO.”
Legal counsel asserts the communication between Deputy Chief Dhlamini, Sergeant Nkosi, and the CFO regarding vehicles for land was about prioritising companies for corrupt tender rigging, excluding Gubis who was anxious to be included and ultimately succeeded.
“What your communications with Sergeant Nkosi and the CFO in relation to vehicles for land in order of priority was about was actually about which companies were going to be given priority for the tender to be rigged in their favour. And Gubis was not on that list. And that why Gubis was so anxious to speak to you and then to the CFO was because Gubis wanted to be on that list. And somehow Gubis managed to find its way into the final award of the tender.”
Mr Mnisi agreed with the statement that no scoresheet was received for BEC member Mr Tshukudu Malatji, which compromised the integrity of the evaluation process.
“No scoresheets were received for BEC member Mr Tshukudu Malatji ... The absence of scoring from one member undermines the integrity of the evaluation process and compromises fairness and consistency”
There was an anomaly where a recommendation was made on the 28th, but the scoring of bids was done the next day by the same people who made the recommendation, suggesting irregularity.
“you accepted that a recommendation was made on the 28th, and then the next day the people who had made the recommendation purported to score the bids in respect of a tender where they had already made a recommendation”
Six bid documents were lost during relocation, which indicates that controls systems were not working and need improvement.
“there were six documents lost during the relocation of documents to another storage ... documents that were missing are six documents ... they are bid documents ... which means that your control systems are not working”
In court cases about administrative acts of cancelling tenders, the validity of the cancellation depends only on the stated reasons in the committee's decision.
“When you get taken to court for an administrative act of cancelling a tender, your decision stands or falls by the reasons that are given for it... the only reasons that are given for it are these three bullet points”
The tender document informed bidders that submission of firearm licenses was mandatory and that this was a basis on which BAC (Bid Adjudication Committee) evaluates bids.
“That bid document does inform them that you must submit firearm licences. I do not see why you have a problem with the fact that elsewhere that document has said something to the effect that some areas will not require armed guards.”
The contradiction regarding areas that require armed guards versus those that do not was seen as a valid flaw by the BAC and the witness, but counsel disputes that it was a material irregularity justifying cancellation of the tender.
“At the time when the report was being considered, this was a valid contradiction from mine and the BAC's perspective and this was a valid flaw that needed to be highlighted. ... This is not a material irregularity at all. Certainly not one that in its own right would justify cancellation of a tender.”
Sergeant Nkosi received a draft administrative report related to tender TMPD-3 from someone inside the BEC process on 25 March, which was not supposed to be accessible to him.
“on the 25th of March, Sergeant Nkosi sent you this document...a draft report of the BEC on this tender...It is a draft prepared by someone inside the BEC process”
Sergeant Nkosi had some unknown source inside the BEC who gave him documents related to the tender TMPD-3.
“the obvious inference to draw from the fact that Sergeant Nkosi sent you this document is that he had someone inside the BEC who was giving him documents.”
Sergeant Nkosi regarded Bonkosi as a bodyguard and suggested misleading enemies about the duration of the bodyguard's assignment.
“Sergeant Nkosi regards Bonkosi as a bodyguard , does he not ? That is what he says , yes . ... Let us confuse your enemies for two or three days . It is your call , Mfowethu .”
MR MNISI asked Sergeant Nkosi to call General Dhlamini at 9:57 but did not ask for the General's contact details at that time, only later realizing he should have done so to have direct discussions.
“You have to told Sergeant Nkosi to call the General at 9:57. You have not asked Sergeant Nkosi for the General 's contact details at 9:57. Why not? ... I asked for them after that. I do not remember why I did not ask for them at that point.”
An Advocate Chaskalson SC stated that the termination letter takes effect only on 1 July and implies no urgency for immediate invoicing or engagement with the service provider.
“termination only takes effect on the 1st of July. There is nothing urgent. An email, a message, you can say to him, look, here is the termination letter. In four days' time, you are not going to be able to engage these people, do not invoice them.”
According to Advocate Chaskalson SC, the service provider had received a letter stating they may not provide any services effective from 1 July, and there are no deployment letter issues affecting the next financial year.
“The service provider has received a letter that says you may not provide any services with effect from 1 July. Next financial year, you may not provide any services. Service provider cannot, there are no issues with deployment letters that might affect the next financial year in the face of that letter.”
Mr Mnisi was part of the committee that took the decision leading to the termination letter and was aware of the issues from months before.
“You were part of the committee that took the decision that gave rise to the termination letter. Yes. So you were aware of those issues from months before.”
Advocate Chaskalson SC disputes Mr Mnisi's claim, stating the termination letter is irrelevant to ensuring accounting matters for the 24/25 financial year are in order.
“Let us take a step back. So do you accept that in relation to year-end invoices, this termination letter is irrelevant? It has nothing to do with making sure that accounting matters are in relation to the 024/25 financial year are in order?”
Advocate Chaskalson SC states Mr Mnisi's evidence about urgency related to the termination letter is false and either urgency is unrelated to the termination or there is undisclosed information.
“So I want to put to you that your evidence is false and that one of two propositions must be the correct state of affairs. Either the urgency had nothing to do with the termination or the urgency did have something to do with the termination but it had something that you are not telling us about.”
The termination letter would not have affected the City's urgency to meet with General Dhlamini or the urgency relating to year-end procedures for the 23/24, 24/25 and 25/26 financial years.
“The fact of the termination letter did not make any difference to the urgency relating to year-end procedures.”
Adv Chaskalson SC states that under administrative law, an objective perception of conflict or bias is sufficient to have a decision reviewed and set aside.
“In administrative review cases, you do not need to show actual bias ... You only have to show a reasonable appearance of conflict or a reasonable appearance of bias. That is the law.”
Adv Chaskalson SC alleged that an outsider repeatedly asked Mr Mnisi to give preference to bids from Elshadai and Ngaphesheya four separate times, which Mr Mnisi accepted but explained was to check compliance.
“A complete outsider acting with the deputy head of the client department is repeatedly asking you to give preference to the bids of two companies, Elshadai and Ngaphesheya. You accept that? Four separate occasions. I accept that with an explanation that it was for me to check compliance.”
ADV Chaskalson SC pointed out deficiencies in a conversation between Sergeant Nkosi and Deputy Chief Dlamini and asked Mr Mnisi to explain alignment with mandatory tender TMPD-1 requirements.
“You are pointing out a conversation between Sergeant Nkosi and the Deputy Chief Dlamini and you are pointing out areas of deficient. I can see that. I am just requesting for you to please show me the alignment between TMPD-1 and this.”
Mr Mnisi admitted he suspected that the requests for compliance checking were a guise for improper interference and he responded by 'huffing and puffing' to resist this pressure.
“you decided to huff and puff at this point because you suspected they were asking you to interfere improperly. Correct. At this point, I knew there was more than just compliance ... I had to huff and puff ... I did the exact same thing ... my huffing and puffing helped me deal with this assistance.”
The Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) was not duly constituted on 25 August 2025 as originally stated; the first record of a BEC meeting is actually on 28 March 2025.
“the date 25 August 2025 is wrong. The first record I have of a BEC meeting is, in fact, 28 March 2025”
The R385,000 in cash found was the purchase price paid by Sergeant Nkosi's brother for the sale of a truck, with documentation including affidavits and sale agreements attached to his statement.
“The R385000 was the purchase price that had been paid to your brother for the sale of a truck... proof of purchase truck advert is attached as Annexure B... affidavit of the purchaser confirming the same is attached as Annexure E... sale agreement between seller and purchaser is attached as Annexure F”
The Annexure F document showing the Sale Agreement was signed by the buyer on 19 December 2025 and could not have existed when the affidavit was signed on 16 December 2025.
“that annexure could not have existed when you signed your affidavit on the 16th of December, because it was only finalised on the 19th”
Sergeant Nkosi admits that he did not take gloves, helmet, and T-shirts back to Harley-Davidson, and that the bag in the video does not look like it contains those items but something with a sharp rectangular shape inside it.
“it is not gloves, helmets, and T-shirts in there ... there is a fairly sharp rectangular shape that is inside that bag”
The tender 3/2425 was mistakenly referred to as tender 1/2425 by Adv Chaskalson SC during the inquiry.
“If you look at the heading on page 980, you will see that it does not relate to tender 1/2425, which was the tender we discussed yesterday. It relates to tender 3/2425.”
When the list was sent to Mr Mampane on April 30, 2025, the ad hoc security services tender was still ongoing and not a public document.
“In fact, it was not a public document. It was an internal City document relating to a tender process that was still ongoing at the time. ... On the 30th of April when you sent it, it had not been cancelled.”
Mr Mampane requested to prevent the appointment on tender/2024/25, allegedly wanting Mr Mnisi CFO to say no to it.
“Let me put to you how I understand it. He is saying let him, and the him it seems to me is Mr Mnisi, the CFO, say no to that appointment. He is saying tell Mr Mnisi not to make an appointment on tender/2024/25.”
Mr Mnisi was chairing the Bid Adjudication Committee and had the power to make recommendations which were implemented by the City Manager.
“Was it not Mr Mnisi who was chairing the Bid Adjudication Committee and who would make whatever recommendation was ultimately implemented by the City Manager in relation to this tender? ... As a matter of fact, it was Mr Mnisi who had the power to make the recommendation that was ultimately to be implemented by the City Manager in relation to this tender.”
Sergeant Nkosi has protections against self-incrimination; answers given cannot be used in criminal trials against him, but he can assert privilege not to answer questions that may incriminate him.
“nothing that Sergeant Nkosi says in these proceedings can ever be used in a criminal trial against him ... he also has a privilege against self-incrimination”
The forwarded photographs and situation reports relate to suspected stolen property found at the crime scene, which included vehicles and motorcycles.
“There are large numbers of photographs ... presumably the stolen property or the property believed to be stolen ... it includes large numbers of trucks, some motorcycles, items scattered across the floor.”
Advocate Chaskalson alleges the story about the timeline of meetings and photographs with the informant is false and logically inconsistent, because the photograph was taken in June 2025 but communications started in February 2024.
“That story's false ... photo taken on the 13th June 2025 ... communicating ... since the 14th of February 2024”
Adv Chaskalson challenges Sergeant Nkosi's timeline, stating it is impossible to mistake the spacing of the meetings as one week apart rather than 4-10 months apart.
“I do not think it is possible to make a mistake of this nature ... those meetings would have to be 4 to 10 months apart, not one week apart.”
Adv Chaskalson confirms the Tshwane documents were provided electronically three weeks ago but the paginated bundle was only delivered physically recently; thus, the documents were available to Mr Ngoato earlier though he claims otherwise due to not reviewing the electronic versions.
“The Tshwane documents ... were provided electronically ... about three weeks ago ... What Mr Ngoato got was the paginated bundle on Friday ... The documents forming part of the paginated bundle had been sent to him electronically weeks before Friday ... So his complaint that he has not seen these documents before is factually incorrect.”
A witness cannot testify with impunity on documents their attorney and counsel have but which are not included in the bundle until the witness testifies down a relevant line.
“A witness cannot be entitled to testify with impunity in relation to documents which his attorney has and which I have, but which are not in the bundle...we did not anticipate the documents were going to be relevant until the witness testified down a particular line.”
Mr Chaskalson SC was not aware of the issue until Mr Ngoato returned after 9:30 and explained the cause of the delay relating to file amendments without Mr Ngoato's consent.
“I was not aware of this whole episode until after Mr Ngoato returned after 9:30 . . . I had, what I had been told was from the security, the Commission security officer, was that he had anticipated that the ruling was going to be handed down first . . . It turns out that there is this issue which was brought to my attention by Mr Ngoato when he came in after 9:30.”
Adv Chaskalson SC alleges that Sergeant Nkosi did not send laughing emojis to General Mkhwanazi, supported by chat evidence apparently withheld from the bundle.
“I want to put to you that you did not. I will take you to the reference. I am not sure it is in this bundle, but I certainly have the chats with General Mkhwanazi, and there were no laughing emojis in that chat.”
Adv Chaskalson SC says all chats, including those between Sergeant Nkosi and General Mkhwanazi, were disclosed on a memory stick but not included in the main bundle.
“We have certainly disclosed the chats, we just did not put them in the bundle. All of the chats have been put on a memory stick and given to my learned friend.”
Adv Chaskalson SC states memory stick contains all chats and Mr Ngoato will be able to review relevant extracts after lunch if necessary.
“If Mr Ngoato wants to see the chat with General Mkhwanazi, I can pull out the relevant extract, give it to him at lunchtime, and we can come back to this if it is necessary after lunch.”
Sergeant Nkosi considered calling the person who sent him vehicle registration details urgent, or the term "agent" in the chat might have been a misspelling for urgent.
“I think the Chair’s suggestion makes a lot of sense. Is it possible that you meant urgent and it was just misspelt agent?”
Voice-altering technology was investigated but no satisfactory results were found, and it is not clear the witness will be identifiable by voice.
“we have investigated whether we have voice-altering technology, and we did not come up with any satisfactory results ... It is not clear to me that he will be identifiable by voice”
The evidence leader, while reviewing Medicare bank statements on 10 March 2026, discovered two substantial payments from Tasmica Construction into Medicare 24 not mentioned by Mr Carrim.
“While I was looking for that purpose, I stumbled across the fact that there were two substantial payments from Tasmica Construction, another company of Mr Carrim, into Medicare 24, which he did not mention in his statement.”
