Mr Mnisi

Additional documents communicated yesterday with Mr Nkosi's attorneys include supplemental transcripts mainly relating to the testimony of Mr Malatji, Mr Phiri, and Mr Mnisi.

“the additional documents ... it was essentially the supplement, the additional transcripts, and those additional transcripts are in the majority his testimony”

Mr Mnisi said that Director Malatji had not submitted his scoresheets even though he was part of the BEC.

“Mr Mnisi, who said that Director Malatji had not submitted his scoresheets even though he was part of the BEC.”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini sent a WhatsApp message on 12 July 2025 to Sergeant Nkosi referencing the capture of CFO Mr Mnisi and advising to gear oneself to do so forever.

“On the 12th of July 2025, at chat 3, you send a WhatsApp to Sergeant Nkosi that reads as follows: 'Morning, Captain... UMfowethu is the best person to be with, uJudawethu who will do great things for us compared to uBabawakhoongasekho.'”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini explained that the picture showed the CFO (Mr Mnisi) appearing there with the Deputy Chief.

“He was appearing there with the CFO on that picture.”

Sergeant Nkosi was walking with Mr Mnisi at the funeral of the late Deputy President Mabuza.

“And Sergeant Chaskalson was walking with Mr Mnisi at the funeral. ... It was the funeral of the late Deputy President Mabuza.”

Mr Mnisi did not actively encourage Sergeant Nkosi to assist him with mediating the Gubis payment, but admits he should have requested a contact number to deal directly with Deputy Chief Dlamini.

“Sergeant Nkosi involved himself. I did not actively say, may you please assist me with mediating this? ... I did, however, admit, Chair, that in hindsight, on this matter, I should have requested for a number ... so that I am able to deal directly with the Deputy Chief Dlamini.”

Mr Mnisi asked for Sergeant Nkosi's number after the Gubis payment termination and took the matter up with the General directly; no further interaction occurred with Sergeant Nkosi regarding the termination letter.

“On the Gubis payment on termination. This was clear. I asked for his number afterwards, and I subsequently took the matter with the General directly. There was no further interaction with Sergeant Nkosi in reference to the termination letter.”

Mr Mnisi states that he still has no interest and his objectivity could not have been impaired in relation to the Gubis payment matter.

“I still have no interest and my objectivity could not have been impaired whatsoever.”

Mr Mnisi denies ever giving Sergeant Nkosi access to sensitive documentation related to the Gubis payment termination, stating the termination letter was general and nothing sensitive was shared.

“There is no single instance from my perspective where I shared any sensitive documentation with him. The termination letter, like I said, was general ... there is nothing sensitive about that.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledges a perception of conflict of interest existed during the BAC process and accepts that errors of such nature will not reoccur in the near future; if they do, he would not sit on that committee again.

“In hindsight, I did agree that there is a perception of conflict having existed. ... I have learnt a lot and have identified my mistakes and errors ... if they do reoccur, a perception is there, and I would not sit in that committee.”

Mr Mnisi confirms that the BAC does not have the power to cancel a tender; it only has power to recommend cancellation, whereas the accounting officer has the power to cancel.

“The BAC has power to recommend, the accounting officer has the power to cancel. He has the authority not to agree to the recommendation that the BAC has.”

Mr Mnisi states the City Manager delegates powers to the BAC in the form of appointment letters when delegating his powers.

“The City Manager delegates that in the form of appointment letters when he is delegating his powers to the BAC.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledges he does not have information on where the power to undo an entire tender process from the bid specification stage lies legally but confirms it rests with the City Manager who delegates to the BAC.

“I do not have that information with me at present ... I can confirm to you that that power by law rests with the City Manager. He delegates that to the BAC.”

Mr Mnisi states the Municipal Manager has the power to undo a tender process from the bid specification stage through to the tail end, based on shortcomings at the bid specification stage.

“The Municipal Manager has that power ... if he picks up this is an anomaly that would lead to irregularities, he does have those powers.”

Mr Mnisi explains that the Municipal Manager, as accounting officer, has the duty to satisfy himself with the reasons behind cancellation recommendations and can take decisions on them.

“As long as it satisfies him ... he has got a duty to satisfy himself as well with the reason behind it, and he can take a decision on that ... by virtue of being an accounting officer, he does have those powers.”

Mr Mnisi admits that there was a possibility of corrupting the process regarding the access to documents by Sergeant Nkosi.

“I have agreed to you in terms of my concerns of him obtaining the document. I have also agreed with you in terms of his perspective ability to obtain further documentation. He could have. I have agreed to that. I did not deny that.”

Mr Mnisi shared the document from the Hawks with Sergeant Nkosi and shared all communication with the investigating officers with Sergeant Nkosi as well.

“you have shared this document with Sergeant Nkosi. Correct ... And then all the communication with the investigating officers in this case, you have also shared that with Sergeant Nkosi. Correct?”

Mr Mnisi shared the City of Tshwane's response to the Hawks with Sergeant Nkosi before it was sent to the Hawks.

“And the City of Tshwane's response to the Hawks, you have also shared it with Sergeant Nkosi to review before the response is sent to the Hawks. Correct?”

Mr Mnisi describes the letter purportedly from the DPCI as fake and fraudulent, lacking official communication protocols and proper tender details.

“first of all, the sort of fake and fraudulent letter that was sent by imposters, I am going to put it that way, imposters purporting to be from the DPCI. ... If you look at this document firstly, it does not even have a tender number. Nor does it have any official communication instruments to communicate with the purported investigation.”

Mr Mnisi involved Sergeant Nkosi to advise on how to proceed with the fake letter and the irregularities to try trap the involved individuals.

“It was a test of legitimacy. I needed him to give me advice on how I can take this matter up further. I needed to ensure that these individuals are tracked so that the behaviour of this nature does not carry on any further ... He is a member of Hawks. He should be aware of the process on how I can escalate any irregularities of this nature. I was asking for advice on how to escalate the matter further.”

Mr Mnisi admits he never reported the fraudulent matter officially to SAPS as the suspects disappeared and did not respond to formal correspondence.

“No, I have not reported it to SAPS. But ... Since the disappearance of these individuals, I guess I was overtaken by events because they never ever came up. They never ever called, nor did they ever respond to this formal correspondence. Officially, no.”

Mr Mnisi states that Sergeant Nkosi is involved because he is a member of DPCI and should know the escalation process for such matters.

“He is a member of DPCI. He is a SAPS official. He should know the process of escalating these matters. From my perspective, this was a good deed. This was in good faith. I needed advice on how to deal with the situation moving forward.”

The City of Tshwane has an internal investigations department but it only investigates internal matters within the City and is not authorized to investigate other organs of state.

“It does have that, but … It investigates internal matters. The matters are for issues that occur within the City. They are not authorised to investigate other organs of state.”

MR Mnisi, in his official capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the City of Tshwane, chose to go to Sergeant Nkosi, a member of the public and not internal investigators or the City Manager, instead of following the official protocol for internal City matters.

“You go to your friend to help you solve a City of Tshwane matter... why you choose not to follow protocol?”

Mr Mnisi confirms that he did not consider the tender process to have been corrupted by Sergeant Nkosi's access to the draft admin report.

“you did not consider the tender process to have been corrupted by the fact that Sergeant Nkosi had accessed the draft admin report. That is correct? That is correct.”

The Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) chaired by Mr Mnisi noted that six documents were lost during the relocation of documents to another storage in relation to the TMPD-3 tender, and recommended measures and controls to safeguard documents should be implemented.

“that there were six documents lost during the relocation of documents to another storage . Therefore, measures and controls to safeguard documents should be implemented”

Mr Mnisi stated that irregularities were noted concerning the TMPD-3 tender and that these were among reasons why the tender had to be cancelled.

“these are one of the reasons why this tender had to be cancelled . Irregularities were noted”

Mr Mnisi disagreed with the assertion that all documents relating to tenders are kept under lock and key throughout the process and cannot be tampered with.

“My answer is that I do not agree with you . ... documents are kept under lock and key ... I disagree with the notion ... that documents are never under lock and key”

Mr Mnisi explained the internal controls regarding document transfers in the tender process, including signing off responsibilities and storage under lock and key to safeguard documents and prevent tampering.

“documents are kept under lock and key. The ability of any committee to pick up any mishap from transferring a set of documents to another is an internal control ... The individuals sign off for them as part of the segregation of duties ... they accept and they make a vow to ensure that they will safeguard these documents and they will ensure that there is nothing that occurs in the form of tampering”

Mr Mnisi confirmed that six documents did disappear despite protocols of lock and key and the vow to safeguard the documents.

“in this case, despite that vow and despite the protocol of lock and key, six documents disappeared”

The disappearance of six documents allowed the internal control processes to be tested and proved effective as the process was able to hold the process accountable and determine an individual responsible for the lost documents between Probity and BEC.

“this was a positive thing that we were able to pick this up because it showed that the internal control processes were in place and they were working adequately. We were then able to hold the process accountable ... we were able to hold an individual accountable for documents that had been lost”

At the stage when documents were lost during the transfer process, recommendations were made and sent to the accounting officer, but no specific individual was recalled to have been held accountable.

“At this point in time, I do not recall ... So at this stage, we make recommendations and we send them through to the accounting officer. At this point in time, I do not recall”

Mr Mnisi confirmed that the recommendation was aimed at enhancing the procurement processes because proper safeguards had not been implemented leading up to 23 October 2025.

“We have BEC, and as a BEC, we have to make recommendations that will enhance the procurement processes ... proper measures and controls to safeguard documents had not been implemented in the time leading up to 23 October 2025”

Mr Mnisi clarified that documents were lost or could not be found between Probity and BEC after the Probity process was done during the transfer process.

“documents were lost or could not be found between Probity and BEC after the process was done ... it was between the transfer process where the Probity report was available”

Mr Mnisi explained that the documents lost were entire tender documents of bidders, not individual components, and that for the TMPD-1 tender, six bidders' documents were missing from the returned bundle of 51 out of 57 bidders.

“When they say documents, they are not referring to individual components of documents. It was actual tender documents of bidders ... because from the top of my head I am aware of 57 bidders from TMPD-1, what was brought back was 51 bidders without six documents”

Mr Mnisi confirmed the BAC's concern about the missing scoresheets as an additional shortfall not identified in the Probity report, necessitating isolation of that shortfall.

“BAC raised that as an additional measure, as an additional instance, which was not picked up or identified in the Probity report ... We had to isolate that as an additional mechanism or as an additional shortfall that was identified”

MR MNISI could not comment on whether there was fraud without corroborative evidence.

“I cannot answer that question, SC. If an individual is committing fraud, it is a very difficult question for me to answer without having any corroborative evidence for me to rely on.”

Mr Mnisi accepts that the situation where scoring the bids was done after the recommendation is an anomaly.

“We accept that, and it is an anomaly.”

The facts about the anomaly were validated by a third party and it is a major cause for concern, but Mr Mnisi does not have sufficient evidence to conclude that fraud was committed; however, investigation is needed.

“The facts are correct, because we have seen this having been validated by the third party. ... It is a major anomaly from our perspective ... there needs to be an investigation, firstly, on that, which will now give me guidance that, indeed, fraud was committed. I do not have sufficient evidence to make that conclusion. The only conclusion I can make is that there is an irregularity here. It is a major cause of concern.”

Mr Mnisi did not instruct any investigation outside of the BAC.

“No. Outside the BAC, I could not. I did not.”

Mr Mnisi asserts there was no prima facie evidence of fraud at the time except for the finding of irregularity, and that if there was evidence, the Probity Team would have raised it and empowered the BAC to act.

“At this point in time, there is no prima facie evidence, except for a finding. The finding that is raised is that as the Probity Team would pick this up, if there was prima facie evidence, the Probity Team would have raised it and made those attachments accordingly, which would have then empowered me or us, as BAC, to act on that”

Mr Mnisi agrees that the anomaly concerning BAC minutes and scoring constitutes fraud and needs investigation, though he does not yet have prima facie evidence to fully conclude this.

“I am agreeing with you that when we are having more discussions and deliberating further on this matter, it does seem like it is constituting fraud ... I am just at a stage where I do not have prima facie evidence as a result of this finding to conclusive ... I agree with that. My answer is yes.”

Mr Mnisi says that the BAC decision to cancel a procurement process was confined to its roles and responsibilities and that more deliberations may change the perspective.

“And those alarms lead to a cancellation confined to the roles and responsibilities of BAC ... we are discussing this matter now, of course I need to further have prima facie evidence to escalate the matter further, but I am agreeing with you that when we are having more discussions ... it does seem like it is constituting fraud”

Mr Mnisi explains that within the BAC there are subject matter experts including legal experts, and the BAC should have made a fraud-related recommendation in hindsight, but the cancellation was limited to procurement matters.

“With your permission ... at the point of BAC conducting our work, this led to cancellation. ... Within our BAC, there are a variety of subject matter experts, including a legal expert ... In hindsight, the BAC should have made a recommendation of that nature ... the basis of us cancelling that, Commissioner, was confined to the roles and responsibilities of BAC, confined to procurement-related processes”

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”

The BAC proposed additional measures to safeguard procurement processes after identifying missing bid documents and issues not noted in the Probity report.

“we escalate the additional three matters that are discussed and are picked up ... within additional findings that we are raising at the BAC, we propose additional measures to safeguard the procurement process ... the test of safeguarding documents was failed ... we then make a mitigation measure as well, which says you need to enhance and safeguard documents in the next process”

Mr Mnisi says mitigating measures were put in place by BAC that were not identified in the Probity exercise, and that they felt it was their duty to do so beyond the Probity report recommendations.

“We put mitigating measures everywhere. These mitigating measures are ones that were not identified. ... Hence, we felt it was a duty for us ... to put additional measures on board, over and above what we have already seen from Probity reports, which have also made certain recommendations in summary.”

Mr Mnisi agrees that BAC confined itself to procurement-related matters and did not initiate investigation of the apparent fraud at the point of adjudication, but acknowledges in hindsight they should have raised it.

“we confined ourselves to procurement-related matters. In hindsight, I am agreeing that as a BAC, we should have considered that and it is a matter that should have been raised.”

The contradictions identified in reports from the Probity Team were valid and constituted key issues that needed highlighting.

“when we looked at this, it was a valid contradiction ... that contradiction was raised at that point in time as a key issue that must be highlighted”

The reason for bringing the additional issue about the PSIRA pricing guidelines was to ensure all potential loopholes in new tender specifications being compiled were covered comprehensively before cancelling the current tender.

“It was an additional issue that was raised over and above the myriad of issues that were there ... when the new specifications are being compiled ... they need to ensure that all potential loopholes would have been covered, including these ... this was an additional reason that was identified”

Bidders sometimes raise confusion about the need for firearm licenses, which is a mandatory requirement in the bid specification document and failure to meet it leads to disqualification.

“In some instances, yes, some bidders raise that. However, in some instances after the fact, when a bidder has not been awarded and has been disqualified for this reason, it might be an issue for the City.”

The tender document had contradictory provisions where some areas stated armed guards were not required, yet every bidder had to submit firearm licenses as a mandatory requirement, which could lead to litigation and was seen as a problematic contradiction.

“We have seen in the past that this exact same tender was taken to court, irregularities were identified. ... It was a highly litigated tender. ... The contradiction came in the form within those discussions that you now need to be clear. Which of those sites would not require fire arms? ... So the distinction needed to be there.”

The contradiction in the tender requirements was accepted by the BAC and considered a valid reason that could affect the evaluation of the bid and potentially lead to litigation, justifying cancellation of the tender.

“It was assessed. It was accepted that this could be a contradiction that would affect the evaluation of this bid.”

The tender was for watchman services to guard all City sites, not specifically for ad hoc security services.

“As far as I am concerned, this is for watchman services. ... The content of this tender was for watchman services and replacing the existing tender that was there. Not specifically for ad hoc. It was to guard all City sites. All City sites.”

Risk assessments to identify sites needing additional security services are done by TMPD and relevant user departments; these assessments are included in the tender to cover all key and essential sites.

“Risk assessments are done by TMPD and the relevant user department, which identifies the need to add an additional site for security - related services. ... All key and essential sites would have been taken into account.”

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.”

Mr Mnisi has been given much leeway in explaining his responses in the inquiry, more than other witnesses, though sometimes his answers do not directly address the questions asked.

“much leeway h a s b e e n g i v e n t o M r M n i s i . B u t t h e r e a r e t i m e s w h e n y o u w i l l a s k a q u e s t i o n a n d f r o m t h e m o m e n t , h e o p e n s h i s m o u t h , y o u s e e t h a t t h e r e s p o n s e h e i s b e g i n n i n g t o g i v e h a s n o t h i n g a t a l l t o d o w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t i s b e i n g a s k e d”

Mr Mnisi was not given insufficient time to explain what transpired at the adjudication process and provided substantial responses when given the opportunity.

“I t h i n k y o u f e l t t h a t h e w a s n o t g i v e n s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y , f r o m w h e r e I a m s i t t i n g , h e g a v e l o t s a n d l o t s o f r e s p o n s e s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h i s s u b j e c t”

Mr Mnisi knows of the late Mr Msibi from newspaper articles but has no personal relationship with him.

“I k n o w h i m I d o n o t k n o w h i m . I h a v e r e a d a b o u t h i m i n n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s . I k n o w w h o h e w a s . ... N o t a p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p”

Mr Mnisi was unaware of any close personal relationship between Sergeant Nkosi and the late Mr Msibi, only that they knew each other.

“I w a s n o t a w a r e h e h a d a c l o s e p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . I w a s a w a r e t h a t t h e y k n e w e a c h o t h e r”

Mr Mnisi does not know who Mr Mampane is and has never met him, despite Sergeant Nkosi sending the TMPD3 draft report to Mr Mampane as well as messaging him.

“I d o n o t k n o w w h o i s M r M a m p a n e , a n d I h a v e n e v e r m e t M r M a m p a n e . ... h e s e n t t h e s a m e d o c u m e n t t o M r M a m p a n e ... And shortly after receiving this list ... Mr Mampane wrote back WhatsApp back, saying, ... 'Boetie, please let him say no to that appointment' ... Did Sergeant Nkosi ever speak to you about the TMPD 3 tender ? No.”

Mr Mnisi states the tender was cancelled by the BAC (Bid Adjudication Committee) in line with reasons he provided, and that the probity report was a critical document considered in the cancellation.

“Ended up cancelling the tender in line with the reasons that I provided ... The BAC said, took into account, in the resolution were referenced the probity a number of times ... That gives consistency that the probity report is part and parcel of the key reasons why we cancelled the tender”

Mr Mnisi disagrees with the assertion that none of the three reasons given in the tender cancellation resolution justify the cancellation and denies knowledge of any discussions between Mr Mampane and Sergeant Nkosi regarding the tender.

“Yes, I do, SC, I respectfully disagree with that ... I further disagree with the notion that I had any knowledge of whatever discussions were occurring between Mr Mampane or Sergeant Nkosi”

Mr Mnisi received pictures of weapons from a friend via WhatsApp status, which he shared with Sergeant Nkosi as part of their social activities involving shooting and intended to try out those weapons.

“These are pictures that I saw from the status of a friend ... These are weapons that I like shooting, as part of my socialising ... These are weapons that I wanted to try out as well”

Mr Mnisi denies that the message "They say he is coming for me boet" meant anyone was coming for him, explaining it referred to planning for a shooting expedition with Sergeant Nkosi.

“No one was coming for me ... The contents around our discussion was that these were weapons that I had seen, and I wanted to try them out after they had been sent to me”

Mr Mnisi was discussing the need to be ready to use automatic weapons in a competition, and the discussion with Sergeant Nkosi was about that readiness, with no specific person referred to.

“the content of this discussion was for me to try out those weapons ... I need to be able to use weapons in whatever competition that I want to attend in the near future”

Mr Mnisi confirms his security was removed in December 2024 by Officers Nkomo and Mabunda of the TNPD and he did not make any additional security arrangements after that except asking Sergeant Nkosi to accompany him as a driver.

“your security was removed in December 2024 ... I did not make any additional security arrangements ... I would ask Sergeant Nkosi to accompany me ... I requested him for services of a driver”

Mr Mnisi explains that he engaged a driver named Bonkosi through Sergeant Nkosi from December for about a month, and this engagement was adhoc and not permanent. Bonkosi drove him sporadically, sometimes for a few days or a month, with breaks in between where Mr Mnisi drove himself.

“I was driving myself ... It was not a permanent arrangement ... I would utilize him in some instances for three to four days in a month ... So, it was not a permanent arrangement ... I would pay Bonkosi from myself”

Mr Mnisi says Bonkosi stopped formally engaging as his driver around September but still drives him occasionally when needed after a break period of about two months he drove himself.

“roughly, at this point it stopped until about September-ish ... He stopped in September, I drove myself for about two months on my own, and I started requesting him to drive me again ... so, there was a break”

Mr Mnisi states that Sergeant Nkosi put him in touch with Bonkosi and that Bonkosi was just a driver, not security, and did not assist with anything else.

“Sergeant Nkosi put you in touch with Bonkosi ... he was just a driver, not security ... he did not assist me with anything else”

Mr Mnisi recounts a WhatsApp chat message to Sergeant Nkosi that 'Something is off with Bonkosi today' because Bonkosi was 30 minutes late picking him up and missed an off-ramp from the airport, implying Bonkosi's unreliability and potential risk to Mr Mnisi's safety.

“Something is off with Bonkosi today ... He is 30 minutes late when he picks me up ... He misses an off-ramp from the airport ... He was off ... how do you miss an off-ramp that you travel so often?”

There was no legitimate basis for Sergeant Nkosi to have access to the draft administrative report; he could have obtained the closing register published on the website instead.

“there was no need for him to get this. He could have just got the closing register, which would have been published. It was there on the website. That would have been the best document to get.”

Mr Mnisi denied that Sergeant Nkosi had a source inside the BEC giving him documents; he did not know where Sergeant Nkosi got the document from.

“I take. That is not true ... The truth of where he received this is.”

Mr Mnisi stated that Sergeant Nkosi received the document from the General and not from anyone inside the BEC.

“He received this from the General. He did not receive it from anyone in the BEC”

Releasing Bonkosi to go home does not mean he was fired; it was a temporary arrangement so the speaker could manage their own duties for the day.

“releasing him to go home . He is not fired . Releasing him does not mean he has been fired . For the rest of the day , I will drive myself moving forward . So , he can go home .”

Mr Mnisi requested Bonkosi as a driver, not as a bodyguard, and viewed this request strictly as securing driving service, not protection.

“I have asked for a driver , he was my driver . ... For me , these are driving services .”

Mr Mnisi did not understand Sergeant Nkosi's reference to enemies and bodyguards and found it to be an incorrect characterization.

“When he refers to enemies and bodyguards , he is just got it wrong .”

Mr Mnisi felt unsafe or vulnerable at times and was accompanied by Sergeant Nkosi to meetings as a friend for physical presence, not as security.

“On a few occasions , Sergeant Nkosi accompanied me to meetings and / or gatherings because I felt unsafe or vulnerable , purely as a friend . He has got a physical presence . So , if I go with a friend with a physical presence , I feel a bit safer .”

Mr Mnisi assessed the content of the leaked tender document and concluded it did not contain any sensitive or confidential information and did not require further action.

“Indeed, again, I assessed the content of the document. The document, from my perspective, did not need me to take any further steps. The sort of information that was readily available to the public, upon my receiving of this document, did not contain anything sensitive or confidential. There was nothing for me to raise.”

Mr Mnisi states the leaked document was a draft administrative report that did not contain sensitive or confidential information and he had nothing to report further.

“I do not have any conclusive evidence on any leak at this stage in time, but I do agree this is a leaked draft administrative report. It does not contain anything sensitive or confidential. I had nothing to report.”

Mr Mnisi provided a sworn statement that he was given a driver by Sergeant Nkosi but did not see the bodyguards mentioned by the counsel.

“As per my sworn statement, Chair, is that he provided me with a driver and I do state that in my sworn outfit of it and I further go on to disclose to the Commission that there are some instances as well where Sergeant Nkosi himself would go with me, but not the people. The people are something completely different because I pay those from my own pocket, where he himself comes. I view that as a possibility of being viewed as a benefit. However, I am clarifying that there was no financial exchanges so there is no benefit that he obtains, number 1. Two, he is a friend.”

Mr Mnisi and Sergeant Nkosi had a very close relationship, described by Sergeant Nkosi as brothers and friends in their messages.

“And we have already established that you had a very close relationship with Sergeant Nkosi. Very close, yes. He described you in his New Year's message, I think we may have been there, as he says: 'Compliments my brother indeed, in you I found a true brother.' Yes, we are friends.”

Mr Mnisi admitted that he created a false impression to Sergeant Nkosi that he was complying with checks although he had no intention to do so, as a response to receiving persistent reminders.

“I did huff and puff. I did create a false impression that I would check for compliance, as he would constantly request me to. However, due to the persistence, I indicated it. It was clear to me, even though he is not saying it verbatim, that I need to assist in checking for compliance, in my mind it rang a bell that this looks like it is more than that. I took a decision in my mind that he is also misleading me in some way or not. I am going to play the same game.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledged that Sergeant Nkosi was no longer just asking for compliance but was giving him a list of bidders in priority for a business matter.

“But it was not to check for compliance. By the time that you were huffing and puffing, it was quite clear that he was giving you a list of bidders in priority, and our list. So, he was no longer misleading you. If he, at the beginning, was asking for compliance, if that is what he was doing, by this stage it was clear that he was asking for something more.”

There was a private meeting in Durban on 11 January that Mr Mnisi attended for a personal matter, which was described by Sergeant Nkosi in messages as crossing fingers for a 'massive business deal' that had significance beyond personal.

“You message him: 'Off on an urgent meeting in Durban, we will be back later today, just in and out. Morning, my brother, go well...' He responds. You say: 'Cross your fingers, Mfowethu, going for a massive business deal that side.' Yes, it is a personal matter that I had to go to.”

Mr Mnisi admitted misleading Sergeant Nkosi regarding the appointment of Ngaphesheya and Elshadai, despite presenting themselves as brothers forever.

“...you are willing to create the false impression that you were going along with his requests to appoint Ngaphesheya and Elshadai, despite the fact that you had no intention of doing that whatsoever. Spot on. So, you were misleading him in relation to your texts to him on Ngaphesheya and Elshadai on your version. In the same way as I presumed that he was misleading me, yes.”

MR MNISI received pictures of two SUVs sent to him for advice on which vehicle is nicer, presumably related to a contemplated purchase.

“Well, these are pictures of cars. He was asking me for advice in terms of which is a nice car... He sent me a picture for cars to give him my comment and my views in terms of which car do I think is nice.”

The pictures were sent without prior context, and discussions about preferences occurred only afterward.

“I think we discussed it afterwards because afterwards in 275 you can see their responses and then we discussed this matter afterwards in terms of, I think this one is nice because of these reasons, not beforehand.”

MR MNISI received a PIN at 3:28 message time on 30th April related to a meeting he had to attend with Mr Joe Sibanyoni.

“... he then obviously either does not understand me when he calls me on the next message. I clarify that for him, SC... your exchange ends on page 275 and then on page 276 the following day he sends you a pin which is at page, well at 3:28 on message time, 05:28 on the 30th of April...”

MR MNISI was interested in the meeting with Mr Joe Sibanyoni only as a notification to reschedule their engagement and to resume activities afterwards.

“I was not interested per se, I mean you just cancelled our engagement that we should have went to, so just let me know how it goes, so we can go and meet. Let me know when you are done, so that we can resume the activities that we needed to do.”

MR MNISI received a TikTok video previously sent of Mr Joe Sibanyoni, which was trending and related to the launch of the Joe Sibanyoni Foundation.

“I think previously he had sent me a TikTok video of some sort of Mr Sibanyoni... He was just sending me a TikTok video, that was trending... A trending message about the launch of the Joe Sibanyoni Foundation.”

MR MNISI declared no personal interest in the Joe Sibanyoni Foundation and had never met Mr Joe Sibanyoni, only exchanged information via messages.

“I was not interested in the Joe Sibanyoni Foundation, I had no interest in matters of that nature, never met Mr Joe Sibanyoni, he was just sending me this in a similar way, I would send him articles.”

Mr Mnisi confirms that the General is winning and this is communicated by Sergeant Nkosi after some delay with details about creating requisitions and purchase orders for payment processing.

“the General saying : “ Yes , we have won , busy with creating requisitions and at the same time releasing the minor order for buyers to create purchase orders .”

Over 24 hours, through Sergeant Nkosi's intervention, Mr Mnisi managed to have a conversation with the General that resulted in invoices being processed and paid.

“So over these 24 hours, through Sergeant Nkosi's intervention, you have managed to have a conversation with the General that has resulted in the invoices being paid .”

Mr Mnisi admits he used Sergeant Nkosi for communication because it was convenient and to ensure the matter was being dealt with.

“Your version is that you used Sergeant Nkosi because it is convenient ... It was easy for me, Chair, and I needed to ensure that the matter is being dealt with , and it was being dealt with .”

Mr Mnisi admits that he should have requested the Deputy Chief's contact details at the point Sergeant Nkosi involved himself, and concedes this was a flaw on his part.

“What I should have done, which I have conceded, was that I should have, at the point where he involved himself and called the Deputy Chief , requested for those contact details , which was a flaw on my side on that matter .”

Mr Mnisi did not ask Sergeant Nkosi to phone Deputy Chief Dhlamini in the car; Sergeant Nkosi took it upon himself to make the call, after which Mr Mnisi interacted with Deputy Chief Dhlamini.

“I did not ask him to phone Deputy Chief Dhlamini when we were in the car . He took it upon himself to call him . Once he had made that call , of course I had a discussion or interaction with the Deputy Chief Dhlamini in terms of the matter that we are facing .”

Mr Mnisi explains the call made by Sergeant Nkosi to General Dhlamini was made in Mr Mnisi's presence while they were together in a vehicle.

“He called General Dhlamini and had a conversation with him in your presence ? Is that all you are referring to ? ... That was a starting point and also his commitment that he will give feedback .”

Mr Mnisi clarifies that he never authorized payment of the previous financial year’s invoice as it is beyond his powers.

“I had not done that . It is beyond my powers .”

Mr Mnisi needed to clarify with the Deputy Chief that he had not given any go-ahead for approving ex post facto invoices.

“I need to clarify that, that I have not given any go-ahead . Necessary processes in terms of approving ex post facto invoices must be followed . So I needed to explain this to the Deputy Chief directly .”

Mr Mnisi might have called the General to explain and try to put the matter to rest.

“I think I might have given him a call to explain this matter and to try and put the matter to rest .”

Mr Mnisi confirms the screenshots and call images are from Chairman Obonzo, identified as Mr Modise, and he recalls the content of these communications.

“That is Mr Modise , yes , I confirm . Yes , I do recall .”

Sergeant Nkosi overheard a telephone conversation between Mr. Mnisi and Mr. Calvin Mahlangu where complaints were made about the City owing considerable outstanding payments and legal action being contemplated if unresolved.

“Sergeant Nkosi overheard a telephone conversation between me and Mr Calvin Mahlangu, during which he complained about the City owing his company a significant amount in outstanding payments. He indicated that legal action against the City was being contemplated, should the matter remain unresolved.”

Sergeant Nkosi overheard the call between Mr Mnisi and Mr Mahlangu in early March before the 5th, and also called Deputy Chief Dhlamini on the same day, assisting the Deputy Chief with the matter.

“Sergeant Nkosi, as I discovered subsequently, took it upon himself to assist as he knew Deputy Chief, Mr Umashi Dhlamini of the TMPD.”

Mr Mnisi discovered Sergeant Nkosi had called Deputy Chief Dhlamini and handed him the phone during a drive, where Mr Mnisi communicated the concerns.

“So I was driving, he went on a call, he called Deputy Chief Dhlamini, and he gave me the phone. That is when I identified that he had given him a call already.”

Sergeant Nkosi made a call to Deputy Chief Dhlamini on the same day during the call Mr Mnisi had with Mr Mahlangu, not a subsequent day as initially stated by Mr Mnisi.

“While I was wrapping up my call with Mr Calvin Mahlangu, Sergeant Nkosi calls Deputy Chief Dhlamini on the same day.”

Mr Mnisi used Sergeant Nkosi as a convenient intermediary to communicate with Deputy Chief Dhlamini but admits in hindsight he should have obtained the Deputy Chief's contact directly and dealt with him personally.

“At this point, after the call had been made, Sergeant Nkosi was already involved. From my perspective, it was convenient for him, taking into account that I was busy with other strategic matters as well. So one operational matter off my table would be easier for me to focus on the strategic nature of my job. In hindsight, I did admit that at this point, I should have requested for the contact details of Deputy Chief Dhlamini.”

Mr Mnisi coordinated communication between himself and Deputy Chief Dhlamini through Sergeant Nkosi; Sergeant Nkosi was not officially delegated any authority by Mr Mnisi to handle matters.

“I was not necessarily using him as an official representative... I was not delegating anything to Sergeant Nkosi. He is not an official of the City. He can in no way have any delegations to deal with any matters.”

Mr Mnisi stated he spoke to General Deputy Chief Dhlamini about the concerns from the call with Mr Mahlangu, expressing that the Deputy Chief said he was not aware of the matter but would look into it.

“I spoke to the Deputy Chief Dhlamini. I expressed to him the concerns on the call that I just received. He said he was not aware of this matter, however, he will look into it accordingly.”

Mr Mnisi admits that while speaking to Mr Mahlangu, Sergeant Nkosi called Deputy Chief Dhlamini and handed the phone to Mr Mnisi so he could speak directly to the Deputy Chief.

“While we were driving, just as I was about to conclude my discussion with Mr Calvin Mahlangu, Sergeant Nkosi was already phoning the Deputy Chief. At that point, he gave me his phone and I spoke to the Deputy Chief.”

Mr Mnisi engages directly with Deputy Chief Dhlamini to ensure that all parties are on the same state of mind and to avoid misunderstandings especially between APSS and Finance within TMPD.

“So I needed to engage him directly to make that matter certain ... previously, there was complete misunderstanding between APSS and payables or Finance services within TMPD. That is why we had an issue of that nature.”

Mr Mnisi states he needs to ascertain that Deputy Chief Dhlamini is fully aware that Deputy Chief Spies has terminated the services of Gubis.

“Yes, Commissioner. I need to ascertain myself that he is fully aware of that, yes.”

Mr Mnisi cannot recite the confidentiality clause of his contract of employment offhand and has not seen it in the bundles.

“I cannot recite it, Commissioner ... I have not seen it in the bundles, Commissioner.”

Mr Mnisi was not aware that Deputy Commissioner Dhlamini had received the letter regarding the termination matter.

“I was not aware that DC Dhlamini had received this letter and the purpose of me having this urgent request to engage him was purely as a result of me safeguarding the adequacy and correctness of the City's books from a payables perspective.”

Mr Mnisi conceded that he should have asked for Sergeant Nkosi's details first and corrected himself after hours.

“I had already conceded that I should have asked for his details first, and I do correct myself a few hours afterwards and I get the details.”

Mr Mnisi used telephonic communication with Deputy Chief Dhlamini as a faster way to resolve urgent finance related matters at year-end.

“The reason for me addressing this via telephonic mode of communication with Deputy Chief Dhlamini, it is pure responsibility. It is his responsibility at year-end to ensure that finance related matters from TMPD are dealt with accordingly... I preferred cellphone related communication, because it would transmit the matter faster.”

Mr Mnisi explained that cellphone communication is commonly used to relay messages quickly between colleagues, not to hide or do anything illicit.

“It happens all the time. It happens between me and the City Manager, the Deputy Mayor all the time... I use the cellphone mode of communication not as a mechanism of hiding anything or doing anything illicit. It was a faster way for me to convey the message and to address any concern that might arise.”

Sergeant Nkosi was repeatedly suspected of trying to influence a tender process while involved in Tshwane matters, but was still involved by Mr Mnisi despite concerns.

“Every time Sergeant Nkosi has been doing this... it looked like he was trying to influence a tender which was being evaluated... you found his behaviour suspicious although he never expressly said he wants to rig this tender... you now know that he is doing all those things and despite that you still involve him in Tshwane matters.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledged that by March he knew Sergeant Nkosi was trying to influence a tender that was still being evaluated and found his behavior suspicious, yet continued involving him.

“By end of March that he is trying to influence a tender that you are going to adjudicate... It is still being evaluated... you found his behaviour suspicious although he never expressly said to you I want you to rig this tender... but you still involve him in Tshwane matters.”

MR MNISI indicated he wanted to communicate directly with Deputy Chief Dhlamini regarding payment matters but did not initially save WhatsApp contact details, which he later requested to correct his oversight.

“I probably made a direct phone call from WhatsApp without saving those contact details, and I could not trace them from there. Then I asked for them again in order to correct my own activities.”

MR MNISI explained that initially Sergeant Nkosi was used as a go-between due to his context relating to ad hoc services and issues involving Gubis, but he later asked for the General's contact details to correct this and deal with the Deputy Chief directly.

“As I was stating to the Commission, that this was still a matter that I was relating to from my context to the ad hoc services, one. Secondly, to the issue of Gubis, hence, I asked Sergeant Nkosi to do that. But immediately, I asked for the contact details as well as an element of correcting myself because...”

After Sergeant Nkosi forwarded the termination letter to General Dhlamini, a voice call was made from Deputy Chief Dhlamini to Sergeant Nkosi at 10:13, followed by a chat message from Sergeant Nkosi asking when they could meet, but without response until later when MR MNISI indicated urgency in contacting the General directly to avoid future disputes over accounts payable.

“At 10:13, there is a voice call from Deputy Chief Dhlamini to Sergeant Nkosi. ... At 10:21, Sergeant Nkosi having spoken to Deputy Chief Dhlamini says to you: “Ifound him. What time can we meet today?” He gets no response by 10:29... You finally get back to him at 2:58 saying: “Will confirm, Mfowethu.” And at 12:58, you also say: “I need to call him urgently in the meantime. Can I have his number? This cannot wait for the meeting, bro.””

MR MNISI said the urgency to speak directly to General Dhlamini arose because he realized he should have asked for the contact number earlier to discuss the termination letter and ensure alignment on this matter, correcting his previous actions.

“It was urgent for me to have a direct discussion with the General in reference to being on the same state of mind in terms of the termination letter. I was, in short, correcting my own actions of sending that to Sergeant Nkosi by saying, I need to have this discussion with him on my own, please send me his numbers, I need those numbers now.”

MR MNISI said there was no need for a meeting with Deputy Chief Dhlamini as the matter could be addressed over the phone, which is why he urgently wanted the contact details to communicate directly.

“From my perspective, there was no need for a meeting. I could address this over the phone, hence, my urgency in wanting the contact details in order to enable me to have direct communication with the Deputy Chief Dhlamini.”

The urgency to communicate directly with Deputy Chief Dhlamini was due to prior escalations and messages received that needed resolution before financial year-end to avoid disputes impacting City's books and the Auditor-General's report.

“Your recall earlier on the escalations and the phone calls and the messages that were received, this was urgent for me because this needed to be resolved. I did not want a situation of this nature to reoccur. We are sitting at a stage where we are sitting almost end of the month... Accou... must be dealt with accordingly.”

MR MNISI said outstanding invoices must be adequately reconciled before the end of the financial year to avoid a qualification error by the Auditor-General and to ensure proper financial statements.

“Outstanding invoices from this point in time must be adequately reconciled and captured accordingly. If it is issued on the... I want to see the actual letter... The letter is issued on the 24th of June, not July... It is his responsibility to ensure full alignment... I would not want to be engaged in a process after year-end dealing with outstanding purchase orders that could not have been dealt with at this point in time.”

MR MNISI clarified that the purpose of the meeting with General Dhlamini was not to arrange purchase orders but to ensure books are in order before year-end, avoiding surprises in financial statements and qualifications by the Auditor-General.

“The purpose was to ensure that the books are in order, that we do not get a surprise after year-end after financial statements have closed... This letter stops the services from the 1st of July. What happened between then and now? Were there any further deployments? How has those been dealt with? Was the budget available? Were purchase orders captured? I would not want a repeat... submitting financial statements to the AG with such force could result in a qualification error.”

MR MNISI said the committee that decided to terminate services mandated that internal controls around ad hoc services be dealt with only by TMPD.

“That committee took a decision that internal controls around ad hoc services must only be dealt with by TMPD.”

MR MNISI emphasized the need to resolve outstanding matters before 30 June to have sufficient time to make necessary financial corrections before year-end.

“We need to ensure that before year-end, before the 30th of June, any outstanding matters in this regard have been resolved. We will not have the leisure of time to make necessary corrections.”

MR MNISI did not know at the time of urgently seeking the meeting with General Dhlamini if there were outstanding invoices but was aware of a massive scramble the previous financial year.

“No, I did not know at this point, but we had on previous financial year a massive scramble.”

Mr Mnisi considered the termination letter issued to a service provider effective from 1 July urgent due to past events affecting reconciliation of invoices and outstanding payables.

“this was an urgent matter for me to deal with, to address both events. Firstly, the outstanding payables issue and reconciliations being done accordingly”

Mr Mnisi asserted that the termination letter was related to the issue of outstanding payables and is a major issue impacting the service provider, requiring all parties to work together for resolution.

“it does because it is related. It is a related matter where it is a major issue in the service provider. The service provider could have a deployment letter that we are not aware of. So this must be dealt with accordingly and that all parties involved must work together.”

Mr Mnisi stated the termination letter triggered his concern based on past events seen on the board, making it relevant to discuss both the termination and outstanding reconciliation matters.

“The termination letter triggered my concern from the past events that we had seen and that were evident on board. So it was relevant for me to have a discussion on both matters to finally get this matter to rest.”

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.”

Mr Mnisi said the termination letter triggered the realization that the reconciliation of invoices for the 24/25 financial year might be a problem due to the department and Gubis's track record.

“So you could have anticipated that in relation to the reconciliation of invoices for the 24/25 financial year, there may be a problem, given the track record of the department and Gubis.”

Mr Mnisi claims the urgency to address reconciliation and controls to desist from reoccurrence was triggered by the termination letter, interrelating the two matters.

“The termination letter triggered that, Chair. It was an issue that I was going to address in any matter. The termination letter triggers that so that this matter is addressed urgently at this point in time.”

Mr Mnisi insists the termination letter is related and the matters are interrelated, denying the letter's irrelevance to invoice reconciliation.

“Respectfully, SC, I disagree with you. These matters are interrelated. One matter triggers another, whether we like it or not.”

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.”

Mr Mnisi denies any untruth and claims he gave evidence from an objective perspective, stating purpose of engagement was to deal with year-end processes and ensure the matter does not reoccur.

“I respectfully disagree with you on that proposition. I am giving evidence from an objective perspective. I am telling the truth to the Commission. The purpose of this engagement was in reference to dealing with matters that I just raised. Firstly, year-end processes, ensuring acco…”

Mr Mnisi explained he is proactive in managing risk and mitigating recurrence of internal control failures in the near future starting from the new financial year 1 July onward.

“The new financial year and to put safeguards in place from the beginning. That is my proactive thinking in terms of addressing this matter and mitigating it from reoccurring in the near future.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledged that internal controls around the post are failed requiring risk management and mitigating measures to prevent reoccurrence.

“risk management processes have dictated that there is a failure within the internal controls around this post, so I will not repeat.”

Mr Mnisi needed to urgently address a matter to avoid a meeting and did so by making a phone call.

“You suggested quite a while back... that you wanted to make this urgent call so as to obviate the need for the meeting... once you got the number and once you made the call there would no longer be a meeting.”

Mr Mnisi agreed that the phrase 'I need to call him urgently in the meantime' implies something needs to happen now and something else later.

“My understanding of those words is that something is to happen now but something else is to happen later. I want to call him urgently in the meantime. ... I agree”

Mr Mnisi had already requested a meeting and informed Sergeant Nkosi and the Deputy Chief, intending to have direct communication and possibly avoid the need for a face-to-face meeting.

“I had already requested for a meeting. I had really done that, and I am sure Sergeant Nkosi had already informed the Deputy Chief”

Mr Mnisi was being courteous to Sergeant Nkosi, indicating that after a discussion over the call the matter might be resolved without the need for a further meeting.

“I was being courteous to Sergeant Nkosi, Chair. I knew that once we have a discussion over the call we would be in a position to resolve this matter and there might not be any further need for a meeting”

Mr Mnisi requested to call Sergeant Nkosi urgently and needed contact details immediately, demonstrating urgency to resolve the matter.

“I needed the numbers now. I was trying to demonstrate urgency, that I want the second contact details now, I cannot wait”

Mr Mnisi planned a three-person meeting with General Dhlamini and Sergeant Nkosi to discuss urgent issues despite having received a termination letter.

“... the telephone call, this urgent telephone call was going to be a different discussion, or in addition to the meeting... the meeting was with you, Dhlamini, and Sergeant Nkosi... The meeting was not precipitated by the termination letter”

The urgent meeting Mr Mnisi requested was to discuss year-end issues and outstanding invoices, and the termination letter was relevant as it concerned reconciliation of invoices before the financial year end.

“... this urgent meeting was to deal with year-end issues and outstanding invoices... It is relevant because we need to reconcile any outstanding invoices for the current financial year...”

Mr Mnisi explained the need to conclude the matter of termination and invoice reconciliation concurrently and ensure no further accruals are raised by the company.

“So these events must occur concurrently with each other... firstly, it is the termination and ensuring that no further accrual invoices are raised by this company...”

Mr Mnisi discusses the urgency of finalizing financial year-end processes to ensure account payables are reconciled and settled.

“the purpose of me having a discussion with Deputy Chief was in relation to ensure that, firstly, account payables are...”

The financial year in question was closing on 30 June 2025, making the reconciliation and termination matters urgent for Mr Mnisi.

“To the financial year that was closing, which was the 30th of June 2025. Further to that, the termination moving forward and that the matter had been closed, that was urgent for me.”

Mr Mnisi chose to obtain information (a number) from Sergeant Nkosi rather than through his PA as it was easier and more readily available.

“I chose to ask it from Sergeant Nkosi. I could have asked it from, my PA, would have phoned his PA, would have first asked for permission. It would have been easier for me just to tell Nkosi.”

It took Sergeant Nkosi about five minutes to provide the requested number to Mr Mnisi.

“It was at 1:58. He sent it to me at 11:03. So it looks like it was about five minutes.”

The urgency claimed by Mr Mnisi to speak with General Dhlamini about termination issues is challenged as not valid by Adv Baloyi based on the timing and procedural aspects.

“I need to do this on a call and I need to do it now... So it does not make sense that you have a meeting that you are scheduling and then you say I have to speak to him now so that I can't talk about the future that is only starting on the 1st of July... So it does not make sense at all as an explanation for why it is urgent to have a call...”

The discussion Mr Mnisi is purportedly seeking with Sergeant Nkosi and General Dhlamini about Gubis and termination was actually about different issues and unrelated to what he stated as the urgency.

“Gubis is about the letter that was sent to Gubis... But Gubis is not the only service provider who is implicated by termination of these adhoc services... So that again is to me, to me suggests that in fact your telephoned discussion and your meeting that you are asking for had nothing to do with what you are telling us that they were about...”

Mr Mnisi disputes that there was sufficient time (four or five days) to manage the financial year-end processes and asserts the complexity and scale of TMPD require more time.

“I respectfully disagree with you on the grounds that we had four days left and we do provide additional 10 days. TMPD is a big spending department... For them to reconcile all the status of accounts they might need way more than four days...”

The financial year-end process involves a prolonged procedure of ensuring invoices are certified, purchase orders recreated, which requires time, especially for verification.

“From that point they need to undertake the process of ensuring that invoices are certified, purchase orders are created... That is something that takes a bit of time in some instances, particularly on the verification component.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledges past financial statement restatements due to errors found by the Auditor General and emphasizes need to avoid repeat errors this time.

“The previous year I had to make restatements on the financial statements as a correction of findings that were picked up by the Auditor General... We had to accept that indeed these are... that are outstanding... So it was something that was not occurring correctly in the past, hence this time around we needed to ensure that this finding does not repeat itself...”

There was a need to request service providers to submit suspended invoices for year-end financial closing purposes.

“We also request the service provider to submit a suspended process of closing our books. All service providers are send letters to ensure that you submit your invoice that is due for the year-end financial year before 10 working days. That is the last invoice.”

Mr Mnisi confirms issues with outstanding invoices for March, April, May, and June needed to be dealt with.

“But invoices that might not have been dealt with subsequent to either the period of May, April and March... We took note that we resolved an issue of Gubis outstanding payments in March for all invoices that were due up until February... So what happened to March invoices, what happened to April invoices, May invoices and June.”

Adv Khumalo states at that point Mr Mnisi was not aware of any outstanding invoices even if there was a perception they needed confirmation of status.

“But you said at this point you were not aware of any outstanding invoices.”

Mr Mnisi accepts he might not have been personally aware of all invoice issues but emphasizes departmental process responsibility.

“Yes, but there was a perception that they need, I need to get confirmation... I might not have been personally aware but it is a process that must be undertaken.”

The scenario where the TMPD was presented with an invoice from before the 24/25 financial year is considered extremely unlikely by Mr Mnisi.

“I accept that and I accept that this is a highly unlikely event”

Dealing urgently with year-end invoice disputes in contracts like TMPD is justified by Mr Mnisi due to ongoing internal control issues.

“I accept that, which justifies my urgency in terms of dealing with the matter as well”

The environment the City is working in is not perfect; internal control issues persist complicating the resolution of invoice disputes on a timely basis.

“The environment that we are working in is not the perfect environment. In the perfect environment, all of these issues must be dealt with on a monthly basis... We are still struggling... At present, we still have issues where we are experiencing concerns of this nature... We are addressing these internal controls.”

Mr Mnisi says all contracts, not only contracts ending at financial year-end, are subject to the issue of disputes and internal controls at year-end.

“All contracts”

Mr Mnisi says dealing proactively was necessary to ensure the matter did not persist in the future and especially addressing year-end major concerns for bookkeeping and risk management.

“I was being proactive. I needed to ensure that this matter does not persist in the future... especially at year end, which is a major concern for me, to get the books in order... to ensure that in the future this matter does not repeat itself.”

Mr Mnisi disagrees with the view that the termination letter did not affect urgency; he says from his dealing it was an urgent and necessary matter.

“From my dealing with this matter, it was urgent and it was necessary for me to deal with.”

Mr Mnisi and Sergeant Nkosi exchanged chat messages on 26 June 2026, where Sergeant Nkosi informed Mr Mnisi of a spa booking made for MMC Morodi at Pretoria North Verozky Spa and offered to valet the car while she was busy with her massage.

“Sergeant Nkosi sends you a screenshot of a chat ... 'Appointment booked and confirmed 11 o'clock at Pretoria North Verozky Spa. Let me know when you leave home. Please bring your car so I can take it to valet while you are busy on your massage.'”

Mr Mnisi understood Sergeant Nkosi's message as just informing him of the spa booking association with MMC Morodi but had no further interest or involvement.

“From my perspective, he was just informing me.”

Mr Mnisi reached out to Siphiwe Mashile to approach Sergeant Nkosi to facilitate a meeting concerning a conflict with Mr Lekukela.

“you dealt with the problem with Mr Lekukela, or your conflict with Mr Lekukela, and how you reached out to Siphiwe Mashile to approach Sergeant Nkosi to try and facilitate a meeting”

Sergeant Nkosi sent two screenshots to Mr Mashile on 17 January 2024, one of which was a chat between Mr Mashile and Mr Mnisi, referred to as Garry Cuzzie.

“And you will see that he sent two screens, that Mr Mashile sent two screenshots to Sergeant Nkosi at 5:36 pm on the 17th of January, 2024. And the first screenshot is a screenshot which appears to be a screenshot of a chat between Mr Mashile and yourself, whom he describes as Garry Cuzzie.”

Mr Mnisi confirms the message exchange offering an urgent special Exco at 6, involving voice notes and voice calls.

“And there the message goes: “Okay, Cuzzie, from you I have got an issue.” And then there is a voice note and a voice call and then you send an extract from your diary saying: “I have got an urgent special Exco now at 6.” He says: “You will indicate.””

Mr Mnisi arranged a meeting involving himself, Sergeant Nkosi, Mr Mashile, and Mr Lekukela to broker peace related to a conflict.

“Now, who was present at that meeting? Myself, Sergeant Nkosi, Mr Mashile, as well as Mr Lekukela. It was just the four of you.”

Sergeant Nkosi was introduced to Mr Mnisi as 007, a codename.

“And you refer to Sergeant Nkosi as 007? On our first encounter he was introduced to me as 007.”

Sergeant Nkosi is a close friend and regarded as brother for life by Mr Mnisi.

“His brother, Sergeant Nkosi, is a close friend of yours and someone who you regard as your brother for life.”

Sergeant Nkosi approached Mr Mnisi to get the bid awarded in favour of Bheki Nkosi's company Ngaphesheya.

“By the time the BAC sat, Sergeant Nkosi, your brother for life, had been approaching you, trying to get you to rig the bid in favour of Bheki Nkosi's company, Ngaphesheya.”

Mr Mnisi accepted that Sergeant Nkosi had approached him about the bid.

“He did not expressly state that, but yes.”

Mr Mnisi offered advice regarding the abstract tender document and what Ngaphesheya had to do to comply to gain a position.

“Your version is you were offering advice in relation to the abstract tender document and what Ngaphesheya had to do to put itself in a position where it might comply.”

Mr Mnisi was in indirect communication with Bheki Nkosi and invited him to submit a bid for a different tender to the City of Tshwane.

“During the period in which that TMPD1 bid was pending before the City, you were also indirect communication with Bheki Nkosi and invited him to submit a bid for a different tender to the City, the City of Tshwane.”

Mr Mnisi did not know that Bheki Nkosi had bid at that point in time.

“And also to add, I did not know that he had bidded at that point.”

Mr Mnisi wrote to Sergeant Nkosi about sending a matter to Bheki Nkosi to regroup, clarifying mandatory administrative and evaluation criteria if necessary.

“You had written to Sergeant Nkosi saying: “I have sent the above to Bheki, we need to regroup on it.” I recall that, and I did explain what the regrouping meant that if needs be, if they do not understand the mandatory administrative and evaluation criteria, I am available to help clarify from a general perspective.”

While the TMPD1 bid was pending, Mr Mnisi involved Sergeant Nkosi in various matters related to the client department TMPD, including payment and termination of contracts with private service providers.

“While the TMPD1 bid was pending before Tshwane Council, you had also been assisting Sergeant Nkosi in relation to another bid of Ngaphesheya at that you say was for a different organ of state. Chair, involved him self. Like I previously said, I did not actively involve him. I did, however, on the second instance in terms of the termination, send him that communication, which I have agreed that it is a perception that I involved him in that instance, but I further did try to clarify that as well when I requested the direct contact details of the user department.”

MR MNISI had an informal understanding with Sergeant Nkosi regarding briefing on developments raised in community service delivery meetings chaired by MMC Morodi, but 'briefing' was understood differently by counsel.

“Myself and Sergeant Nkosi have informal discussions... any service delivery issue or finance matters that are raised by the community so that I can assist in resolving them”

Messages were repeatedly exchanged between Deputy Chief Dhlamini and MR MNISI through Sergeant Nkosi on WhatsApp and email, showing a routine pattern of indirect communication.

“We see a repeated pattern where messages from Deputy Chief Dhlamini get sent to you through Sergeant Nkosi, and messages from you get sent to Deputy Chief Dhlamini through Sergeant Nkosi”

Mr Mnisi accepted that he continued communication regarding Gubi payment matters with Chief Dhlamini through Sergeant Nkosi.

“You continued to communicate in relation to those Gubi matters with Chief Dhlamini through Sergeant Nkosi. I accept that, for the Gubi payment.”

In involving Sergeant Nkosi in the Gubi-related matters, Mr Mnisi put Sergeant Nkosi in a position where he gained access to documents exchanged between the City and the bidder Gubi, including sensitive pricing invoices.

“In the process of involving Sergeant Nkosi in Gubi-related matters, you put Sergeant Nkosi in a position where he gained access to documents exchanged between the City and one of the competing bidders in TMPD1, namely Gubi, including an invoice that showed the pricing used by Gubi in its dealings with the City.”

Mr Mnisi denies sharing the Gubi invoice with Sergeant Nkosi.

“I disagree respectfully, SC. I did not share an invoice with Sergeant Nkosi.”

Mr Mnisi disagrees with the notion that Sergeant Nkosi was not involved in the Gubis invoice process and asserts that the General who sent the invoice made the decision independently and they will explain themselves.

“The General or whoever sent him that invoice took a decision on their own, and they will explain for themselves. I cannot account for that.”

Mr Mnisi did not authorize sharing of confidential information regarding the Gubis payment, nor did he personally share any confidential and sensitive information about it.

“At no point did I authorise any sharing of confidential information in terms of the Gubis payment, and at no point did I personally share any confidential and sensitive information on the Gubis payment.”

Mr Mnisi did not perceive that his relationship or impartiality was compromised in the adjudication of TMPD1 despite questions about his objectivity due to personal connections.

“I did not perceive that as an interest, purely based on the fact that, firstly, my bias or my objectivity was not impaired. I did not know Bheki. He is not an associate of mine. I agree, the brother is an associate of mine, but Bheki is not an associate of mine whatsoever.”

Mr Mnisi states that the BAC (Bid Adjudication Committee) is a panel-based decision making body, which enhances objectivity as multiple subject matter experts participate in the process.

“The BAC is a panel-based decision-making body. It is not one individual. There are a number of subject matter experts who sit throughout that process, meaning objectivity is further enhanced.”

Mr Mnisi maintains that despite a perception of conflict of interest arising in hindsight, at the point of signing the declaration his objectivity was not impaired.

“At that point in time, I saw that my objectivity would not be impaired whatsoever, and I signed the declaration ... from my perspective, my objectivity was not impaired whatsoever. It remains not impaired at this point in time.”

Mr Mnisi claims his bias or objectivity was not impaired at the time of evaluating or adjudicating the procurement process, and his individual bias would not affect panel decisions because it is a committee-based decision.

“My bias, my objectivity was not impaired, and I still agree to that. ... In the event, for argument's sake, which I do not agree to and it was not the case, my bias was not objective and it was impaired. Based on this, panel-based decision-making process it would have been a further safeguard. ... from the onset, and now as we speak, my objectivity is not, was not and is not impaired.”

Mr Mnisi states that he was not conflicted at the point of signing the declaration of interest form and maintains that his objectivity would not have been affected by any perceived conflict.

“From my perspective, at the point of signing this, I was not conflicted at all and my objectivity would not have been impaired.”

Mr Mnisi clarifies that Bheki is not his friend and Sergeant Nkosi is not a director of Ngaph(esheya). His objectivity was not impaired when signing the declaration.

“The fact of this matter is that Bheki is not my friend. Sergeant Nkosi is not a director of Ngaphesheya. On the signing of this declaration, my objectivity was not impaired. I still maintain that till now.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledges that in hindsight there is a perception of conflict, but asserts he had no conflict at the time of signing and still has no conflict now.

“In hindsight, I am agreeing that with these sequence of events, there is a perception of conflict. But at the point of signing, I had no conflict whatsoever. I still have no conflict whatsoever.”

Sergeant Nkosi made multiple approaches to Mr Mnisi trying to get the bid awarded in favour of Nkosi's brother's company.

“Sergeant Nkosi had made approaches to you, which you understood as approaches that were trying to get you to rig the bid in favour of his brother's company.”

Mr Mnisi did not disclose the approaches by Sergeant Nkosi to any attorneys.

“Did you disclose it to the attorneys? No.”

Mr Mnisi was assisting Sergeant Nkosi in relation to a bid Ngaphesheya submitted to another organ of state while the present bid was pending before Tshwane Council.

“While the present bid was pending before the Tshwane Council, you had also been assisting Sergeant Nkosi in relation to a bid that Ngaphesheya had submitted to another organ of state.”

Mr Mnisi was in indirect communication with Bheki Nkosi, director of Ngaphesheya, inviting him to submit a bid for a different tender from Tshwane Council.

“During the period in which the present bid was pending before the Tshwane Council, you were indirect communication with Bheki Nkosi, the director of Ngaphesheya, inviting him to submit a bid for a different tender from the Tshwane Council.”

Mr Mnisi involved Sergeant Nkosi in processes relating to purchase orders and termination of private service providers contracted by TMPD but denies involvement on payment aspects.

“You had involved Sergeant Nkosi in a range of matters relating to the affairs of the client department, the TMPD, and these processes included processes relating to the payment and termination of private service providers contracted by the TMPD. I t is not a fact. Sorry, SC, you are factually incorrect, it is about payment. I involved him in terms of the purchase orders. No involvement whatsoever on payment aspects.”

Mr Mnisi denies authorising Sergeant Nkosi to obtain any sensitive information or to receive such information.

“I did not give him any authority at any stage in time to obtain any sensitive information. I am sure Deputy Dlamini will have to answer himself. From my perspective, this is not a fact.”

Mr Mnisi was aware that Sergeant Nkosi had access through the City to pricing of a competitor in relation to the City, but disclosed this to no attorney.

“You were aware that Sergeant Nkosi had got access through the City to the pricing of a competitor in relation to the City. ... Yes, but nine months down the line, I was aware of that. ... You disclosed none of this to any attorney who was expressing a view on the probity of the process. That is common cause.”

Mr Mnisi states Sergeant Nkosi is neither a director nor a shareholder of Ngaphesheya and asserts no need to disclose their friendship to probability teams due to no interest or association in the firm.

“Sergeant Nkosi is neither a director of Ngaphesheya nor is he a shareholder of the entity. ... Any friends that I have that have no interest or any association in the firm, there is no need to disclose that.”

Sergeant Nkosi's approaches to Mr Mnisi were for compliance, and Mr Mnisi did not perceive any conscious evidence needing disclosure to probability teams.

“He was asking for compliance. I did suspect, I can agree, that at one point due to the persistence, it is now resulting to an individual persisting that I go further than that. I had no conscious of evidence. There was nothing for me to declare to any of the probability teams.”

Mr Mnisi provided assistance to a friend on a different bid on a general perspective without interacting with returnable documents, expecting no financial gain or need to disclose.

“Assistance that I provided was on a general perspective. Did not interact with any of the returnable documents of the company at hand. Hence, further to that, I expected no financial gain. I had no interest in that. It was just me providing guidance to a friend...”

Mr Mnisi understood the WhatsApp message as an instruction to check compliance in order of priority, but he did not and could not check compliance because it was outside his domain and there was nothing he could do.

“the discussion that we had starting on 148 was purely for me to check compliance which I could not do and I am clear to that ... I did not do that because it was outside my domain ... I did not check compliance, I could not check compliance, there was nothing I could do”

Mr Mnisi states that the persistent requests to check compliance came from the same individual repeatedly and were unreasonable after he made it clear there was nothing he could do.

“this is coming up for the fourth time from the same individual ... he clearly did not understand ... the persistence also shows me that over and above not understanding the context ... there is no trigger of me being triggered to try and assist with these matters”

Mr Mnisi asserts he responded to messages indicating 'I am on top of this' and 'This is ours, Mfowethu, this is the final list', indicating ownership or responsibility over the matter.

“I say: 'Thanks Mfowethu, I am on top of this.' I say: 'This is ours, Mfowethu, this is the final list.'”

Mr Mnisi was ordered to check compliance by a Captain, who sent a message to him involving a list of entities which was to be given to Mfowethu in order of priority, but Mr Mnisi does not know who Mfowethu is or what the exact relevance is.

“You see that? ... Who was that Mfowethu?... I cannot speak for what he was saying... I read this message that I must check compliance for these companies ... I cannot see if this is a forwarded message ... I read this as a message from him to me”

Mr Mnisi says the message about checking compliance lists seven companies in order of priority but it is part of a build-up of communication starting on 11 March, not isolated.

“Seven companies I see. Priority I see ... you cannot read this message on 77 in isolation of page 148, in isolation of page 15. It is a build-up, so it would be extremely unfair for us to take this as an isolated single event. It is a build-up starting on the 11th of March”

Mr Mnisi understood that the person communicating with him wanted to ensure that the municipality awarded contracts to certain entities and that Mr Mnisi would ensure these entities get the awards in the order listed, and that this understanding was due to the persistent nature of the communication.

“you came to understand that he actually wanted to ensure that the Municipality ... he was communicating with you ... you would make sure that these entities get the award and get the award in the order listed ... that was my understanding due to the persistent nature of this”

Mr Mnisi believed Sergeant Nkosi's request was based on a mistaken belief that he could check if the bids were compliant.

“I believe his request was premised at the time on the mistaken belief that I would be able to check if the bids were compliant. He was of course wrong.”

Mr Mnisi explained to Sergeant Nkosi that he could not check compliance because there was a strict segregation of duties and he had no access to the documents of the Bid Evaluation Committee.

“Chair, I just explained that there is nothing I can do to check compliance.”

Sergeant Nkosi continued to send reminders to Mr Mnisi to check compliance on bids although Mr Mnisi had no capacity to do so because the tender process was closed and under lock and key.

“He then clearly explained to him unequivocally, Chair, that I cannot check compliance, this bid has closed, there is nothing I can do... this is like a reminder now... he is seeing that I am not doing anything about the request that he had sent.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledged being thankful to Sergeant Nkosi for reminders despite repeatedly telling him compliance checks were not possible.

“Thanks for the reminder... I say thank you, my bro.”

MR Mnisi admitted that he did not make it clear to Sergeant Nkosi that he could not check compliance and that Sergeant Nkosi's repeated requests showed he did not understand the tender process constraints.

“Clearly you did not do that.”

MR MNISI states he was not encouraging 'Mfowethu' but was expressing himself in his own manner, and disagrees with characterizations that he ignored the persistence.

“I respectfully disagree with you. I am not encouraging him at all. ... I saw it irrelevant from my perspective.”

MR MNISI describes a pattern of persistence from 'Mfowethu' spanning multiple dates, sending reminders and lists of companies to check for compliance.

“He sends me a list of companies: “Please give to Mfowethu in order of priority.” ... I was persisting on this from 148, 152, 157 on the 11th, 18th, and 25th of March.”

The messages forwarded by Sergeant Nkosi to Mr. Mnisi from Deputy Chief Dhlamini involved lists of candidates for a bid process, which Mr. Mnisi acknowledged.

“all three of these messages were actually messages which were forwarded by Sergeant Nkosi to you from messages that he had received from Deputy Chief Dhlamini”