water and sanitation department

Advocate Baloyi asserts that the instruction to execute the request was made by Director Malatji's department, specifically regarding appointments connected to Water and Sanitation Department projects such as Klapperkop and Brickfield.

“the instruction was not directed to the initiator of the adhoc services, and this is Water and Sanitation Department... But you made the appointment. Your department made that appointment... Klapperkop and Brickfield... the balance of them, you had given Phiri instruction to run with this...”

The protective service provider known as Gubis 85 Solutions was chosen by the management of Water and Sanitation Department.

“Regarding the specific allocation of these protective services to the service provider known as Gubis 85 Solutions, I must state unequivocally that the company was chosen by the management of Water and Sanitation Department.”

The Water and Sanitation Department specifically mandated the use of Gubis 85 Solutions (Pty) Ltd and refused to engage multiple service providers for budgetary and administrative reasons.

“The Water and Sanitation Department specifically mandated the use of Gubis 85 Solutions (Pty) Ltd citing that they were already using this service provider ... refused to engage multiple different service providers for budgetary and administrative reasons.”

Gubis personnel were already working and deployed to sites prior to the official deployment letter, with the Water and Sanitation Department dictating their preferred service provider role.

“Gubis personnel were essentially already working and deployed to sites prior to me issuing the official deployment letter. As the paying and user department, the department dictate their preferred service provider and mandate was strictly limited to facilitating the base of their operational instruction.”

The department was already using Gubis prior to Major Phiri's involvement and owed approximately 2 million for services rendered that were unpaid.

“the department was already using Gubis before I was even involved... approximately 2 million generated by Gubis for service rendered to the department ... they were using it and the services were not paid ... now they include it to the next year ...”

The Water and Sanitation Department had already made promises to Gubis that they would commence work on the night of 31 December 2024.

“Furthermore, the Water and Sanitation Department had already made promises to Gubis that they will commence work on the night of 31 December 2024. Gubis personnel were essentially already working and deployed to sites prior to me issuing the official deployment letter.”

The deployment of Gubis sites was approved by the department management through their representative Mr Herman Segolela, not by APSS Inspector Phiri.

“Gubis was not given many sites by APSS Inspector Phiri. It was given sites by the department, the management of the department of Water and Sanitation through their representative, Mr Herman Segolela.”

Water and Sanitation decided to use only Gubis for reservoirs and pump stations scattered across seven regions for reasons unknown to Major Phiri, which he thinks are competent.

“The anomaly was that the reservoirs and pump stations were scattered all over seven regions, but Water and Sanitation decided to use only Gubis for their reasons, which are unknown to me, but I can think that they are competent.”

Major Phiri issued deployment notices effective 15 January 2025 but acknowledges guards were deployed on site from 7 January 2025, without backdating the deployment letter to fit the actual deployment dates.

“you issued your notice on the 14th and it becomes effective on the 15th , regardless of the fact that these have already deployed on the 7th of January.”

Major Phiri denies allegations of favouring Gubis 85 Solutions or receiving incentives for channelling work to them, stating he executed his duty as instructed without improper motives.

“I have been made aware of inferences suggesting that I may have favoured Gubis 85 Solutions or received incentives for channelling work to them . I categorically deny this allegation .”

Major Phiri states that once deployment of Gubis 85 Solutions' guards was processed, he had no further interaction or relationship regarding the ad hoc services, as invoices and payment responsibility lay with the Water and Sanitation Department or TMPD Finance Department.

“I had no further interaction or relationship with Gubis Solutions once the deployments were processed .”

Major Phiri describes the purpose of ad hoc deployment of guards as securing premises so that Water and Sanitation Department could safely execute repairs and reinstall infrastructure, with oversight of guards handed to the Department and TMPD monitoring team after deployment.

“The purpose of this ad hoc deployment was to secure the premises adequately so that Water and Sanitation Department could safely execute repairs and reinstall infrastructure . Once the guards were deployed , the monitoring and daily oversight of this personnel were entirely handed over to Water and Sanitation Department . The Tshwane Metro Police Department , TMPD , APSS monitoring team , thus supervised this ad hoc placements .”

Major Phiri states his role regarding ad hoc services ended with deployment and invoice responsibility transferred to Water and Sanitation Department; any payment disputes must be escalated to other parties without further interaction with him.

“My job is done with the deployment and any payment dispute should be handled by other responsible parties without further interaction with me.”

Director Malatji was not happy about the irregular ad hoc services but explained they were initiated by the Water and Sanitation Department who were responsible for payment.

“I am not happy . These irregular adhoc services , right , the Commissioner must appreciate that they were initiated by Water and Sanitation .”

The irregular ad hoc security services were originally provided by Water and Sanitation Department with the understanding they would pay the service providers.

“This , when this adhoc services were dished out right , they were dished out by Water and Sanitation Department with the understanding between them and the service provider that they would pay from them .”

The City of Tshwane's water and sanitation client department approved additional security services but did not provide funds to the TMPD, causing TMPD to pay from its own budget, creating a deficit of R91 million for May and June 2025.

“The client department's water and sanitation department approved additional security services but did not make funds available to enable the TMPD to settle the invoices...This resulted in the TMPD having to pay for the adhoc services rendered from the normal contract budget, thereby creating a deficit of R57 million for the month of June, and a further R34 million, at total of R91 million, will be required for the month of May and June to cover for the adhoc services that would have been rendered.”