There was an internal disciplinary hearing scheduled for Friday the 24th involving Mr Malatji, which required the City to request an indulgence to accommodate Commission activities.
“we were preparing for an internal disciplinary hearing, which was scheduled for Friday...Mr Spies...requested us in the internal disciplinary process through the representative of the City for an indulgence to postpone the disciplinary hearing in order to accommodate the proceedings of this Commission”
Mr Malatji has testified on various documents including tender documents, declarations, correspondence dated 12 March, termination of ad hoc, and a letter by Commissioner Spies.
“Mr Malatji has testified on ... the tender documents, the declarations ... the correspondence of 12 March ... the termination of ad hoc ... the letter by Mr Spies, by Commissioner Spies”
Director Malatji did not respond immediately to Commissioner Spies' email regarding the cancellation of ad hoc services for procedural reasons and lack of legal authority.
“I did not immediately respond to email from Commissioner Spies. The reasons for my failure to respond immediately are stated in paragraph 8 below which are covered under response detailing a failure to immediately carry out instruction to cancel all ad hoc guards.”
Commissioner Spies gave an instruction to terminate ad hoc services for Gubis, Triotic Protection Services and Mogalagadi Security but did not have legal authority as he was not part of the organizational structure.
“Commissioner Spies did not have legal authority to do so because in terms of TMPD organisational structure in place, Commissioner Spies position was not part of the structure.”
Commissioner Spies was accommodated onto the TMPD structure only after 4 June, and not via any resolution of council.
“It was only after the 4th of June that Commissioner Spies was accommodated on the structure of the TMPD and that accommodation still was not via any resolution of council.”
Director Malatji reports to Commissioner Spies as his immediate superior as at 12 March 2025 despite Commissioner Spies lacking formal authority.
“On the 12th of March 2025, I was supposed to report to the Chief of Police. In terms of his presence, I reported to him, but... I reported to Spies, right, by virtue of him being there...”
Both Mr. Spies and Director Malatji share the same responsibility regarding the position of Deputy Chief of Police, Asset Protection and Security Services.
“both Mr Spies and myself are actually charged with one and the same responsibility”
Director Malatji received a request from Commissioner Spies to provide proof of ad hoc services deployment since December 2024 to date, mostly related to ad hoc Watchman Services.
“My question was around responding to Commissioner Spies' request or instruction that you must provide proof of the deployment of ad hoc services since December 2022, 2025 to date ... the emails says please provide proof where ad hoc Watchman Services were deployed ... since December 2024 to date”
Director Malatji terminated ad hoc services in compliance with Commissioner Spies' instruction in June by drafting termination letters, calling companies, and serving letters with acknowledgements of receipt.
“You deal with the instruction from Commissioner Spies and you say... in June, you complied with the instruction. You drafted letters for termination and you personally called the companies and served them with letters ... I convened a meeting with the three companies. I handed them over the original letters and I kept a knowledge receipt letter”
Termination letters referenced (marked ST6) were prepared by Director Malatji but signed by Deputy Chief Commissioner Spies.
“That letter is done by Commissioner Spies. Could you explain why would you say this is your letter? And he testified that it is his letter. Chairperson: Does he not say that he prepared the letters for signature by Deputy Chief Spies? That should explain the signature? Director Malatji: Exactly... I prepared letters. I took them to him to sign, right? He signed.”
Gubis refused to accept termination of its ad hoc services, claiming continued authority to be at the site based on a deployment letter signed by Major Phiri.
“Gubis saying to Commissioner Spies , we have a deployment letter , we are entitled to be here”
Major Phiri confirms termination letters issued by him gave a right to be on site but did not confer indefinite authorization to remain, and that when instructed by Commissioner Spies to leave site, the order to comply should have been enforced.
“Those letters do not give them the right to be there indefinitely. Because you are telling us the letter does not, even though it does not fix a period, your letter, it does not entitle a service provider to be there indefinitely. It is up to when you tell them. You would ordinarily say, that is enough...And they remain there for a longer period...And my question is, at that point, when Spies says to them, leave site, you need to leave site. And they say, no, Phiri has given us the right to be here. Why do you not say to Gubis, leave site? I am now instructing you to leave site. You are no longer required...”
Commissioner Mkhwanazi responds to an allegation by Commissioner Spies regarding a lady without the requisite qualifications, stating that this lady was not the only one without the necessary qualifications.
“it is your response really to, you say, an allegation by Commissioner Spies... Commission Spies took issue with, was not the only one without the requisite qualifications”
Initial requests for explanation about the invoice issue started with Deputy Chief of Police Commissioner Bolhuis and then Commissioner Spies, who requested explanation from Director Malatji.
“It started initially with Commissioner, Deputy Chief of Police, Commissioner Bolhuis. And, after Commissioner Spies was appointed, he also requested me for an explanation. The same explanation that I am giving to the Commissioner, I gave it to him.”
Director Malatji was unable to comply with an instruction due to ongoing communications involving his supervisor, Commissioner Spies, about paying for services.
“The communications were about paying for these services ... involving my supervisor, Commissioner Spies”
Director Malatji requested Commissioner Spies to put the cancellation of irregular ad hoc services in writing and later called the companies involved to a meeting to terminate the services, which happened about four months after the instruction.
“I requested Commissioner Spies to , to put it in writing ... I drafted a letter for him to sign , and I called them into a meeting . Actually , I am the one who drafted a letter for him to sign , and I called them into a meeting ... I handed those letters of cancellation over to the three companies ...”
Director Malatji was suspended in July 2025 following an investigation by Commissioner Spies who established that he had committed misconduct.
“You were suspended in July of 2025... Commissioner Spies had investigated your conduct and had established that as far as he was concerned, you had committed misconduct.”
Director Malatji did not specifically inform Commissioner Spies that Mr Phiri approved the ad hoc service deployments at the time of the communication, but later agreed Mr Phiri's actions indicated his office was allocating the services.
“Not specifically, Commissioner. I did not tell Commissioner Spies that it is Mr Phiri, because at that point in time, I was of the view that these were requested directly by the department from the service provider. But given the clarities that we went through today, right, yes, I agree that whatever Mr Phiri has done, obviously, on record indicates that it was my office that was allocating. But to be specific, I did not indicate that to Commissioner Spies.”
Commissioner Bolhuis acted in the position of Divisional Head, Asset Protection Services before Commissioner Spies was appointed, and that position was not non-existent but existed as a Divisional Head role.
“Somebody within the police department of City of Tshwane was acting in this position even before Commissioner Spies was appointed. That was Commissioner Bolhuis ... He was not acting in a non-existent position ... He acted in the position of Divisional Head, Asset Protection Services ... which became vacant prior to Spies’ appointment.”
Director Malatji is suspicious that Commissioner Spies is not registered with PSIRA as required for persons appointed to perform, supervise, or manage private security services.
“I am suspicious that he is not registered with PSIRA, which is a requirement for any person appointed to perform, supervise, manage private security services.”
Director Malatji admits he does not know any fact that Commissioner Spies is not registered with PSIRA, saying it is just a feeling based on how appointment requirements were designed.
“I do not know any fact. It is just a feeling. It is based, the feeling is based on how the requirements for appointment were designed.”
Director Malatji stated he raised the issue of PSIRA registration with the office of the Chief of Police in writing before Commissioner Spies was appointed as a complaint or inquiry.
“I raised the issue of the PSIRA with the office of the Chief of Police. That was in writing, long before Commissioner Spies could be appointed.”
Director Malatji confirms he has not lodged any grievance, complaint or report with the City regarding the three suspicions listed about Commissioner Spies since his appointment.
“Since his appointment, I have not. The only correspondence I made was prior to his appointment, and then this appointment gave rise to what I was complaining about... So the short answer is you have not lodged a grievance, a complaint, or a report about Commissioner Spies as it relates to the three suspicions that you have listed in the statement.”
Director Malatji disputes allegations made by Commissioner Spies that he was non-compliant with instructions and not working well with him, saying generally he complied with instructions and any misses were not deliberate.
“I have listened to the allegations made by Commissioner Spies about me... I disagree and dispute these allegations in this regard... generally, Commissioner Spies informed the Commission that I was not complying with instructions, I was not working well with him... generally, I have complied with instructions that were given to me by Commissioner Spies, despite the differences that I have alluded to... I might have missed one or two, and the Commission should not take it that I missed that instruction because I did not work with him...”
The acting appointment to Commissioner Spies was for two days, 15 and 16 January 2026, with an additional acting letter expanding the dates from 19 December to 14 January plus two days.
“the acting stint was for two days, am I correct, 15 and 16 January 026 ? It is on this letter, but there is another acting letter from, I think, the 19th of December until the 14th, and then there was this two days that was extended.”
Most issues related to the Commission's focus happened during the tenure of Commissioner Spies as caretaker of the APSS unit before March 2025.
“the Commission would have heard evidence from Commissioner Spies ... this evidence was limited to his arrival at the TMPD, which was in March 2025 ... before Mr Spies took over in March, he was the caretaker in what we call now the APSS ... most of the issues ... would have happened during his tenure as caretaker of that unit”
The MFMA Act mandates strict 90-day deadlines for tender processes involving committee approval, advertisement, evaluation, and awarding.
“in terms of the MFMA Act, it has very strict deadlines and guidelines of let us say a period of 90 days that a tender must be through all the committees approved, advertised, and it must be evaluated and awarded.”
Tender evaluation is overwhelmed by the large volume of bidders, sometimes over 1200 companies, causing delays.
“At the briefing session, there were more than 1200 companies. I do not know what obviously happened first because I am not part of the BEC process, but if all 1200 that was at the briefing session submit a bid and it is a document this thick, you then get to the evaluation stage. The committee must physically go to every one of those companies and physically visit these sites, tick off on a checklist to say you have all the specifications, requirements, you have it, give them scoring points, then write the report, then go verify that the company's documentation with SARS, PSiRA, all of that exists. That administrative bureaucracy process is when it is a large amount often tenders, like 1200, that creates a massive delay.”
The City actually starts the tender process nine months before expiry for tenders.
“as a City, from now that I know of, we actually do start earlier. We take nine months before tenders expire. We as management and TMPD already sit with a nine-month list to say that these tenders will expire in the next nine months.”
Penalty clauses for non-compliance in security guard duties were not enforced until April last year, but have been definitely implemented from May last year due to the monitoring system for guard deployment verification and checks.
“until last year April, there was no really penalty clauses levied. But from May last year, penalty clauses are definitely implemented because of the monitoring system that we put in place to make sure that the guard deployment are verified and are checked”
C O M M I S S I O N E R S P I E SDay 84 · 24 Mar 2026Refers to: 2025-04 to 2025-05
The inspections of security sites are done randomly but not adhoc, with a team appointed to work specific shifts on a 24/7 system as an inspection and monitoring team, ensuring all sites in the region and sector are inspected.
“It is randomly, the inspection itself is not adhoc. It is a team that has been appointed and they work a specific shift because we work on a 24-7 system. So that team is assigned as an inspection and monitoring team... they must do the inspections of all sites in the region and the sector where they are deployed”
The initial security services budget was about half of the normal allocation from the previous financial year, causing depletion by April 2025 and requiring the upliftment to be borne by regional client departments through transfer processes.
“The budget initially was created, if you base it on the previous financial year, the initial budget allocated was half of what was normally allocated, and that is why in the adjustment budget...we were already depleted on our own budget... and that is why the upliftment was then stated to say that there regional departments should have paid it, and the money should be uplifted so that it can actually be transferred...”
COMMISSIONER SPIESDay 84 · 24 Mar 2026Refers to: 2024-2025Location: City of Tshwane
The initial award and tender allocation was fair and distributed evenly among companies, with no preferences based on region, but allocation depends on where companies are based and operate.
“the initial award and the way the tender is run is that it is a fair treatment and it is fairly allocated to everyone. There should be no preferences of which company depends on which region. Some companies are specifically restricted, not by us per region, but because of their own deployment.”
Commissioner Spies instructed Director Malatji to stop all ad hoc security services immediately until a new process is implemented, despite the practical limitations of stopping services already underway.
“stop the adhoc services with immediate effect until a new process is actually implemented... stop this service by tomorrow morning, that the service will not continue then.”
Stopping ad hoc security services immediately means sites will be left unguarded as these deployments were unauthorized and illegal.
“the site will be left unguarded when we say stop the services... it looks like it is an irregular deployment, it was done with no authorisation, so we are actually doing, at that moment in my head, we are doing illegal work, and that must be immediately stopped.”
Despite requests, Commissioner Dhlamini and Director Malatji have not responded to requests for reports and information about the ad hoc guards' deployment, hindering consequence management.
“Commissioner Dhlamini has never responded to me in my question to date, and Director Malatji has also not responded to me at all ... I have asked that reports and everything ... and that is part of why there is consequence management happening.”
The email from Umashi Dhlamini dated 12 March 16:04 was sent to multiple high-ranking police officials and outlined concerns about the exponential increase in ad hoc security duties and the risk of depleting funds before the end of the financial year, potentially causing overspending on the General Ledger.
“That is the email that I am referring to from Umashi Dhlamini , and it is dated Wednesday , 12 March , 16:04 . It is sent to me and the Chief of Police , Deputy Commissioner Bolhuis , Brigadier Nkomo , as the acting Deputy Chief of Specialised Services , Deputy Commissioner Nomsa Nhlapho , Mr Veli Nwandule , Jethro Seleka , Priscilla Radiokana , Tshukudu Malatji , Reginald Mahlangu , and Colonel Elvis Madihlaba is cc'd”
Between 12 March and 1 April 2025, a new procedure with a new application form and process flow for ad hoc guards was created, finalized with the acting COO Dr Malaka, and instituted on 1 April 2025.
“I introduced a new procedure between the 12th of March and the 1st of April ... created and designed a new application form, a new process flow ... was then the acting COO, Dr Malaka ... eventually when on 1 April it was instituted as a new process for all ad hoc guards going forward.”
An email was sent by Commissioner Spies on 12 March 2025 at 16:07 asking Commissioner Dhlamini who approved and mandated the ad hoc security services and how the process is usually managed, but no response was received.
“I replied to all again to say to Commissioner Dhlamini: 'Who approved and mandated Ad Hoc Security Services? Who decided to give the instruction for this? And how is this process managed within the department historically?' I must state that to date I have not received an answer on this email.”
A letter dated 24 June was sent by Commissioner Spies to Gubis 85 instructing them to stop the ad hoc security services with effect from 30 June due to lack of approval based on written process.
“I sent a letter to Gubis 85 specifically to say, as of now, you stop this...stop the service with effect 30 June...stop the services.”
Commissioner Spies confirmed sending the letter to Gubis 85 on 24 June ordering stoppage of unapproved ad hoc security services not authorized by any written process.
“That is the letter that I then sent to Gubis 85 Solutions on the 24th of June, where I say: “Stop page of ad hoc services which have not been approved in terms of any written process.”
There is only one Service Level Agreement (SLA) template used for all eight companies, differing only in company name, signatories, and addresses.
“No, it is eight, 100 percent the same SLA except the name of the company and the signatories at the bottom, the address details...the SLA from where it starts with the wording of the SLA to where it ends with the wording is 100 percent the same SLA for all companies.”
Commissioner Spies highlights institutional failures and subversion of lawful authority he experienced during his tenure at Tshwane Metro Police.
“I obviously submit this statement to highlight the institutional failures or the subversion of lawful authority that I experienced during my limited time at Tshwane Metro Police.”
Commissioner Spies states he acted as a whistleblower at the Commission and complains about victimization in his career, including being addressed abusively and mocked with the nickname 'Madlanga Commission'.
“... I testified as a whistle blower at the Commission and the victimisation of whistle blowers, even in my new career, the way I am being - and I do not want to put it openly as abuse, but it is the way I am being addressed. My nickname is, for instance, they will make jokes about it, to say Madlanga Commission, when I enter into a conversation or when I sit in a meeting.”