No picture yet. Upload one or paste an image URL.
Chats involving Mr Matlala and a third party contain voice notes and deleted messages linked to incriminating videos.
“we found the same voice note saying we will go in at 02:50 , the identical file in these chats”
The third party and a fourth party discuss prices for illegal goods, with Mr Matlala involved in negotiations indicating price and quantities.
““ I a m w a i t i n g f o r h i m t o c o m e b a c k , b u t h e s a i d 3 5 0 k , i t i s t o o m u c h . ” The fourth party say “ 3 0 0 . ” At 09:25 , Mr Matlala says to the third party : “ O k a y, I a m a l s o g e t t i n g g o o d p r i c e , s o y o u c a n m a k e p r o f i t . ””
Mr Matlala forwarded a voice note from Mr Van Wyk stating 'we will go in at 02:50' to the third party; the voice note was originally sent by Mr Van Wyk to Mr Matlala.
“he has forwarded to the third party the voice note that Mr Van Wyk sent to him a few minutes earlier saying , we will go in at 02 : 50 .”
Mr Van Wyk claimed he never received the WhatsApp video on his cellphone despite evidence showing the video was sent to Mr Matlala by the third party and admitted by the third party to have sent it.
“... he says : “ Once again , I received the video recording from the enquiries I made to the Commission and confirmed that I never received this WhatsApp video on my cell phone . ” We do not accept that answer ... We interviewed the third party ... and the third party admits that he sent the video to Mr Matlala .”
The video sent by the third party was deleted for everyone from the chat at 07:49:59 and no trace of the video remains in chats between Mr Matlala and the third party or elsewhere on the phone, except in chats between Mr Van Wyk and Mr Matlala.
“The video that was sent by the third party was deleted for everyone ... what is significant is that there was no trace of the video on the chats between Mr Matlala and the third party. And indeed there is no trace of the video anywhere on the phone other than in the chats between Mr Matlala and Mr Van Wyk.”
The third party did not realize that Mr Matlala had forwarded the video to Mr Van Wyk and so the third party could not delete a video that Mr Matlala had forwarded further.
“The third party of course did not realise that Mr Matlala had forwarded the video onto Mr Van Wyk and he could not delete a video that Mr Matlala had forwarded further.”
If a third party from outside the City comes as a complainant and lodges a complaint about a mandate to manipulate the bid in favour of seven companies, Deputy Chief Dhlamini would investigate if the complaint is put into a statement.
“if a third party from outside the City came as a complainant and lodge a complaint that Nico ... had said he had given a mandate to the Chair of the BEC to manipulate the bid in favour of seven companies, would you investigate that? Correct ... The third party, I believe, could have reduce it into a statement”
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.”