Gubis

Director Malatji signed disputed invoices from Gubis on February 26, 2025, around the time of a dispute concerning non-payment of these invoices.

“those invoices came to you and you stamped and signed them. And that was around the time when there was a dispute about non-payment of Gubis' 2024 invoices.”

Director Malatji explained that ad hoc service invoices normally do not come to him for signature if handled properly, and that the service providers consent and department consent precede his signature.

“all ad hoc services which have been handled properly ... normally those invoices would not even end up with me having to sign ... at the end of the day, the service provider consent would submit such invoices to the department consent, not me ... Gubis was instructed by Department of Water and Sanitation, while Mogalagadi and Triotic were instructed by the Office of the Chief of Police, Mr Bolhuis.”

Gubis invoices related to ad hoc services needed to be signed by Director Malatji because the executive instructed deployment and payment must come from the Watchman services vote, which falls under Malatji's responsibility.

“Gubis was instructed by the Department of Water and Sanitation ... such invoices were supposed to be signed by me ... by virtue of the executive having instructed the deployment thereof ... those invoices had to be paid from my vote, the Watchman Services.”

Invoices related to the Gubis deployment site payments, totaling R82 million over five months, were paid and related exactly to the topic under discussion, indicating Director Malatji's involvement in the process.

“They show that over five months it was paid R82 million. They relate exactly to the topic we are discussing.”

Gubis had already been appointed by Water and Sanitation as a preferred service provider because Water and Sanitation were happy with their work elsewhere, leading to their selection for the work discussed.

“Gubis was already appointed by Water and Sanitation... because Water and Sanitation said they have worked with them, they are happy with their work elsewhere.”

According to Major Phiri, Gubis had actually been deployed onsite by 31 December 2024 but were ordered off site by Major Phiri, contradicting any assumption of termination of deployment.

“According to Major Phiri, Gubis had actually been deployed... on 31 December 2024... and Major Phiri says he told them to get off site.”

Director Malatji denies having the history of the termination of Gubis deployment in mind when agreeing to the deployment instructions discussed.

“I do not have that history of termination in mind, Commissioner.”

Phiri issued deployment instructions and acts on behalf of the appointing department which gave Gubis the instruction to proceed with the service.

“It is Phiri who issued instructions saying he acts on your instructions...It is APS that gave Gubis the instruction to proceed with the service.”

Invoices from service provider Gubis must be certified by APSS for services rendered and signed off before payment.

“If Gubis ... issues an invoice ... it goes to APSS ... They must certify that services have been rendered ... It must come either ... with those penalty clause being indicated to say they were penalised”

On 23 March, Deputy Chief Dhlamini communicated with Sergeant Nkosi about arranging a meeting to get clarity on a matter involving Gubis and to check with the CFO on advice.

“Afternoon, Captain. ... Cain called me on Friday and asked if Gubis want to meet up with me on Saturday. I then pushed the meeting to Monday ... Please check with him on this and his advice, if I should go or drop them ...”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini decided not to meet directly with Gubis until receiving the CFO's attitude on claims for outstanding payment.

“And you would not meet with Gubis because you wanted first to speak to the CFO to find out what his attitude was to a claim from Gubis for outstanding payments?”

Calvin Mahlangu, director of Gubis, had called the CFO on 4 March about unpaid invoices, and Deputy Chief Dhlamini was aware of this before his intervention on 5 and 6 March.

“I am saying that is what the CFO indicated to me on the 4th of March when he was requesting my intervention.”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini acknowledged that all invoices had been paid except for the June 2024 invoice, which was from the previous financial year.

“The invoices had all been paid except for the June 2024 invoice which was from the previous financial year.”

Gubis representatives wanted to meet Deputy Chief Dhlamini regarding the unpaid invoice issue and payment, but Deputy Chief Dhlamini did not explain the problem or process to Gubis prior to the meeting.

“he met with them, he spoke to Calvin, he was the entry point to speak to Calvin on this matter of outstanding payment... I had not explained the process”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini shared a confidential invoice document from Gubis with Sergeant Nkosi, despite the CFO stating he did not share it and claiming confidentiality.

“because it was you who shared this invoice with Sergeant Nkosi”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini met with representatives from Gubis, including Mr Mahlangu and Mr Andrew Kgwadi, to discuss the issue of an outstanding invoice.

“It was Mr Mahlangu and Mr Andrew something. ... I think it is in the email, SC. I am not sure what is his surname. Is it Kgwadi or something like that? Mr Andrew Kgwadi.”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini denies awareness that Gubis was a bidder for TMPD1 but admits knowing Gubis was a successful bidder.

“I was not aware. ... No, I was not aware. ... Yes.”

Legal counsel asserts the communication between Deputy Chief Dhlamini, Sergeant Nkosi, and the CFO regarding vehicles for land was about prioritising companies for corrupt tender rigging, excluding Gubis who was anxious to be included and ultimately succeeded.

“What your communications with Sergeant Nkosi and the CFO in relation to vehicles for land in order of priority was about was actually about which companies were going to be given priority for the tender to be rigged in their favour. And Gubis was not on that list. And that why Gubis was so anxious to speak to you and then to the CFO was because Gubis wanted to be on that list. And somehow Gubis managed to find its way into the final award of the tender.”

Payments to Gubis before January 2025 were 97,000 per month, not 2 million per month, but the total outstanding amounted to 2 million for 7 months.

“payments to Gubis per month before January 2025 was not 2 million, it was actually 97,000 per month”

After January 2025, more than 30 sites were added which increased Gubis' monthly entitlement to just over 14 million.

“after January more than 30 sites were added and that is what took Gubis' monthly entitlement to just over 14 million”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini recalled a meeting requested by the CFO and Sergeant Nkosi on 25 March regarding invoicing of Gubis but he did not attend because of training.

“On 25 March, the CFO had asked for a meeting with you and you and the CFO and Sergeant Nkosi were due to meet. CFO says it was due to discuss issues relating to invoicing of Gubis... I never turned up for the meeting because I was going for training runs so I could not honour the meeting.”

On 31 December 2024, there was an agreement and actual deployment of security guards at Gubis to protect against vandalism, but Major Phiri stopped the deployment as he was not present and could not do it himself.

“He was saying deploy. In fact, he had already made arrangements for Gubis to deploy... I stopped it on the 31st and I said I am not around and I cannot do it... I stopped it.”

Deployment instructions for security guards were given verbally by Herman Segolela to Gubis, confirmed by WhatsApp message and a phone call.

“When they talked to me it was a WhatsApp message and then a call from Herman Segolela... Mr Herman Segolela had spoken to Gubis... deploy at these sites where there is vandalism.”

The deployment of security services to Gubis by Asset Protection and Security Service (APSS) was not done through the normal procurement process and was irregular, despite a memorandum sent to departments instructing the process was to be followed but was ignored.

“that memorandum was not followed”

All of the deployment letters signed by MAJOR PHIRI and effective from 15 January 2025 were permanent and lacked an end date, contrary to the ad hoc nature of the security deployments which should be temporary for damage or vandalism situations.

“My problem with your deployment letters... it was a permanent deployment. There was no end date to it... You turned what should have been ad hoc deployments to cover the vandalism in December into permanent appointments for Gubis”

The deployment letter for Gubis set a start date of 15 January 2025 and a monthly amount per guard of R20925 with a total of R406000 but did not specify an end date, implying that the deployment could continue indefinitely unless terminated.

“It gives them Moreleta Reservoir Pump Stations and then it says effective date 15 January 2025... And then it sets out amount per guard is R20925... And then the grand total is R406000... But it does not say when this deployment ends, which means according to this deployment letter...it is not intended to be permanent”

All deployment letters appointed Gubis security permanently without termination dates, entitling Gubis to receive R14 million indefinitely unless terminated by Revo Spies in June 2025.

“All your deployment letters, in effect, appointed Gubis on a permanent basis and if Revo Space had not terminated this in June, they would have been entitled to this R14 million forever”

MAJOR PHIRI admitted it is improper that the deployment letters lacked end dates and effectively appointed Gubis on a permanent basis for security services, which should have been an ad hoc emergency arrangement.

“You appointed them on what was supposed to be an ad hoc arrangement but you appointed them on a permanent basis and you left it there. And that is improper to me... It runs across all the deployments that you did”

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...”

Major Phiri claims he instructed Gubis verbally and in writing to stop security services immediately upon receiving the termination letter and that there was no invoice for July as services had stopped.

“It means today, the day you received a letter, the date that is written there, it means you stopped services. Hence, there is no invoice for July. Because they stopped...You did talk to them to stop...Yes, they stopped. The invoice ended, I believe, in June.”

Major Phiri explains that Herman Segolela identifies and allocates Gubis sites, and Phiri must then execute the deployment based on that allocation; emails exist to support this process.

“He identifies sites, he allocates Gubis, and then mine is to go ... There are emails to that effect. ... He is telling us where his problems are, and then we are going where he tells us.”

Major Phiri confirms that Calvin Mahlangu is a director of Gubis and involved in financial transactions with Gabotje Logistics.

“He is a director of Gubis ... those are transactions, financial transactions that were made by Mr Calvin Mahlangu ... paying monies into Gabotje Logistic ...”

Adv MosiKili alleges that funds paid by Mr Calvin Mahlangu or Gubis to Gabotje Logistics ultimately make their way to Major Phiri's account, a connection Major Phiri denies.

“the information put to us demonstrates a clear connection of funds from the director of Gubis to Gabotje and ultimately those payments making their way to your account ... No, I do not accept that.”

Adv MosiKili clarifies that the payments from Gubis to Gabotje exist but denies any direct transaction of R150,000 from Gubis or Calvin Mahlangu to Major Phiri personally.

“I am not saying to you, you will find a 150 amount transaction from Gubis to you or to Gabotje and yourself ...”

Adv MosiKili asserts that payments made by Gubis or Mr Mahlangu to Gabotje Logistics eventually make their way to Major Phiri's account, though not necessarily corresponding to exact deposited amounts or dates.

“what we are looking here accumulatively is that Gubis or Mr Mahlangu on behalf of Gubis is making payments to Gabotje ... somehow those payments through Gabotje, they make their way to you ... Forget about the dates ... It is not a proposition that there is a corresponding payment for example R150,000 from Gubis directly to your account via Gabotje.”

Mr M receives substantial payments amounting to over R10 million from Gubis.

“there is what we call, there is a payment, or at least a transaction between this individual and Gubis of R10 million. It is R10,8 million”

There are payments amounting to R3.9 million and R5.9 million involving Gubis and other entities including Mr Calvin Mahlangu and Papador.

“there is an amount of 3,9 million. Again, that comes from Gubis. And similarly, you will see that Mr Calvin Mahlangu's name also features. And lastly, Papador, which also made payment to Mr Phiri, also received, at least on the face of it, 5.9 million, or at least there was an exchange of 5.9 million between Papador and Gubis”

Payments between Gubis and Gabotje are referenced as Pap i, which is not a person but a reference used in financial documents.

“any payment between Gubis and Gabotje is referenced as Papi. It has nothing to do, with respect, with a person called Papi, but that is the reference that seems to be used, and not as Papi Mogashoa, as Mr Phiri is suggest”

Major Phiri confirms payments recorded under the name Papi on bank statements are related to payments between Gubis and Gabotje.

“They are using the name Papi, yes. ... Yes, the same Papi we see on your bank statement as well”

Major Phiri states the payments discussed are made in 2024 but disclaims knowledge of any relationship between Papi, Gubis, and William Masupye.

“The payments are made in 2024. My point is, I do not know the relationship between Papi and Gubis and William Masupye. They might be doing their own things somewhere”

Major Phiri accepts the proposition that he has received payments from people who have received payments from Gubis or have a financial link to Gubis.

“...that on this information before us, you have received payments ... from people who either have received payments ... from Gubis or have a financial connection to Gubis... And one of those people is Masupye, who is also an employee of Gubis. Do you accept that? ... I accept that...”

Major Phiri becomes aware of William Masupye's association with Gubis after the transactions.

“Yes, I become aware after these transactions... But I know that he is with Gubis”

Major Phiri denies receiving payments directly from Gubis, its directors or owners, or anyone associated with Gubis where Gubis is the source, except money received from William Masupye.

“Directly from Gubis? No. Has Gubis ever paid you money? No. Has any director or owner of Gubis ever paid you money? No... Have you ever received money from somebody associated with Gubis ... No. I will say yes, I have received payment alone from William Masupye... But he did not say to me it is from Gubis”

The General sent a message to Sergeant Nkosi seeking confirmation if Mr Mnisi had spoken to Cain regarding processing at GUBIS, but Mr Mnisi never received this message and cannot comment on it.

“The General messages Sergeant Nkosi saying : “ Good day, Captain. Please check with Mfowethu if he has spoken to Cain about Gubis for processing . He just called me to say Mfowethu has given a go-ahead .” This message was never forwarded to myself . I have never received it . I cannot comment on that .”

Sergeant Nkosi was involved in a payment issue relating to an invoice and the matter now concerns termination of the appointment of Gubis.

“Sergeant Nkosi was involved in the payment issue relating to an invoice. We are now dealing here with termination...”

Sergeant Nkosi was not part of the committee discussions to terminate the appointment of Gubis.

“No, Sergeant Nkosi was not part of that.”

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 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...”

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.”

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...”

Adv Baloyi states that the year-end financial process occurs every year and is not unique, questioning the rush specifically regarding Gubis.

“That is what happens every year - end. It is not unique here. Every year - end that is exactly what the processes of closing year end entail. So you have to explain why this is different that you are rushing things in this way and specifically relating to Gubis.”

Gubis' June invoice was going to be processed late, in late July, not in June.

“Gubis' June invoice was only going to come in, in late July anyway.”

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.”

If Gubis provided services after receiving a letter from the City stating services may not be provided from 1 July, then Gubis knew they were contravening the City's instruction.

“If Gubis provided services with effect in August 2025 or on the 5th of July 2025, they knew they were doing something that the City had expressly informed them that they may not do.”

The City would have no obligation to honour any invoice for services provided by Gubis after the termination date.

“The City would be under no obligation to honour any invoice furnished for those services.”

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.”

Sergeant Nkosi set up the General as an intermediary in relation to Gubis, which involved the General in the Gubis invoice process.

“The General only got involved with Sergeant Nkosi in relation to Gubis because Sergeant Nkosi had set himself up as your intermediary with the General in relation to Gubis.”

Gubis was obligated to engage with TMPD and APSS to make necessary submissions and motivations for the invoice approval; the CFO cannot act until this process is done.

“Formally, the onus was on Gubis to make sure that they make the necessary submissions, and they make a motivation to APSS. APSS is a division within TMPD where DC Revo Spies is in charge. Once that has been approved, it would have automatically been transferred to Deputy Chief Dlamini, who is the Support Services and Finance Head within TMPD. That is when I can now assist in terms of taking the way forward.”

The matter about the outstanding payments started with supply chain management, not with Mr M N I S I, contradicting General Dlamini's understanding.

“Gubis did not start with me . They started with supply chain management . And maybe we should go to GM 22 and 23 . They started escalating , so they did not start with me .”

General Dlamini or Deputy Chief Dlamini are critical players in the Gubis payment issue, but General Dlamini did not attend a meeting on the issue because he was unavailable.

“the critical player there would be General Dlamini or Deputy Chief Dlamini... But he did not come to the meeting... He was not available.”

Mr Mandla Mgcina called Mr M R M N I S I unexpectedly shortly after Gubis were told the only gateway was him.

“out of the blue , shortly after Gubis are told that the only gateway is you , you get two unprecedented calls from Mandla Mgcina”

Mr M R M N I S I says the call from Mandla Mgcina was out of the blue and unrelated to an outstanding Gubis payment issue, which would have triggered contact from Mr Calvin Mahlangu.

“It was out of the blue for me as well . Had there been an issue on the outstanding Gubis payment , Mr Calvin Mahlangu had direct contact details of mine , he would have called me on that . That is the pure reason why we even had a light moment of this matter . It was purely out of the blue for me .”

The issue discussed was a persisting outstanding payment to Gubis.

“I mean , this issue of outstanding payment was persisting .”

There were interactions between the office of Director Malatji and the Gubis, including the Department of Water and Sanitation regarding ad hoc security services from January to March.

“Thereafter, from January, February, March, there were interactions between my office and Gubis, including the Department of Water and Sanitation around these ad hoc services.”

Advocate Khumalo challenged Director Malatji's truthfulness about the timing of his awareness of the allocation letters, asserting he knew by March 2025.

“No, it cannot be now recently because in March 2025, you knew that these letters had been issued to Gubis.”

Gubis, a contractor security service, complained to Director Malatji about unpaid ad hoc services rendered to them by 14 January 2025.

“there was a call with Gubis and yourself. And they were complaining that they had rendered services. Adhoc services.”

Director Malatji said that Gubis came to complain about non-payment to his office because they realized that promised payment was not happening and they thought he could help.

“I think they realize that whatever they were promised would happen, was not happening ... they thought Director Malatji would be able to help us get paid.”

Director Malatji acknowledged that Gubis had deployment letters signed by his office's officials, enabling them to approach him for payment issues.

“They got these deployment letters in their possession... signed by officials from my office.”

Director Malatji said that his office, together with the department, allocated the ad hoc services to Gubis and that Gubis came to him because they were not winning contracts with the department and were not being paid by the CFO's office as promised.

“It was my office with the department that allocated ad hoc services to Gubis... they were not winning with the department... not getting what they hoped to get in the office of the CFO...”

Director Malatji instructed Gubis to ignore the usual payment process and suggested they come directly to his office because of payment delays from the department and CFO's office.

“Guys, you ignored the process and you chose to do what you did. And now afterwards you are coming to me.”

Director Malatji confirmed that the deployment letters were from December and January 2025 and related to outstanding payments they spoke about in December.

“I am talking about deployment letters pertaining to the outstandings that we spoke about in December ... also talk to the one attached here as evidence of January 2025.”

According to Director Malatji, it was the Department of Water and Sanitation that told Gubis they should deploy additional security in December.

“With the December one, you say it is the Department of Water and Sanitation that had said to them they should deploy additional security.”

Mr. Baloyi SC asserts that in January and February, Phiri issued deployment letters without authority, causing a R14 million expense to the municipality, and that Director Malatji had the power to stop this but failed to act, making him responsible for the irregular expenditure.

“We know that in January and February, when Phiri issued these deployment letters, which you have already admitted he did not have that kind of authority ... it cost an expense of R14 million ... You were the effective cause of that R14 million expense ... You failed to do that ... you chose not to tell departments to direct their requests to you ... You did not ... you failed ... you are responsible for that irregular expenditure of 14 million rand.”

Director Malatji acknowledges responsibility but points out that departments also disregarded instructions to route all ad hoc security service requests through Asset Protection Services, TMPD.

“I think, given the way things have transpired, at the end, yes. But I want the Commissioner not to lose sight ... the departments said they would avail funds ... the department instructed Gubis to deploy security officers on sites they identified ... I was not involved or aware at that point in time.”

Director Malatji regularly interacted with contracted security firms including Gubis as part of his contract management duties, including initial contract starting periods and operational engagements.

“I had several interactions with Gubis, including the rest of the 22, more especially round about at that time, because that was when the contract was starting. That was when the deployment was kicking off, and immediately after it kicked off, that was when we, when I interacted with them for operational reasons. By the way, as the director responsible for the function, I meet with these service providers regularly, even though sometimes it does not happen, but in terms of the service level agreement, I am to meet with them almost every month”

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 ...”

The total contract value in a document was over R15 million, with deductions for two items signed by Madihlaba worth just over a million, resulting in a balance of 14 million related to the allocation to Phiri.

“The document ... gives the total value ... just over R15 million. Then it showcases the deduction of the two that were signed by Madihlaba, which is just over a million, and it comes to that 14 million because the heading of this document ... would be a summary of sites allocated to Gubis by Phiri.”

In respect of problematic payments to Gubis, there were WhatsApp exchanges involving Mr Mnisi, Deputy Commissioner Dlamini and others, detailing required invoice uploads, payment uplifts and eventual payment approval.

“...in these WhatsApp exchanges where Mr Mnisi is involved in processes of invoices must now be uploaded, there must be an uplift of the amounts that must be paid, and eventually even the Deputy Commissioner Dlamini is involved in it, right? And eventually somebody says, yes, all sorted payments will be made...”

The extension letter sent on 28 February 2025 was sent to the other 21 service providers as well, not exclusive to Gubis.

“...that this extension letter was also sent to the other 21 service providers. It was not exclusive to Gubis...”

The entities appointed as service providers do not fully mirror the list that Sergeant Nkosi was exchanging with Dhlamini and Mnisi; only Elshadai, Ngaphesheya, and later Gubis were appointed.

“Commissioner, not entirely, but the three entities, that would be Elshadai, Ngaphesheya, and later on Gubis ...”

Gubis security company has been deployed disproportionately across the city, indicating favoritism in guard assignments from water sites exclusively to Gubis.

“when you look at what has happened here with Gubis, is that they have been deployed across the city... this deployment of guards is definitely favouritism towards one company, because everything from water was assigned to Gubis only.”

The General instructed to let him meet with Gubis and Cain and then report back, refusing to meet them directly.

“Let the General meet him and then he will brief us of the outcomes of the discussion when we meet later Mfowethu. So when we see this message at page 522, four days after that exchange with the General and the CFO, we see a message saying: Afternoon, Captain. I had a meeting with Cain and those guys today, as I indicate. I have to told them they should go back where they started Mfowethu. I said to him he is the only gateway, they cannot go with the back door. I will only be able to assist if I get an indication from Mfowethu. Protocol must be observed at all costs.”

Sergeant Nkosi denies having been instructed to hold a meeting with Gubis and Cain that he was to report on afterwards without the CFO.

“No.”

The appropriate person to approach for complaints relating to this tender was the CFO, who should be the point of contact instead of meeting with Gubis.

“And in this case the appropriate person to approach for complaints around this tender was the CFO. Remember, they were complaining about the tender.”

The CFO and General Dlamini communicated via intermediary using screenshots sent through a witness' phone to avoid leaving electronic communication trails regarding payment of invoices involving Gubis material.

“the CFO and General Dlamini have been communicating in relation to this matter through you and through screenshots that have been passed through your phone”

Sergeant Nkosi knows Gubis and that it is a security company, but does not know who exactly represents it or any details beyond that.

“I do know Gubis. I do not know. I do not know them. I know that Gubis is a security. That is correct. I only know that it is a security company.”

Sergeant Nkosi was informed about a planned meeting involving Gubis, Cainan and the General, but the General declined the meeting aiming to keep communication centralized.

“I think the General was informing me that there was a meeting that was to be held by Gubis and Cainan and him now. That is the General. So, the General declined that meeting because according to me, understanding this message, he wanted the centre of communication to be one.”

A termination letter from Mr. Revo Spies to Gubis was forwarded by Sergeant Nkosi to the General following concerns that Gubis was operating without approval and non-compliance, leading to the order to terminate services.

“The General confirmed that, indeed, he is the one who instructed – who is this one? Spies because this company was working without any approval process or something. But I remember along those lines, he informed me that, that he recognised this company and he alleged that he is the one who informed that this company is not compliant, so they must terminate.”

Gubis submitted a bid for tender 1 of 2024/25 and the deadline for bids for that tender was 2 October 2024, with all bids submitted by 28 November 2024 and are bound by the principle that bids cannot be altered after submission.

“on the 28th of November 2024, the General sent you in chat number 7 a document headed TMPD01-2024-25... the correct deadline for submissions of bids is 2 October 2024... by 28 November, if there is a list of all the tenders received with their bid prices, then the deadline for submission must have passed... so by 28 December, all bids had to be in... And are you aware of the principle of public procurement that you are bound by your bid and that after you have submitted your bid, you may not alter it ?”

Gubis, a bidder for a tender, approached the General asking to meet him, and the CFO agreed that the General should meet with him to report back outcomes.

“the General's message that he has been approached by Gubis, who want to meet him ... Gubis is also one of the bidders on this tender”

The General reported meeting with Gubis and Cain. He instructed them they must deal only with the CFO, Mfowethu, and that he would only assist if indicated by the CFO. Protocol must be observed at all costs.

“After noon, Captain. I had a meeting with Cainan and those guys today ... I have to told them they should go back where they started Mfowethu ... Protocol must be observed at all costs ... He is not going to deal directly with them, if they want anything they must go to the CFO”

Mandla Mgcina is trying to get hold of the CFO on behalf of Gubis, who has approval from the CFO for this course of action; Mgcina is repeatedly calling the CFO who is not answering.

“The General has had a meeting with Mr Mandla Mgcina in relation to Gubis. He said do not speak to me, speak to the CFO. The CFO has then approved of that course. And now Mr Mgcina is desperately trying on behalf of Gubis to get hold of the CFO. That is what we are seeing.”

Sergeant Nkosi confirms that Sergeant Nkosi's brother's company was awarded the tender, and Elshadai also got the tender, but he does not know about Gubis.

“according to me, yes ... I do not know.”

Adv Chaskalson SC alleges Gubis initially was not included on a vehicle priority list dated 25 March but ended up on the tender list after complaints and intervention by Mandla Mgcina with CFO, with instructions from the General to use only the CFO as the official gateway.

“there were seven companies which did not include Gubis ... The General said, do not speak to me, there is only one gateway, it is the CFO ... Mandla Mgcina then started calling the CFO regularly and then lo and behold, Gubis found their way onto the list.”

The company 'Gubis' was the source of the unpaid invoice complaint.

“I think it was about Gubis.”

Sergeant Nkosi had no prior dealings or knowledge of the people owning Gubis and was not familiar with the company before or after the incident.

“No. Not that I can remember. No.”

Payment was eventually made to Gubis after the issue was resolved with the help of General Dlamini and Mr. Mnisi.

“I think that payment was made to them. They were paid.”