Emails discuss a budget and fund transfer for watchman services involving a complaint lodged with the office of the CFO and executive meetings with senior city officials including the Chief of Police, COO, and CFO.
“a budget and fund transfer for Watchmen Services 91 million... based on these emails that at some point after a complaint was lodged with the office of the CFO, there were executive meetings arranged and held. These executive meetings included office of the Chief of Police, the COO, the CFO, and others...”
Director Malatji was not involved in the executive meetings regarding payment of invoices, and there appears to be an attempt by others to blame him for payments made to ad hoc service providers, although evidence shows he was not responsible for allocation or deployment of these services.
“I was not involved to participate... it looks like... everybody wants to pass the buck... to Director Malatji... through this process until today... people have created a narrative that Director Malatji is responsible for whatever amount of money that has been paid to these ad hoc service providers... but they knew before time... explanation and records show Director Malatji was not responsible or did not instruct allocation of those sites... deployment of those service providers... but they chose to come and testified the way they have testified...”
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.”
Director Malatji fully explained to Commissioner Bolhuis the process on how ad hoc deployments work and informed him that Gubis Solutions ad hoc services were initiated by another department without complying with the SOP.
“I fully explained to Commissioner Bolhuis the process on how ad hoc deployments work... I further explained to Commissioner Bolhuis that Gubis Solutions, ad hoc services, were initiated by the Department of Water and Sanitation without complying and/or observing the SOP mentioned above.”
Other authorities including Chief of Police, Mr Bolhuis and Deputy Commissioner Spies, are seen as washing their hands of responsibility, leaving Director Malatji to face the burden of 82 million rand liability alone, despite their authority to issue cancellation instructions.
“Their responsibility was to give an instruction... They even had more power than Director Malatji... They want to paint Director Malatji black as if he had a benefit to derive from these transactions... They are washing their hands...”
Director Malatji is unaware if Commissioner Bolhuis responded to a query about how certain service allocations came about but confirmed a response was given to store or give background.
“I am not aware, but I am aware that Commissioner Bolhuis wrote to us to respond and or give a background as to how it came about that this were done, and we did that.”
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.”
Mr Bolhuis was acting in the position of Divisional Head, Asset Protection Services and was already appointed as Deputy Chief responsible for training.
“I take it that he was acting in the position of the Divisional Head ... he was already appointed as Deputy Chief responsible for training ...”
Director Malatji stated in 2024 his supervisor was the City Manager, not Bolhuis nor TMPD people.
“Because the 2024 year, you were still under, who was your supervisor then? It was not Bolhuis and it was not people in the TMPD. Yes. It was the City Manager.”
The oversight role does not extend to confirming deployment of warm bodies or payment processes; oversight starts higher up and ends before the financial office.
“you are not involved on that level, on confirming the warm bodies were actually deployed, but also you are not involved in the final leg where the payment processes are engaged ... oversight should have included the complete process till it leaves the financial office when it goes to supply chain management”
The process of oversight was flawed and could have been more hands-on especially with insufficient staff and systems; improvements occurred when Deputy Chief Spies got involved.
“in hindsight, I would say it is and it was a flawed process ...as he continues to involve himself more and more into this space and putting systems in place and instructions ... it is managed in a much better way”
The city has an internal audit function under the Group Audit and Risk Department (GAR) that conducts audits across all departments including Metro Police Department with a small component managing coordination and education on audit issues.
“We have internal audits in the city. It falls under the Group Audit and Risk Department, GAR, and they have the internal auditors. They do internal audits as they see fit in all departments ... in the Metro Police Department, we have a very small component that works closely with the internal auditors, but also looks internally to educate, to coordinate, and to manage possible audit issues”
While caretaker of APSS, the witness was not approached or made aware of any ad hoc allocation of sites to any security service provider in January and February 2025.
“While acting as the caretaker of APSS, specifically during January and February 2025, I was not approached nor made aware of any adhoc allocation of sites to any security”
Dr K E Madihlaba allocated two security sites to Gubis 85 Solutions (Pty) Ltd via notification letters dated 20 and 21 January 2025, deploying 24 security officers and patrol vehicles, with the total value being R1060345.02 per month.
“Dr K E Madihlaba allocated two sites to Gubis 85 solutions (Pty) Ltd through notification letters dated 21 January 2025 and 20 January 2025 respectively. These notification letters deployed 24 security officers per site, two patrol vehicles for one site and one patrol vehicle for another site. The total value attached to these allocated sites was R1060345.02 per month.”
An email sent on 2 October 2024 by Commissioner Bolhuis highlighted the importance and urgency of resolving the issue of non-payment to security service providers under APS.
“Please urgently advise on the slow (non-payment) of security service providers. What are the issues and how can we urgently resolve it? Your immediate attention to this will be highly appreciated.”
The term 'budget upliftment' is used in the City department to describe a request for additional funds upon realizing a department is running out of funds for a certain function.
“It is a term that we, Madam Commissioner, that we use in the City, in the department. It is when you realise early in the financial year that you are running out of funds for a certain function to complete, that you write a memo or report to the City Manager...”
The budget upliftment process starts in the department, not the CFO, but requires CFO consultation and approval before funds are released.
“When you do upliftment, it is not a process started by the CFO. It is a process you start in the department. We consult with the CFO... The Chief recommends, CFO recommends, it goes to the City Manager and is signed off.”
Someone in the department must have informed the CFO Gareth Mnisi that the budget upliftment was happening but the process was still holding because of the department.
“Someone is alerting him that it is still lying by us and we are hanging onto the document and not processing it, but I am speculating.”
There was a problem of Phiri only starting to be dealt with late, from January 2025 onwards, despite relevant documents and invoices existing earlier from at least October 2024.
“...we do not seem to be dealing with the problem of Phiri only in January 2025 or February and so on. This phenomenon of not submitting invoices and all relevant documents seem to have existed, at least when you look at this email, as it is discussed, as early as 20 October 2024...”
There might have been a long-standing process of manipulating systems, which could have been for financial gain or corruption, possibly ongoing even before the function returned to the Metro Police.
“...there could have been a long-standing process of manipulating whatever systems is in place, or lack of systems, for that matter. Whether that was for financial gain or for corruption... It could be that the systemic rot and corruption has been going on for quite some time, even before the function was returned to the Metro Police...”
Commissioner Bolhuis was involved in communication and supply of information, letters, reports and documentation to the City, CFO and BAC regarding the extension of the contract during the relevant period.
“I was involved in communication and supply of information, even letters, reports, documentation to the City and to the CFO and also to the BAC in regards to the extension of the contract, yes.”
There is a recurring request for additional funds to cover irregular ad hoc services in the contract, involving ongoing financial adjustments beyond the original budget uplift.
“there is a request for more funds the whole time... this is additional to that, and it is because it mentions ad hoc services”
Commissioner Bolhuis was the caretaker of the AP S during January and February and should have been informed about additional sites being added and their budget impact before Deputy Commissioner Dlamini was informed, but asserts he was copied on communications and was not consulted directly.
“you are the overseer, or the caretaker of the AP S in January and February... that is correct, Madam... I believe I am copied in most of these communications from the onset... I was the caretaker, it happened under my watch to inform me”
In January and February, 30 and 6 additional sites respectively were added without Commissioner Bolhuis's authorization or knowledge, raising questions about authority and consultation on these extensions.
“in the January month, 30 sites were added. In February, six sites were added... I do not see anywhere where you say who authorised this? I never authorised this. How come I was not told about this?”
Commissioner Bolhuis did not respond to the March 12 email flurry as the issue was already escalated to Deputy Chief Spies, who was instructed by the Chief to address it, meaning it was overtaken by events.
“by the time I saw the flurry of emails, was already at a point where the Chief has already given instruction to Deputy Chief Spies to address the matter... I did not respond to the email... it was overtaken already by events”
Deputy Chief Spies was instructed to cancel all ad hoc services, but the instruction did not address the additional sites added in January and February and who authorized them, an issue for Commissioner Bolhuis as supervisor.
“the instruction to Spies is that ad hoc services must be cancelled... it does not talk to what was added in January and February, and who added it and why, which is your issue... Spies issue is cancel all ad hoc services”
Commissioner Bolhuis acknowledges that sites were added in January and February without his knowledge and that he did not confront those responsible such as Malatji or his subordinates.
“in March know that sites have been added and people who added them did not have authority and they did not consult you, but you do not seem to have taken that up with either Malatji or any of the people below him... no, I have not”
Commissioner Bolhuis ceased being caretaker when Spies took over, after which Spies investigated past financial issues including invoices from prior months and gave evidence.
“at that period of time... I was no more the caretaker. Spies has taken over... he looked into that. He gave evidence to that”
Commissioner Bolhuis states that there was continuous consultation and collaboration on the issue between the Chief of Police, himself and Deputy Chief Spies from the onset of Spies' appointment to address the concerns.
“from the onset that Deputy Police Commissioner Spies was appointed, there was an ongoing consultative process between the Chief of Police, myself, and Deputy Chief Spies on an ongoing basis... many consultative processes”
Commissioner Bolhuis supported the upliftment of funds for security services due to recurring shortfalls in the budget process for security.
“I supported the upliftment of funds for security services because as mentioned earlier in my testimony, the short fall every year on the budget process for security services was a common thing that we have experienced.”
Commissioner Bolhuis did not and still does not support asking for additional funds for ad hoc security services due to the lack of a proper process, which now exists.
“I did not support and still do not support the asking for additional funds for adhoc services because I have explained in detail a few times now that although in my stint there was not a written process, now there is. A request must come from a department. There must be a process.”
Commissioner Bolhuis is appalled at the corruption taking place in the City of Tshwane and most municipalities and government departments and emphasizes the expected loyalty, ethics and service from public servants.
“I am appalled at the corruption taking place in the City of Tshwane and, for that matter, at most municipalities and government departments. We are public servants and it is expected of us to be loyal, ethical, and serve our people.”
Commissioner Bolhuis was overloaded with two and a half posts when given additional human resource functions, but it was considered the best decision under the circumstances by the Chief of Police and top management.
“You are already inundated with two and a half posts or positions and just on the human resource element... Would you say this was the best decision to add this transition to your tasks?... I think it was the best decision under the circumstances... The Chief of Police looked at this and looked at her situation with her top management... and determined that I would be the best suited candidate to deal with this...”
The Chief of Police giving the human resource function to Commissioner Bolhuis was an interim, semi-crisis management measure due to uncertainty and expected appointment of a Deputy Chief around October 2024, which eventually happened only in March next year.
“It would be typical for a Chief of Police to give such a function because it is interim to the Chief of Staff... We already expected as a department to appoint a Deputy Chief round about October 24 onwards... the appointment eventually only came in March the next year.”
There was a regular short budgeting process for security services at the City of Tshwane, causing under-budgeting in previous financial years and requiring a process to ensure funds allocation for service delivery throughout the financial year.
“We were under budget. So, then we would, and which we did, we would look at the finances, and we will draft a ... We had the 22 companies... Then once you determine in your projection that you are going to have a shortfall, it was clear to me that there was a regular, short budgeting process... Whether that was deliberate... I am not a CFO... It was cumbersome for us to notice again that this financial year that I was the caretaker or part of it we have under budget.”
Commissioner Bolhuis and Advocate Khumalo are cleared through the vetting process required for commissioners, implying others in the room should leave due to lack of clearance.
“I am cleared of all of those things. ... Both of us. Yes, we are cleared as Commissioner. So maybe the rest of the room must leave now.”
Different types of vetting exist for various positions; not everyone requires top-secret vetting, but Commissioner Bolhuis requires top-secret clearance due to his position.
“You can get different types of vetting. Not everyone will be vetted to top secret. In my capacity, I need top secret. Another person in another position in senior management might only need secret or something like that.”
Commissioner Bolhuis is responsible for training, innovation, research, analytics, and information management for the Metro Police department.
“Responsibilities as the Deputy Chief, training and innovation are mainly responsible for the Team PD Academy, where we train Metro Police officers, traffic wardens, other officials, as per our academy curriculum. I am further responsible for police innovation, which includes research, analytics, and information management for the department.”
Commissioner Bolhuis is responsible for managing unfair labour practice arbitrations at the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC) on behalf of the department and Chief of Police.
“I am further responsible for the management and coordination of unfair labour practices arbitrations at the South African Local Government Bargaining Council, SALGBC. This includes: attending step 3 grievances as per the COT collective agreement on behalf of the department/Chief of Police...”
Commissioner Bolhuis acted as caretaker for Asset Protection and Security Services (APSS) from 1 July 2024 to 28 February 2025 when the Deputy Chief post was vacant, managing high-level oversight and dealing with APSS relocation from the city manager's office to Metro Police Department.
“I was the caretaker for Asset Protection and Security Services, known as APSS, for the period 1 July 2024 to 28 February 2025, as the divisional head [Deputy Chief] post was vacant. The function was transferred from the office of the city manager back to the team as from 1 July 024. ...As the caretaker of APSS, I did high-level management and oversight over the division. Upon assuming this task, I had to deal with a relocation of the APSS from the office of the city manager to the TMPD.”
COMMISSIONER BOLHUISDay 86 · 08 Apr 2026Refers to: 2024-07 to 2025-02Location: city
Ad hoc security services requests were assessed through a security assessment and only approved after budget scrutiny and necessary approvals.
“We dealt with adhoc individually and provided services only with the necessary approvals, including documentation... we would receive a request from a service delivery department that they need security services at a specific place... assess that request... by doing a security assessment... if we agree with them, then we determine the type of security that needs to be placed... they need to provide us with a GLO or the service delivery component within the city, falling mainly under the COO, would have to look for money... last resort would be to approach the CFO to ensure that there is money for this...”
If the budget is sufficient, it would cover adhoc appointments, but due to limited funds, additional funds must be sought for adhoc services that are not semi-permanent.
“if the budget is sufficient, which it was never, ... then it would have covered adhoc as well. But due to limited funds available for a financial year... if it is not an adhoc service that has already been identified and has then become almost a semi-permanent situation, then no, you would not have funds available in that budget. You would have to look for additional funds...”
The APSS division manages about 5000 people with multiple roles, including Deputy Chief Training and Innovation, Chief of Staff, and coordination of grievances and arbitration matters.
“I have a full-time job position as the Deputy Chief Training and Innovation... I have got another full-time job as the Chief of Staff... I have got a part-time job in coordinating Step grievances and arbitration matters... In a department of about 5000 people...”
Invoices for security services contracts were required to be co-signed by Director Malatji after operational checks and then co-signed by the caretaker, as a management mechanism to ensure that no untoward activities appeared on paper.
“I required Director Malatji to provide, once invoices have been signed by the operational component and then signed off by himself, he had to bring those invoices to me for co-signing. So, he would approve the invoice after all the checks have been done and I would co-sign. That was just a management mechanism to ensure that, on paper, there is nothing untoward.”
The allocation of ad hoc security sites was an informal practice and required informing the caretaker's office due to potential operational, financial, and contractual impacts.
“The allocation of adhoc sites, it is not a written-down process, but it was the practise that at least I had in place that my office needs to be informed of adhoc sites, like that explanation I gave about Klipgat and others. Because of the possible operational impact, and I am talking about that later, but I can just say this, it had to be brought to my attention because of operational, financial, and contractua l impact.”
Commissioner Bolhuis did not mistrust the process of invoice co-signing at the time but later gave evidence that irregularities in invoices were identified by Director Veli Nwandule of Management Admin Support, who highlighted the need to follow a specific financial procedure that stopped invoices being brought back for co-signing by Bolhuis.
“I did not pick up anything immediately and I did not have any mistrust at that time. However, and I do give evidence about this later, when the director of MAS, Management Admin Support, Director Veli Nwandule, he indicated that there could be some irregularity within invoices. At that stage, the finance section has indicated both to me as the caretaker and to Director Malatji that they will have to follow a certain financial procedure, which then became the procedure they needed to follow, not bringing invoices back to me for co-signing. So that then stopped and that financial procedure that was implemented by the financial section was then followed. And then subsequently, the director of MAS, Nwandule, picked up their regularity because they will be in a better position to pick up on this because they have the contracts, the SLAs, the monthly expenditure, and if there is any further expenditure than what would have been the baseline from previous months or allocated to a certain service provider, they would pick it up. And subsequently, they did pick up.”
The Commissioner Bolhuis was informed about a report intended to facilitate the transition of the Asset Property Protection Service (APPS) from the City Manager's Office to the Tshwane Metro Police Department, which report was provided by Paledi Marota, received nine months late on 10 April 2025.
“The Chief of Police, Yolande Faro, testified that when she received an instruction that there has to be a transition of the APPS from the city manager's office to the TMPD's office, that she tasked you to oversee that process... she testified that she received this report, unfortunately, somehow nine months later, and this report came from a lady called Paledi Marota... The correct date would have been the 10th of April 2025... And lastly, on that score, you would have, at least at that stage, when this report came to your knowledge, you would have ceased acting or at least being a caretaker of the SP... That is correct. I already provided a full handover in writing in the month of March to the newly appointed Deputy Chief Spies.”
The report from the Office of the City Manager titled 'Reports on the Transfer of Asset Property Protection Services Unit from the Office of the City Manager to the Tshwane Metro Police Department' stated that the Executive Mayor had issued a letter on 15 April 2021 about the placement of the asset protection function and personnel in the City Manager's Office and that extensive consultation had taken place to ensure the seamless absorption of security guards.
“The purpose of this report is to transfer the Asset Property Protection Unit function from the Office of the City Manager to the Tshwane Metro Police Department temporarily with immediate effect... The Executive Mayor issued a letter dated 15 April 2021 titled Placement of Asset Protection Function and Personnel in City Manager's Office. The said letter stated the following. The implementation of the processes regarding the absorption of security guards is a critical deliverable for this administration. Extensive consultation and discussions have taken place on this matter to ensure it occurs seamlessly. It is for this reason that I took the decision to have this process placed and administered out of the City Manager's Office through the...”
The handover report regarding the Watchman Services budget was considered incomplete and insufficient, lacking detailed and historical information on budget reasons, allocation, and site coverage.
“I would have expected a handover report indicating to us as a department this, plus further historic information on the budget, why was the budget done the way it was done, why was it short budgeted for, what was the reasons, and what are the information - where is the information on all the sites, the sites that have been deemed critical ... it does not really touch on that. I find big holes in this report in hindsight.”
Commissioner Bolhuis and team did not receive the promised handover report from the city as agreed in a specific meeting with the MMC for community safety and others.
“We did have one specific meeting with the MMC for community safety ... where it was agreed upon that all the information would be made available to us and in writing, emails, reports, at a certain time and that was not forthcoming. I did not perhaps in hindsight make enough of a follow-up...”
Due to lack of a formal handover, Commissioner Bolhuis and his team started sourcing information themselves and initiated a new tender process for Watchman Services as the existing tender was expiring.
“We started sourcing the information ourselves, we looked at what we had in front of us, and we were very busy starting the new tender as well, because we had to immediately, I think we started in August, immediately start with a new tender because the current tender was to expire soon and it is quite a process in the city to start a new tender.”
Commissioner Bolhuis admits that the handover process for Watchman Services was not done in an acceptable manner and that they could have done better in managing the transition and budget handover.
“I am a very hard person on myself. Have we done the best? No, I do not think we have. Could we have done much better? Yes, we could definitely have done better. Could I personally have done more? I should have. And I stand for what I have done and what I have not done... The handover process is not done in a way that, as you testified, in the most, one would have said, acceptable manner...”
Commissioner Bolhuis claims elements within the city and department use system processes as mechanisms for corruption and wrongdoing, while they themselves were decent and loyal officials used unfairly.
“There are elements within the city and in our department that use the processes and things in place. They use that as a mechanism for their corruption and for their ill-doings. We were used as decent, law-abiding, loyal officials... We were used because it happened under our nose. And it is shameful.”
It was understood by Commissioner Bolhuis' team that they were supposed to receive a handover report, but it was not forthcoming; follow-up on the matter was insufficient, and they had to improvise to find information themselves.
“It was understood by us that we were supposed to get a handover report... but it was not forthcoming. I did not perhaps in hindsight make enough of a follow-up, but if you are thrown in the deep end with such a thing, you find your way and that is what we did.”
Commissioner Bolhuis states that upon the transfer of APSS unit, he inherited the tender TMPD 02-2016-017 related to the supply of physical security services in the City of Tshwane, starting from March 2022.
“I inherited the above tender with the transfer of APSS. In this tender, the city appointed 22 security service providers to supply the physical security [guarding] services to protect the property, asset, and personnel of the city of Tshwane for a period of three years, with effect from March 2022.”
Between January 2025 and February 2026, purchase orders were created for ad hoc security services from Gubis 85 Solutions (Pty) Ltd, amounting to approximately R13,635,333.60 inclusive of VAT, for services allegedly provided during Commissioner Bolhuis' tenure as caretaker of APSS.
“The purchase orders created out of this process were registered on the TMPD system only on the following day, 6 March 2025. These included purchase orders for ad hoc services, ostensibly procured from Gubis 85 Solutions (Pty) Ltd. In the aggregate amount of R1363533.60. ... Though these purchase orders were created and loaded on 5 and 6 March 025, after my acting stint as caretaker of APSS, some of these purchase orders refers to work and services allegedly provided during my tenure as caretaker.”
Commissioner Bolhuis denies giving permission or being aware of the skewed allocation of work favoring Gubis 85 Solutions during January and February 2025 or involving any other company in this manner.
“I reiterate that I never gave permission nor was I aware of such allocation of work to Gubis 85 Solutions (Pty) Limited during the time in question and in particular January 2025, February 2025 or to any other company.”
Commissioner Bolhuis expresses uncertainty about the financial procurement process, noting that invoices normally lead to the creation of purchase orders and payments processed by the CFO's office, but is unsure if purchase orders are created after the invoice or beforehand.
“I am not a financial expert, but I am not hundred percent sure about that process. I would assume that once the sites have been allocated to a service provider you would receive an invoice. Then the invoice in the department will go to the financial section, a purchase order would be created and then I believe it goes to supply chain management to the buyers to do something and then payment from the CFO's office.”
Commissioner Bolhuis states he does not play a direct role in how purchase orders are loaded onto the SAP system, nor how the financial process moves payments through the different stages including supply chain management and the CFO's office.
“I do not play a role how it is put on the system, we as a city use a SAP system, I do not play a role how it moves from the finance section to supply chain management, and I do not play a role how it moves from supply chain management to the CFO and his office for actual payment.”
Commissioner Bolhuis can make enquiries about late payments but is not physically part of the financial payment process, which follows MFMA and supply chain management procedures of the City of Tshwane.
“I can, as a senior official, make enquiries about late payments, why this has not been done, whilst all invoices submitted, those kinds of things, but not physically part of that financial process.”
Commissioner Bolhuis affirms that he had no involvement and was not informed about the allocation of ad hoc service sites, noting that internal operating procedures do not require his knowledge or approval for such allocations.