BAC

Director Malatji was not aware of a BEC meeting on 29 May 2025 and does not remember becoming aware of it later, and thus did not participate in tender recommendations after 28 May 2025.

“I was not aware of that meeting ... I do not remember becoming aware of it ... and I presume that in the recommendations, you would not be aware of, you would not have participated in those recommendations to the BAC? Correct.”

Adv Chaskalson SC asserts that after the bid closing date of 2 October, no one could legally change any bid documents and bids that were not compliant would not have been passed by the BAC.

“The bids closed on 2 October ... if a bid document was compliant, it would go through the BAC. If not compliant, it would not go through the BAC”

The CFO intends to look at the bid documents to check if bidders were compliant, which he was not allowed to do and admitted he could not see the documents until the first meeting of the BAC.

“He is going to look at the bid documents to see if these bidders were compliant. And he is not allowed to do that. He has admitted he cannot see any of these documents until the first meeting of the BAC.”

Mr Mnisi confirms that the BAC does not have the power to cancel a tender; it only has power to recommend cancellation, whereas the accounting officer has the power to cancel.

“The BAC has power to recommend, the accounting officer has the power to cancel. He has the authority not to agree to the recommendation that the BAC has.”

Mr Mnisi states the City Manager delegates powers to the BAC in the form of appointment letters when delegating his powers.

“The City Manager delegates that in the form of appointment letters when he is delegating his powers to the BAC.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledges he does not have information on where the power to undo an entire tender process from the bid specification stage lies legally but confirms it rests with the City Manager who delegates to the BAC.

“I do not have that information with me at present ... I can confirm to you that that power by law rests with the City Manager. He delegates that to the BAC.”

The BAC recommended cancellation of TMPD-3 because the specification did not include PSIRA guidelines, which was a valid reason according to the evidence.

“the reason that the BAC recommended the cancellation of TMPD-3, one of the reasons is the specification does not say anything about PSIRA guidelines, and you say that was a valid reason for cancellation.”

The BAC accepted that there were no minutes on 29 May when scoring took place, but accepted that a document purporting to be minutes of 28 May recorded a recommendation for the tender.

“The BAC accepted that there was no evidence of minutes of 29 May... a document purporting to be minutes of 28 May, a recommendation was made for this tender... The BAC accepted that... on 28 May, a recommendation was made.”

The BAC functions are restricted to oversight of procurement processes and cannot make recommendations outside their powers, referring curable matters back to BEC.

“From a BAC perspective, our functions are clear. We cannot overstep those functions... We can not make recommendations that are outside our powers... If these were curable, what BAC would have done is refer the matter back to the BEC and say, BEC, these are the seven issues that you need to cure. These are curable.”

Mr Mnisi did not instruct any investigation outside of the BAC.

“No. Outside the BAC, I could not. I did not.”

Mr Mnisi asserts there was no prima facie evidence of fraud at the time except for the finding of irregularity, and that if there was evidence, the Probity Team would have raised it and empowered the BAC to act.

“At this point in time, there is no prima facie evidence, except for a finding. The finding that is raised is that as the Probity Team would pick this up, if there was prima facie evidence, the Probity Team would have raised it and made those attachments accordingly, which would have then empowered me or us, as BAC, to act on that”

The BAC scoring sheets are dated and signed on 29 May, but there are no minutes supporting that a BAC meeting was held that day, which raises alarms.

“the BAC scoresheets are dated and signed on the 29th of May. However, there are no minutes to support the assumption that there was a BAC meeting on the 29th of May, except that it raises alarms for us”

Mr Mnisi agrees that the anomaly concerning BAC minutes and scoring constitutes fraud and needs investigation, though he does not yet have prima facie evidence to fully conclude this.

“I am agreeing with you that when we are having more discussions and deliberating further on this matter, it does seem like it is constituting fraud ... I am just at a stage where I do not have prima facie evidence as a result of this finding to conclusive ... I agree with that. My answer is yes.”

Mr Mnisi says that the BAC decision to cancel a procurement process was confined to its roles and responsibilities and that more deliberations may change the perspective.

“And those alarms lead to a cancellation confined to the roles and responsibilities of BAC ... we are discussing this matter now, of course I need to further have prima facie evidence to escalate the matter further, but I am agreeing with you that when we are having more discussions ... it does seem like it is constituting fraud”

Mr Mnisi explains that within the BAC there are subject matter experts including legal experts, and the BAC should have made a fraud-related recommendation in hindsight, but the cancellation was limited to procurement matters.

“With your permission ... at the point of BAC conducting our work, this led to cancellation. ... Within our BAC, there are a variety of subject matter experts, including a legal expert ... In hindsight, the BAC should have made a recommendation of that nature ... the basis of us cancelling that, Commissioner, was confined to the roles and responsibilities of BAC, confined to procurement-related processes”

The BAC proposed additional measures to safeguard procurement processes after identifying missing bid documents and issues not noted in the Probity report.

“we escalate the additional three matters that are discussed and are picked up ... within additional findings that we are raising at the BAC, we propose additional measures to safeguard the procurement process ... the test of safeguarding documents was failed ... we then make a mitigation measure as well, which says you need to enhance and safeguard documents in the next process”

Mr Mnisi says mitigating measures were put in place by BAC that were not identified in the Probity exercise, and that they felt it was their duty to do so beyond the Probity report recommendations.

“We put mitigating measures everywhere. These mitigating measures are ones that were not identified. ... Hence, we felt it was a duty for us ... to put additional measures on board, over and above what we have already seen from Probity reports, which have also made certain recommendations in summary.”

Mr Mnisi agrees that BAC confined itself to procurement-related matters and did not initiate investigation of the apparent fraud at the point of adjudication, but acknowledges in hindsight they should have raised it.

“we confined ourselves to procurement-related matters. In hindsight, I am agreeing that as a BAC, we should have considered that and it is a matter that should have been raised.”

Decisions of the BAC (Bid Adjudication Committee) only officially record specific reasons, while additional concerns may exist but are not repeated in formal reports.

“If one looks at the resolution, which is the decision of the committee, these are the only reasons given ... The BAC report is just a summary of the discussions that were raised ... The BAC report as well as the actual Probity report are part and parcel of the entire pack ... The BAC report does not mean they are disregarded”

The Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) conducts business by summarizing findings without repeating all underlying details in official resolutions, leaving some relevant reasons out of the formal record.

“This is how BAC operates and that is how we do the business of Council ... there is additional matters that were not raised in the Probity, but the Probity report is an attachment ... So you do not disregard, we just do not repeat them”

The tender document informed bidders that submission of firearm licenses was mandatory and that this was a basis on which BAC (Bid Adjudication Committee) evaluates bids.

“That bid document does inform them that you must submit firearm licences. I do not see why you have a problem with the fact that elsewhere that document has said something to the effect that some areas will not require armed guards.”

The contradiction in the tender requirements was accepted by the BAC and considered a valid reason that could affect the evaluation of the bid and potentially lead to litigation, justifying cancellation of the tender.

“It was assessed. It was accepted that this could be a contradiction that would affect the evaluation of this bid.”

The contradiction regarding areas that require armed guards versus those that do not was seen as a valid flaw by the BAC and the witness, but counsel disputes that it was a material irregularity justifying cancellation of the tender.

“At the time when the report was being considered, this was a valid contradiction from mine and the BAC's perspective and this was a valid flaw that needed to be highlighted. ... This is not a material irregularity at all. Certainly not one that in its own right would justify cancellation of a tender.”

Mr Mnisi states the tender was cancelled by the BAC (Bid Adjudication Committee) in line with reasons he provided, and that the probity report was a critical document considered in the cancellation.

“Ended up cancelling the tender in line with the reasons that I provided ... The BAC said, took into account, in the resolution were referenced the probity a number of times ... That gives consistency that the probity report is part and parcel of the key reasons why we cancelled the tender”

The failure to refer to PSIRA guidelines in the bid specifications was regarded by BAC as a material irregularity that justified cancellation of the bid.

“there was a consensus and agreement amongst members of BAC, chaired by myself, that this should be highlighted as an additional matter that must be improved upon and would lead to the material irregularities and cancellation”

BAC identified the absence of a clause on PSIRA pricing guidelines as a necessary additional matter and a shortcoming that would lead to material irregularity for cancellation.

“but when we looked at it at BAC, it was a necessary additional matter to bring onboard as a shortcoming which would lead to that”

The City documents showed a Department's request to BAC for approval to grant price escalations subject to PSIRA rate calculations despite the tender being closed.

“on page 38... a request from the Department... coming to BAC saying we want to extend this bid because the previous tender had not closed... recommendation number 4 states that they also want an approval to be granted for any envisaged price escalation subject to verifiable annual cost calculation in line with Private Security Industry Regulation Authority, PSIRA, rates”

There were three reasons stated by BAC for tender cancellation which were considered bad reasons; the speaker does not agree with the denial that these were the only reasons stated by BAC.

“each of the three reasons stated by BAC ... are bad reasons ... I do not agree to that. These were not the only reasons stated by BAC to be considered”

Mr Mnisi identifies specific references to the probity report in the BAC resolution documentation and stresses its importance and contextual reading.

“On page 29...Material irregularities identified by probity...The probity report was considered...The BEC interpretation changed based on probity report...”

The City Manager, an attorney by profession, assessed the entire pack including the probity report and concurred with the reasons within the B A C report and probity report supporting the cancellation to avoid irregular expenditure by the city.

“The city manager by profession is an attorney as well, so he would have seen issues of this nature, and he would have probably been aware more than I would have been as a finance individual of any law-related matter... He assessed the contents of those findings as per the probity report, then agreed that the reasons within the BAC report, coupled with the probity report, are sufficient. We do not want to incur irregular expenditure as a city.”

Mr Mnisi states that the BAC (Bid Adjudication Committee) is a panel-based decision making body, which enhances objectivity as multiple subject matter experts participate in the process.

“The BAC is a panel-based decision-making body. It is not one individual. There are a number of subject matter experts who sit throughout that process, meaning objectivity is further enhanced.”

Adv Baloyi argues that the committee decision logic negates the need for declaration of interest since it is a committee decision overriding any individual's bias.

“On your logic, and the logic that the BAC is a committee and a decision that comes out of that is a committee decision, and therefore an individual could not impact the outcome ... even if Bheki were your brother ... that would not disqualify you or require you to make a declaration because the BAC is a committee decision. ... That is the effect of what you are saying, and I am saying that cannot be correct.”

ADV CHASKALSON says the conduct of Mr Mnisi sitting on the BAC (Bid Adjudication Committee) after Sergeat Nkosi's attempt to rig the tender renders the bid capable of being reviewed and set aside by any losing bidder.

“you were involved in Sergeant Nkosi's attempts to rig this tender, your conduct in continuing to sit on the BAC as a matter of law renders this bid capable of being reviewed and set aside by any losing bidder”

Deputy Chief Dlamini had no legitimate role to play in the tender award process, although he may have assisted with compiling specifications.

“As far as I am concerned, he was not part of the process ... maybe he could have assisted in terms of compiling specifications, I am not sure. But in terms of the process that was followed, he was not part of that ... Once bids were in and before the BAC, he had no legitimate role to play”

Adv Baloyi SC alleges that Mr Mnisi was involved in promoting or rooting for the commercial success of Ngaphesheya in a tender process in Tshwane, which is problematic for his position as BAC Chairperson and should have been disclosed.

“you are promoting or rooting for the commercial success, financial success of Ngaphesheya to succeed in that tender... it is an outright case of illegality, in fact, in the one where you are participating in the corruption of a tender process... That should have disqualified you to sit as a BAC Chair in Tshwane or, in fact, it should have declared.”

Mr Mnisi confirms the contract award to Elshadai and Ngaphesheya was made after a thorough verification and following a decision of the BAC on 25 September 2025.

“Those two, Ngaphesheya and Elshadai, are two of seven bidders who ultimately get awarded a contract through the tender more than six months later pursuant to a decision taken by the meeting of the BAC on 25 September 2025 that you chaired ... That award takes place pursuant to a decision of the BAC on 25 September at a meeting that you Chair ... After a thorough process has been followed, whatever verification of external probity contains”

Mr Mnisi knew that tender documents should be under lock and key at the BEC and could not be accessed before serving at the BAC.

“Page 211 of 242 should be under lock and key at BEC and you should have no sight of those documents until they served before you at the BAC.”

ADV Baloyi SC accuses Mr Mnisi of alerting Bheki to a tender to encourage submission and coordination, implying improper conduct.

“To me this looks like you are alerting him to a tender and you wanted him to submit and you needed to get together so that you can discuss what you are discussing about completing that tender . And you are Chairperson of the BAC that is going to be adjudicating that very bid and you see nothing wrong with that .”

The Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) makes evaluations and recommendations to the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC). On three occasions for this tender, BAC referred matters back to BEC for refinement.

“The Bid Evaluation Committee presents its evaluation outcomes and recommendations to the Bid Adjudication Committee ... On three occasions for this tender ... the matter was referred back to the BEC ... the Bid Evaluation Committee duly considered the BEC's input and effected the necessary corrections”

The final report of GM17, recommended by the Chairperson of BAC, confirmed that all probity concerns were adequately addressed and bidder number 2 was compliant.

“The issue where a probity concern, which was identified and there was confirmation received from the probity team in the form of Forensic Assurance Review Report as an addendum, attached by the external independent verifier, that bidder number 2 was indeed compliant.”

The probity report is conducted by an independent external legal firm which validates all compliance related to procurement and bidder evaluations for the City of Tshwane, reducing irregular expenditures.

“it is a mirror exercise by a team of external independent individuals who do exactly what the BAC has done”

Bidders number 2 and 21 were found non-compliant at site inspection stage despite BAC requiring an addendum report to ensure completeness.

“independent individuals ... confirm that two bidders, 21 and 2, are not compliant at this stage ... BAC had referred this report back and required an addendum report ... that this matter had indeed been completed”

The probity report concludes that findings cast doubt on the integrity of the tender process in the city, indicating significant irregularities that could expose the city to litigation, but BEC may correct identified defects before final recommendation.

“The findings cast doubt on the integrity of the tender process undertaken in the city. While they are significant enough to make the process irregular and expose the city litigation, the BEC may still correct the identified defects before submitting this report to the BAC for final recommendation.”

The probity steps are conducted sequentially after BAC has concluded its work, ensuring orderly progression from administrative to site inspections.

“After BAC has concluded, Chairperson ... Yes.”

GM13 is a BEC report that was referred back to BAC for refinement and alignment with supply chain management requirements.

“GM 13 is a BEC report that was referred back ... to the BAC for further clarification, refinement, and alignment with the applicable supply chain management requirements”

The final BEC report GM14 addressed concerns raised by BAC and was approved as the final report.

“GM 14 ... is the final BEC report that was considered and approved. BEC is now coming on board and saying we have dealt with these concerns ... these are the responses ... it is the final BEC report that was considered and approved”

The final administrative compliance and mandatory checks for a bid happen before a decision is made, and the BAC chair and members only receive the reports on the morning of the BAC meeting, not before.

“that is the final stage, and at that final stage, all administrative compliance, all mandatory issues, pre-compliance, physical site inspection, they are completed. There is nothing to check at that point. Hence, I am clearly stating in my statement that it was of the mistaken belief that I would be in a process to check and advise on where this process is and how far it is. Due to the delegation of authorities, segregation of duties, the report comes to me on the 4th of September for the first time. Literally, on the morning of the BAC, those are the systems that you put on board. I, as the BAC Chair, nor any of my members in BAC have access to any of those documents except on the morning when we sit at the Bid Adjudication Committee.”

The BAC first sees the full set of documents including details of disqualified bidders for the first time only on the morning of the BAC meeting.

“Does what serve at the BAC that you see for the first time, these set of documents or report , does it include information about these were the bidders ? Yes . These were disqualified with the detail of those bidders, and these are the reasons . Is it that kind of information that serves before the BAC ? Yes, Chair, it is. It is the complete pack that is dictated for in the summary of events on paragraph 74.”

BAC did not allow another extension for the tender because the 15 percent variation was depleted and advised the department to put systems in place for advertising and fast-tracking the process; TMPD still required the service resulting in a deviation request which BAC scrutinised and found the procurement process and probity delays were causes but highlighted poor planning and irregular expenditure.

“BAC did not and could not allow another extension on the basis that, firstly, we advised the department to ensure that they put systems in place to advertise the tender and fast-track the appointment process, one. Secondly, the 15 percent variation was depleted...within that service...came to BAC asking for an outright deviation...the deviation report is articulated as due to the reasons of finalising the procurement process and delays in the probity report...However, taking into account the above, there is a huge element of poor planning that will be considered by oversight bodies or auditors like the Auditor General. The BAC then recommends that this will attract Regulation 32, meaning it will be irregular expenditure...It is poor planning. It will be irregular expenditure. It must be investigated as such.”

Delays in finalising the tender process meant TMPD requested another extension as Section 36 outside deviation which BAC approved, but deficiencies in supply chain management made the expenditure irregular.

“The reasons why there have been delays and that motivates for this extension is a result of the probity process currently undertaken. It has not been finalised. It is still in the process of being validated. Hence, they came back and they asked for another extension in the form of a section 36 outside deviation. Similarly, BAC approves this and provides a similar recommendation that the service is indeed key. We do not dispute that from the department. However, supply chain management prescripts and the law, there has been deficiencies that have been identified. There is nowhere that we can account to this not being irregular expenditure.”

TMPD representatives repeatedly requested extensions for the tender process between June and November due to delays in processes, with BAC approving but recognizing these as outright deviations attracting irregular expenditure.

“Mr Vusi Mabona, also a delegated official from TMPD, supported by the Deputy Chief Revo Spies, comes to BAC to ask for another extension...tenders still not being finalised due to the various processes that are still being undertaken...The department motivates. They tell BAC that they are aware that it will attract Regulation 32...this is not an extension, it is an outright deviation appointment...it will attract irregular expenditure...we are referring it to the relevant authorities for further investigation...we need to disclose this in the city's annual financial statements.”

The process for extension of expired bids begins with user departments submitting formal requests to the Bid Adjudication Committee where MR MNISI serves as Chairperson, and the BAC makes recommendations but does not take final decisions; final approval rests with the accounting officer.

“The process, Chair, commences with the user department submitting a formal request for extension to the Bid Adjudication Committee , which I serve as the Chairperson. The Bid Adjudication Committee makes recommendations and does not take any final decisions firstly. Secondly, the recommendations are made by BAC and are not decisions of any specific individual who serve on that committee. ... The final decision in this respect, of course, of approval of any such extensions does rest with the accounting officer.”

On 20 February 2025, Mr Veli Nwandule, an official delegated by TMPD, requested an extension for TMPD02 services at BAC, which was not granted.

“on the 20th of February 2025, an official who is delegated by TMPD comes to BAC, Mr Veli Nwandule, requests for an extension. This extension, Chair, is not granted.”

BAC raised significant exceptions regarding the extension requests, noting that budget issues are not their concern and that additional funds cannot be requested from BAC but must be addressed with the accounting officer or during the budget period.

“BAC raise significant exceptions on these requests that are being brought board. First of all, Chair, budget issues are not considered by BAC. ... You cannot come to BAC and ask for additional funds. That is a process that you need to undertake either with the accounting officer or during the budget period.”

The request for price escalation is completely out of the purview of BAC.

“as for price escalation, which is something completely out of the purview of BAC.”

The approval for upliftment of funds and additional request for R227 million was outside the purview of BAC and R227 million amount was unclear to BAC; also, failure to re-advertise the tender on time indicated poor planning by BAC.

“the approval for upliftment of funds and an additional request for R227 million was outside the purview of BAC. Thirdly, an amount of R227 million then was not clear to us, Chair. ... We also noted that failure to re-advertise the tender on time indicated a massive element of poor planning from the BAC perspective...”

On 27 February, Mr Veli Nwandule, supported by Deputy Chief Umashi Dlamini, came to BAC to clarify previously rejected issues regarding the extension application.

“On the 27th of February. Mr Veli Nwandule comes to BAC, supported by the Deputy Chief of Umashi Dlamini, for a request or to clarify on the issues that have previously been rejected on this particular bid.”

TMPD officials clarified to BAC that their contract was still valid until 28 February 2024 and did not require a request for deviation despite BAC's concern that the contract had expired.

“the previous indications stated that the contract had expired was correct and therefore the report stated that the tender was still valid until 28th of February 2024 and therefore does not require a request for deviation. ... They then clarified to us by providing the SLA that this tender was still valid.”

Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for all 22 bidders confirmed the contract commencement date as 1 March 2022, despite initial concerns raised by BAC.

“The committee requested that the department to provide the SLAs stipulating the commencement date of the 1st of March for all 22 bidders ... confirming that the contract commenced on the 1st of March 2022.”

On 26 June and 5 September 2025, Deputy Chief Revo Spies came to BAC requesting extension applications on TMPD tender TMPD022016-2017, which were not standard extension applications but Regulation 6 Supply Chain Management requests and outright deviations to appoint the same bidders.

“there are two instances where the Deputy Chief Revo Spies comes to BAC on the 26th of June 2025 and the 5th of September 2025, requesting for an extension application on the TMPD tender under scrutiny being TMPD022016-2017. ... This does not come as an extension application anymore. It comes as a Regulation 6 Supply Chain Management request. It is an outright deviation to appoint the same bidders.”

The probity report identified 13 issues, including absence of BEC meeting minutes on 29 March 2025 and missing scoresheet for member Mr Tshukudu PMalatji, causing concerns about evaluation quorum and procedural integrity.

“there were a number of issues ... amongst these issues, they conducted a review ... First of all, the BEC scoresheets dated and signed on the 29th of March ... however, there were no minutes to support the assumption that there was a BEC meeting on the 29th ... also no scoresheets for one of the BEC members, Mr Tshukudu PMalatji ... it gave further guidance to BAC that there might have been a quorum issue”

After probity consultants confirmed their concerns were addressed, the BAC awarded the tender recommending its award to bidder.

“after receiving confirmation from the probity consultants that their concerns have been addressed, the BAC awards the tender, recommends the award of the tender.”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini denies exerting influence on the extension of a security tender; intervention was requested by the Chief of Police after the BAC had not approved the extension report presented by Director Nwandule.

“The second assertion which was made by DCS Spies is that I have influenced the extension of the security tender through the CFO. It is incorrect.”

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.”

The bid for the new tender was advertised with a closing date in mid-February, and due to a large number of bidders, the bid evaluation process could not be completed by 28 February 2025, leading to a recommendation to extend the original tender.

“the closing date was in the middle of February. So it has not yet been concluded by 28 February. ... The bid evaluation process and the BAC process could not be concluded in time. So a report was then submitted to the BAC before the tender expired. And this report was then to extend the original tender to 2016/2017 and it was submitted to the BAC”

The City has introduced a probity process as a second evaluation to detect wrongdoing in tenders, which further causes delays and can lead to cancellation if wrongdoing is found.

“The City has introduced a process called probity. So now it will happen that the BEC will evaluate and do all of this work . Then probity will be the group audit and risk ... They will redo the complete process of the BEC to verify that the BEC did not crook ... Probity could found wrongness ... the report will actually state that there was wrongness and it will be cancelled again. So it is a problematic process of delays that happen because of volumes that is involved.”

There is a suggestion in chats that the Chairperson of the BAC, Mr Mnisi, was influenced to ensure there is no award and that extensions result in incumbents continuing services, potentially indicating that approvals may be simulated rather than genuine.

“Some of which suggested that it was suggested to Mr Mnisi that make sure that there is no award and that there are extensions the upshot of which would obviously be that the incumbents continue rendering services... So the short point I want to make is that unbeknown to a City Manager, the accounting officer, the possibility cannot be discounted that they may actually be signing off on something that is simulated.”

The BAC chaired by Mr Mnisi awarded a security tender 1/24-25 related to land invasions and land protection to Sergeant Nkosi's brother's company.

“he chaired the BAC in respect of tender 1/24-25 , which was the security tender in relation to land invasions and land protection that was ultimately awarded to your brother's company”