There is a dispute about the instructions given by Mr Malatji regarding tender TMPD3, which is related to the probity report and court order involving the appointment of two contractors.
“there is some dispute about, about having been given to Mr Malatji ... it is just the issue of Mr Malatji's presence in a BEC meeting ... it was just on his view about the cancellation of that tender... the probity report that was, that in relation to tender 3, TMPD3 ... the appointment of the 2 contractors by a court”
The draft admin report sent by Deputy Chief Dhlamini was a working document prepared by admin staff to assist the BEC and was not publicly accessible at the time because the City of Tshwane website was off.
“It is a draft administrative report... they need a close out report of all the bidders... It is a working document... the website was off when they already loaded this document on the web”
Deputy Chief Dhlamini admits that the draft admin report is not a BEC report, and it contains the same information that would be available on the website once it is operational again; it was provided because the website was offline.
“It is not a confidential document. It is not a BEC report... the website was off. Then they requested the report, the close out report that they were provided with this draft admin report because it contains the same information that was going to be accessed on there”
Deputy Chief Dhlamini admitted that Nico was communicating with Victor, believed to be the Chair of the BEC, providing him with a list of companies to be given preferred bidder status for the TMPD01 tender.
“Nico had been communicating with Victor and had told Victor that these seven companies ... are the companies that should get the tender ... Nico had given Victor a mandate to appoint seven companies for this bid.”
Deputy Chief Dhlamini confirmed that Nico claimed to have gone to the Chair of the BEC and given him a mandate to appoint seven companies for this bid.
“Nico is now telling you that he has gone to the Chair of the BEC and given him a mandate to appoint seven companies for this bid ... that is what he said.”
Sergeant Nkosi wanted to give the list of companies to the CFO to check if they comply with tender requirements, although the CFO is not a member of the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC).
“Sergeant Nkosi requested me that he wants to give them to the CFO to check for him the companies. He indicated that he wants to check with the CFO if they comply, they meet all the requirements.”
Deputy Chief Dhlamini acknowledged it was not possible for the CFO to check compliance before the BEC had finished its business and made a recommendation.
“the CFO has no lawful access to the documents until the BEC has finished its business and made a recommendation”
Mr Mnisi confirmed that the recommendation was aimed at enhancing the procurement processes because proper safeguards had not been implemented leading up to 23 October 2025.
“We have BEC, and as a BEC, we have to make recommendations that will enhance the procurement processes ... proper measures and controls to safeguard documents had not been implemented in the time leading up to 23 October 2025”
Mr Mnisi clarified that documents were lost or could not be found between Probity and BEC after the Probity process was done during the transfer process.
“documents were lost or could not be found between Probity and BEC after the process was done ... it was between the transfer process where the Probity report was available”
Mr Mnisi agreed with the statement that no scoresheet was received for BEC member Mr Tshukudu Malatji, which compromised the integrity of the evaluation process.
“No scoresheets were received for BEC member Mr Tshukudu Malatji ... The absence of scoring from one member undermines the integrity of the evaluation process and compromises fairness and consistency”
Members of BEC must be accountable for safeguarding certain documents and there were major shortcomings identified at some point in time.
“this is where now members of BEC must be accountable for safeguarding certain documents. And these are the major shortcomings that were picked up at this point in time.”
The BEC met on numerous days from 24 March to 7 May 2025, with a meeting on 28 May recommending the tender award.
“the BEC met on numerous days starting on the 24th of March and ending on the 7th of May. Ending on the 7th of May is incorrect because there was a meeting of 28 May where the recommendation was made.”
There were anomalies regarding BEC scoresheets dated 29 May with no minutes to support a meeting on that date, which are uncurable and suggest issues in the tender process.
“BEC scoresheets are dated 29 May. However, there are no minutes to support the assumption that there was a BEC meeting on the 29th of May. This is not curable.”
Minutes of 28 May might exist but could be incorrectly dated, implying the recommendation could not have been made before scoring.
“What if it turns out, as it seems to be, that there were, in fact, minutes that minutes were just incorrectly dated 28 May because minutes of 28 May reflect the recommendation?”
Normally, Probity Reporting Team and BEC meet before reports are finalized and findings are put towards them, allowing BEC to provide supporting evidence if disputing findings.
“Probity Reporting Team as well as the BEC meet before the reports are finalised. Findings are put towards them. When findings are put towards them, the BEC has got the opportunity to provide the relevant supporting evidence if they are disputing a particular finding from Probity.”
In one case TMPD-1, Probity Team indicated two instances of disqualifying a bidder due to missing audited financial statements and a missing five-ton truck, and BEC provided evidence to Probity to amend confirmation letters accordingly.
“We had a discussion on TMPD-1, on the Probity report, where the Probity Team came on board and clearly indicated there are two instances where we are disqualifying this bidder... as a result of the audited financial statements not being there and as a result of the five-ton truck not being there. Probity Team provided the relevant evidence to – no, apologies. The BEC team provided the necessary evidence to the Probity Team, convinced them accordingly, and amended confirmation letter was provided.”
There is a major deficiency with minutes not being available which is key to ensure tender legitimacy in the process, and the minutes were not there for this case despite internal discussions and arrangements.
“There was a major deficiency in terms of minutes not being available, which are key part and parcel of the process in order to ensure that a tender is legitimate. That was not there in this case... The minutes were not there.”
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.”
There were matters and findings in this tender that were uncurable without committing fraud such as backdating of minutes and recomputing scoresheets that were not present, making the tender uncurable.
“There were matters and findings that were uncurable without committing fraud. And that fraud will be backdating minutes and re-computing scoresheets that were not there. Hence, this tender was uncurable.”
If a recommendation was made on 28 May and scoring done on 29 May, this implicates BEC members in possible fraud for participating in making irregular recommendations.
“If the recommendation was made on 28 May and the scoring was done on 29 May, you have a series of members of the BEC who are participating in a fraud.”
The BEC accepted that a recommendation was made in a meeting on 28 May while scoring took place on 29 May, which is irregular and an anomaly.
“You accept that the recommendation was made in a meeting on the 28th and scoring took place on scoresheets dated the 29th... Those are exactly their irregularities that we picked up. This is an anomaly. It cannot be like that.”
Sergeant Nkosi received a draft administrative report related to tender TMPD-3 from someone inside the BEC process on 25 March, which was not supposed to be accessible to him.
“on the 25th of March, Sergeant Nkosi sent you this document...a draft report of the BEC on this tender...It is a draft prepared by someone inside the BEC process”
There was no legitimate basis for Sergeant Nkosi to have access to the draft administrative report; he could have obtained the closing register published on the website instead.
“there was no need for him to get this. He could have just got the closing register, which would have been published. It was there on the website. That would have been the best document to get.”
Sergeant Nkosi had some unknown source inside the BEC who gave him documents related to the tender TMPD-3.
“the obvious inference to draw from the fact that Sergeant Nkosi sent you this document is that he had someone inside the BEC who was giving him documents.”
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...”
Mr Mnisi became aware of attempts to influence the tender through mandates given at the BEC level, involvement of General Dlamini, and knowledge of meetings discussing such interference.
The mandate was given by 'Nico' and assigned to Victor, who is chairperson of the evaluation committee and BEC, related to the tender for seven companies.
“the mandate was given by someone called Nico. Victor is a chairperson of this evaluation committee. He is the Chairperson of the BEC and he has been given a mandate. Seven companies. Victor has been given a mandate to make sure that these seven companies get the tender.”
Mr Mnisi did not send any written message to Sergeant Nkosi stating he could not check for compliance as it would be improper interference with the BEC, but communicated this verbally in a call.
“You did not send any written message to Sergeant Nkosi telling him that you could not check for compliance because that would be an improper interference with the BEC, but you say you told him this in a call at the time of that first message.”
Mr Mnisi stated that it was inappropriate to raise the issue of the BAC Chair receiving an external mandate with others and that he was not interested in the companies because they would disqualify for various reasons, focusing instead on safeguarding the procurement process.
“Firstly, the BEC Chair needs to come on board and raise this issue with me. ... any of these companies that were there in any case would disqualify for various reasons, as we have seen. So at this point in time, I was not even interested in this. My pure interest was to safeguard the process ...”
Mr Mnisi asserted that as CFO he was legally not allowed to interfere in the BEC's independent processes and had to wait for the BEC Chair to raise issues before taking action.
“I cannot raise it with him. I would now be actively interfering in the BEC process. ... By law, I cannot interfere. That would be interfering. So I would wait for the BEC Chair to raise this as an alarm and say, I have got a problem now.”
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 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 tender bidding process is rigorous and involves multiple stages including administrative compliance checks, physical site inspections, and a preference points system.
“This tender was subjected to a four-stage bidding process, whereby firstly administrative compliance requirements have to be facilitated by the BEC... Physical site inspection to validate the submissions and POE... Lastly is the preference point system”
The Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) conducts independent pre-compliance assessments to scrutinize bidders' submissions and eliminate non-compliant bidders early in the process.
“This is a pre-compliance schedule that is done independently by the committee that I have referred to, the BEC, where they clearly scrutinise where the bidders have clearly outlined and provided their CSC…”
The Bid Evaluation Committee excludes bidders who are registered as restricted or blacklisted suppliers by the National Treasury and those who are state employees.
“From a pre-compliance perspective, we check whether the company declared CSD number. This is to confirm whether they are registered on the National Treasury's Centralised Supplier Database... They are suppliers who are blacklisted from doing business with the state... Second component is state employees. We do not do business with state employees.”
The Bid Evaluation Committee is multidisciplinary, comprising individuals from supply chain management, TMPD, user departments, and the departments regularly utilising the tender.
“BEC and the members that have been appointed, I am going to reiterate, are made up of individuals from supply chain management, TMPD, the user department, as well as the departments who regularly utilise or make use of this tender. It is a multidisciplinary structure, a form of individuals and expertise who are together involved with dealing with these matters.”
The Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) evaluates tenders and receives probity reports to assess compliance and irregularities.
“So , the BAC does its evaluation . ... The probity authority is brought in at that point ? ... Yes . ... The probity authority is brought in at that point ? ... Yes . ... Once it is done , it is presented to the BEC . The findings are presented and deliberated at the BEC . They are given an opportunity to make the necessary corrections . Once consensus has been reached between probity team and the BEC , then it is served to the BAC for further consideration .”
There was a conflict between the findings of the probity report which flagged irregularities in bidder number 2 from Vimtsire Security Services and the BEC report which cleared them, causing the BAC to refer the matter back to the BEC for further confirmation or correction.
“BAC has identified a notable difference between the final probity report and the BEC report . In this case , it was as a result of bidder number 2 Vimtsire Secure Services where that bid , from a probity perspective , said , nope , there are irregularities here . You should not award this . BAC says , no , we have had our interaction with the probity team . We have cleared this . But at BAC , they are not providing us with conclusive evidence that that has been dealt with accordingly . We refer that back for there to either be an official confirmation in the form of an addendum or a confirmation report from probity that , indeed , we had a discussion with BEC . We are now convinced that bidder number 2 from Vimtsire Security Service , for an example , is now compliant and should be awarded . They could have come back , Chair , and said , no , this bidder should not have been awarded . We have maintained our stance there . We did not find , we did not confirm one , two , and three issues , which means the BEC must ensure correction . Probity report , as part of our internal controls , is authoritative in nature .”
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 legally mandated time between bid closing and start of BEC (Bid Evaluation Committee) work is 90 days, but in practice, once members are appointed, committees can start work within 30 days.
“Chair, by law, 90 days. It might be the process that bidders … Soon once members are appointed, the committees have been established, they can commence … Within 30 days.”
A probity report by an external legal firm revealed material, serious irregularities in the bid process that could not be remedied without compromising legality and integrity.
“a probity report ... revealed material, serious irregularities in the manner in which certain aspects of the bid process had been conducted ... they could not be cured, could not be regularised, nor could they be remedied without compromising the legality and integrity of the process”
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”
There were no BEC meeting minutes for 29 May 2025, score sheets were backdated, no signed declaration forms on that day, and attendance records showed irregularities, raising suspicion of illegal backdating and failure to provide evidence of member independence.
“score sheets dated 29th May suggested meeting took place that day but there were no declaration forms signed on the same day ... issue of concern ... a massive flag which would not enable us to proceed ... inconsistent and uncurable issues ... illegal process of backdating would need to occur, which is completely against the laws”
The BEC meeting attendance register shows some members signed in but also sent apologies, and one member Mr Thabiso Hlongwane neither signed nor attended, contradicting the minutes and raising quorum concerns.
“four meeting signed in including Mr Reginald Moshangu but yet submitted apology ... no apology recorded for one member Mr Thabiso Hlongwane ... neither listed among attendees nor members who sent apologies ... did not sign attendance register ... confirming deficiencies identified and that no quorum could be proved”
The bidding company was disqualified at stage 1 due to inability to find annual financial statements, but there was a 5 ton truck present during inspection unlike the probity report stating otherwise.
“they disqualified them on stage 1 due to inability to find the annual financial statements... they say erroneously that this bidder did not have a 5 ton truck... BEC says... the 5 ton truck was there whilst the probity says it was not.”
The tender process started in 2016 and by 2023 no appointment had been made despite BEC having evaluated the bids.
“And then you specifically, I mean let us say you are now in 2020, it is a tender that started in 2016, it is now 2023, four years later, and you are aware that nobody has been appointed.”
Director Malatji was the contact person and face of the tender bid and was in the evaluation committee, but admitted between May 2017 and 2019 he was taken out of the space and may have missed reasons communicated for the tender delays.
“Between May 2017 to 2019, I was not in that space. They took me out of that space, right. And I must mention that there might have been communication to the effect that the tender is not moving, these are the reasons and the like. But now, since I was taken out of the position for almost two years, I might have missed. I am not sure, Commissioner.”
Malatji was not informed of any irregularities occurring during the BEC's job or in communication reported back to supply chain management.
“us or myself as a member who participated, being called and getting informed about irregularities that might have happened in the run-up to the BEC completing its job and handing over the report and the documents back to supply chain management. Such communication, no.”
Malatji confirms his knowledge is limited to his period of participation as a BEC member and not after.
“So, your focus is only at the stage of your participation as a member of the BEC. Yes. So, what you are telling us relates to that stage only. Exactly. So, you would not know what happened later, and you would not know whether issues were raised about missing documents.”
Director Malatji was involved in the bid specification process for TMPD 2, 2016-2017, assisting the department as requested by then Deputy Chief Rex Mahlaule and served as a BEC member.
“I was involved in the bid specification in respect of TMPD 2 , 2016-2017 . I assisted the department as requested by the then Deputy Chief Rex Mahlaule , and I was later appointed as a member of the BEC .”
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.”
The replacement tender 3/2425 was completed, evaluated, and selected for probity review, which extended far beyond the initial expected 30 days, lasting until mid-October 2025.
“This new replacement tender, which is the 3/2425, was then obviously completed and it was evaluated. And in this process, at the end of March, beginning of April, when the BEC concluded its work, this tender was then selected for probity. And probity process then ran its course, which initially was thought it would only be 30 days. It eventually ran up to the middle of October.”
The tender 3/2425 was cancelled due to two reasons found by probity: ambiguous pricing schedule and missing six bid documents causing irregularity, requiring a fresh tender process.
“the 3/2425 , must be cancelled because there were two reasons that was given on the report . The one reason – and it comes from probity, what probity found . The one reason was that the pricing schedule that was attached to the tender originally was ambiguous . And the reason for the ambiguity was that the BEC stated that on the pricing schedule there may be no blank spaces ... the second finding was that when the documents was removed from supply chain in the BEC, there was a register where probity signed for all the documents, all the bid documents . However, when they returned it , six documents were missing. And that missing documents then caused the second reason why this tender... be cancelled because of this irregularity”
The tender TMPD 03/2024/25 for security services at City of Tshwane sites was recommended for cancellation due to material irregularity found during evaluation and probity review.
“the BEC therefore recommend that the tender for the appointment of a service provider to provide security services at various sites belonging to the City of Tshwane, including substations and reservoirs, for a three-year period be cancelled due to material irregularity.”
During evaluation of tender TMPD 03/2024/25, the committee identified misalignment and material irregularities including ambiguous specifications and pricing schedule leading to multiple interpretations.
“During the evaluation of the tender, the committee identified misalignment and material irregularities. That during the meeting between the BEC and probity teams on 26 August 2025, it became apparent that there were multiple interpretations of the specifications, particularly the pricing schedule which was issued as an addendum.”
Specifications mandated complete pricing schedules without blank spaces, and failure to submit firearm licenses as part of bids led to disqualification disadvantaging bidders without licenses.
“the addendum stipulated that the pricing schedule must be completed in full, no blank spaces. And the BEC interpretation is that the pricing schedule need to not to have blank spaces. And according to the probity team, the blank spaces must be completed with numerical figures. The specifications stipulated that some areas do not require... whereas the mandatory requirement dictate that bidders who do not submit firearm licences as part of their bid would be disqualified. Therefore, it is disadvantaging those who do not have firearm licences.”