Witness: Director Malatji.
Evidence leaders: Adv Sikhakhane.
164 claims
151 transcript pages
2 published files
transcript: done
Loading transcript text…
Extracted claims
unrated
judicial process
90% conf.
Mr Malatji was not in possession of a certain bundle of documents at the time he was giving testimony, which were referenced during his evidence but only received later after requests and confirmation of access to workplace.
“Mr Malatji, our client, was constantly referred to some certain bundle of documents, which we were not in possession of at the time when we were assisting him at that time... I requested the Commission to furnish the documents which I am talking about, and which we were not in possession of... he was not in possession... he obtained whatever documents that he could... he was only referred to those documents and ended there.”
Mr Malatji was on suspension and undergoing a disciplinary process at his workplace which hindered his access to required documents.
“he is on suspension and he is currently undergoing a disciplinary process there... when Mr Malatji is in management... he had some predicaments, especially... he was not getting the documents that he needed from his workplace... he obtained whatever documents that he could”
Mr Malatji did not seek assistance from the evidence leaders despite it being usual to do so for witnesses needing documents, especially those on suspension.
Mr Malatji was able to get some documents through liaising with the people he worked with, though not all documents were obtained by the end of the week of the 14th.
“It is not that he was getting zero. He was getting documents, and he was indicating to me...when the week of the 14th came to an end...we have to recollect the information and see how far we are.”
There was an internal disciplinary hearing scheduled for Friday the 24th involving Mr Malatji, which required the City to request an indulgence to accommodate Commission activities.
“we were preparing for an internal disciplinary hearing, which was scheduled for Friday...Mr Spies...requested us in the internal disciplinary process through the representative of the City for an indulgence to postpone the disciplinary hearing in order to accommodate the proceedings of this Commission”
Mr Malatji was actively trying to meet deadlines and was not keeping quiet or inactive despite being busy.
“Mr Malatji has been very active, showing us that he wants to meet whatever deadline. He did not want to be caught napping. It is not that he was keeping quiet. Yes, I was a busy man, but I was, you know, helping in as much as I can.”
The City, through its representatives, vehemently objected to granting indulgence to accommodate Commission activities when the City later asked for the same indulgence for its internal disciplinary processes.
“when it is our turn to ask for the same favours so that we accommodate this Commission, we do not just get an objection, it is a vehement objection to say, you are not going to see that”
The internal disciplinary hearing for Mr Malatji was adjourned to May 2nd after the Commission granted some time over the long weekend to prepare a supplementary statement.
“it was adjourned to May...I am sure you are all aware, it is a long weekend, but we still gave some time, one or two days during the long weekend, to prepare for the supplementary statement...I think it is the 2nd”
Mr Malatji made a substantive request by email to postpone the internal disciplinary hearing scheduled for Friday the 24th but was rejected, leading to frustration due to lack of time to prepare.
“I made a substantive request through an email after having made a telephone call, negotiated. On Tuesday, I requested that postponement. It is rejected. I do not have an option after consult, because I am getting frustrated. We do not have time.”
The City representative Major Phiri showed emails interpreting that Director Malatji gave instructions regarding ad hoc appointments, contrary to Director Malatji's stated position that he never gave such instructions.
“Director Malatji said he never gave any instruction to Major Phiri to do anything with regard to the ad hoc appointments. Major Phiri showed us emails which he interprets to mean that Director Malatji actually did give him instructions regarding ad hoc appointments.”
A 418-page tender document, tender TMPD 2-015/2016, which is central to Mr Malatji's testimony, was only received by Mr Nkosi and team the day before.
“there is a document which we received only yesterday. It is appearing on the bundle that we received from the Commissioner. It is a 418-paged document, which Mr Malatji ... It is the tender documents, tender TMPD 2-015/2016, the main document in which the crux of the testimony of Mr Malatji was based”
There are additional documents including a 22-page supplementary statement discussing statements of Revo Spies and Sean Bolhuis, transcripts, and a copy of the CDR for Tshwane contract analysis.
“there is also the other paginated document, again, which was submitted late. It is 22 pages. It talks about the statements of Revo Spies. It talks about the statement of Sean Bolhuis... There is also a copy of the CDR ... Tshwane contract analysis”
There is an email from Dial Mogashoa Attorneys, received early morning addressing concerns about outstanding documents, providing a link to additional documents sent just before midnight the previous day.
“there is an email which I received from Diale Mogashoa Attorneys ... where they were addressing the same point ... whereby provide the link containing additional documents ... sent at 23:52 yesterday”
The statement submitted on Monday was not satisfactory to Mr Malatji and team, but was submitted under extreme pressure and out of respect for the Commission's directive.
“the statement which was submitted on Monday, it was not to our satisfaction, and even for the satisfaction of Mr Malatji. We were under extreme pressure ... but he just insisted ... to respect and comply with the directive of the Commission”
Mr Malatji and his counsel are currently not prepared and humbly request reasonable time to submit a well-informed and fully prepared statement to benefit the Commission.
“we are just asking a reasonable time ... we are humbly requesting to be afforded an opportunity ... we will come back with reasonable time ... we are going to try our utmost best to make it a point that we come back ready”
Additional documents communicated yesterday with Mr Nkosi's attorneys include supplemental transcripts mainly relating to the testimony of Mr Malatji, Mr Phiri, and Mr Mnisi.
“the additional documents ... it was essentially the supplement, the additional transcripts, and those additional transcripts are in the majority his testimony”
Mr Malatji appeared last for questioning and his appearance is not a new one; the issue of the bundle given to him on 28th (Tuesday) relates to his last testimony.
“Mr Malatji appeared last ... it was on pointed questions ... the issue of the bundle that was given to him, it was given on the 28th, which was the Tuesday, the bundle that was used in his last testimony”
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”
Mr Malatji has testified on various documents including tender documents, declarations, correspondence dated 12 March, termination of ad hoc, and a letter by Commissioner Spies.
“Mr Malatji has testified on ... the tender documents, the declarations ... the correspondence of 12 March ... the termination of ad hoc ... the letter by Mr Spies, by Commissioner Spies”
The focus of questioning is more on the instruction about emails Mr Phiri relies upon, rather than on the statements themselves.
“the focus ... is on the instruction ... more on the emails themselves, on which Mr Phiri relies in making the point that I was instructed by Director Malatji”
Adv Sikhakhane intends to rely on one page of the probity report served at 11:52 PM last night, which relates to the sitting of Mr Malatji and his submission or lack of submission of his scoresheets in a tender process.
“the one document that is crucial is the probity report, which is, essentially, even there, I am relying on a page of it.”
Mr Nkosi reports he managed to download the documents given to them last night before noon but struggled to download them on receipt due to preparation for the hearing.
“I managed to download what has been given to us yesterday at night, before 12... the very same documents that I am saying I struggled to download because at the same time I was preparing to come here.”
There is an allegation that Director Malatji did not do any scoring while he was on the BEC as it relates to the lack of scoring.
“all that he is going to be dealing with in that regard is what relates to the lack of scoring, if that is true, by Director Malatji when he sat on the BEC . So he sat there, but he did not do any scoring. That is the allegation.”
Mr Nkosi states there is a quite voluminous bundle submitted by Phiri that discusses his working relationship with Malatji.
“It has been a common point that Mr Phiri has been working with Mr Malatji quite a number of times . That is quite voluminous bundle that are talking about that information”
Mr Nkosi acknowledges he may not have sufficient time to review the documents and prepare for re-examination, and suggests shortening the process.
“there will not be sufficient time, even if I were to be afforded that re-examination . Why donot we shorten this process and avoid even giving further documents or supplementary statement and come at once whenever everything is”
Director Malatji confirms he was provided with questions from the Commission and needed documents from his employer to support his statement.
“you were provided with questions that the Commission sought answers from, and also you had indicated that you needed some documents from your employer, correct ?”
Director Malatji confirms the statement attached to annexure TP1 is not his statement, but he has his own statement to confirm.
“On page 4 , it is not my statement . It is an Annexure TP 1 . I need a file with my statement so that I confirm . Okay , thank you very much . Correct , that is my statement .”
Director Malatji states in his statement he has attached emails marked Annexures ST1, ST2, ST3, and ST4 relating to executive discussions about outstanding invoices for Gubisa and other ad hoc security services.
“I have noted concerns from the Commission and wish to respond thereto as follows . Emails and communications detailing executive discussions regarding outstanding invoice for Gubisa and other ad hoc security services . Five , I have attached emails , marked Annexures ST1 , ST 2 , ST3 , and ST 4 , respectively .”
Revo Spies sent emails on 25 June 2025 regarding budget and fund transfer for watchman services amounting to R91 million, copied to Winnie Mahlangu and others.
“first one being from Revo Spies on Wednesday, the 25th of June 2025, at 14:07 to my PA, to myself, and he copied other colleagues, Mr Mahlangu”
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...”
Senior officials discussed how to obtain money to pay outstanding invoices including R9.1 million for ad hoc watch services instructed by the Department of Water and Sanitation.
“these senior officials in the city met to find ways and means through which they could get money to pay for these invoices... including invoices for Gubis 85 in respect of services... result of instructions from the department in question... mainly discussing about budget and funds to enable the city to pay outstanding invoices to the tune of R9.1 million which I believe was also including ad hoc services which were instructed by the Department of Water and Sanitation.”
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...”
Requests for ad hoc watchman services were supported by the CFO and approved by the City Manager, implying procedural approval for deployment and payment of such services.
“I have annexed proof of requests by the Chief of Police, in respect of which requests, she was supported by the CFO, and the City Manager approved... if indeed these ad hoc services were irregular, why would they go as far as requesting money to pay for something that they know upfront is irregular?”
Director Malatji states he considers requesting and receiving irregular funds for ad hoc services, then blowing the whistle on irregular services rendered, as self-complicity in corruption.
“would not go as far as requesting money, getting money, making sure that this thing that I consider, I considered irregular gets paid. Only to come afterwards and say there were irregular services rendered, and as such, I am blowing a whistle. So, If eel there could be a reason other than the irregularity of this thing, something that I believe will come out as my testimony goes forward. But the long and short under this specific what it is called, is can I blow a whistle against my own self, come and present evidence that which, from the look of things, I am also complicit.”
Several emails between witnesses discussed and weighed options regarding requesting money to pay for ad hoc services, indicating coordination and planning among officials.
“the witnesses that came here are the ones in terms of this trail of emails, right. Who were meeting, discussing weighing options, where can how much be found to pay for these services, right.”
An email from Sean Bolhuis dated 29 May 2025 requests additional funding specifically for ad hoc services, addressed to COO, CFO, and Chief of Police.
“this is an email from Sean Bolhuis. Last time you said your report to him. And the message, the email is to COO, CFO, amongst others, Chief of Police. The date is 29 May 2025, 02:13 pm. And what we see there is, I think as you said, it is part of some sort of effort to request funding or additional funding, and specifically for ad hoc services.”
Amounts for ad hoc services from January to June 2025 are around R14 million for January and approximately R82,632,210 for February to June, according to emails reviewed.
“that what they say, that is your boss, says the amounts of ad hoc services as follows, January to June 2025, the amount for January, I think that is one of the things we are going to go back to, is an amount of R14 million. Or 29. Would that be what you would recall to be what would be for January? And then for the following five month period, it is a total of R 82632210 for February to June.”
Director Malatji recalled that his office was not made aware when specific ad hoc services were procured until complaints were made about non-payment to Gubis 8 Solutions, which was escalated to the CFO's office.
“when these specific ad hoc services were procured, my office was not made aware until it reached a point where I am talking specifically to Gubis 8 Solutions, until it reached a point where they complained to the effect that they have been rendering these services and they were not paid. And fine, that was brought to the attention of the office of the CFO. It was brought to the attention of my office complaining”
Director Malatji confirmed providing a list of departments and services as a response to Commissioner Revo Spies in June 2025, indicating which departments requested services like Gubis 8 Solutions.
“in response to Revo Spies, I did provide a response, and my response was very short. But we even attached to my response a list to say, for example, Gubis 8 Solutions, the department that requested services was the Department of Water and Sanitation... I went further to say, for Klipgata ad hoc services, the department is Wastewater Treatment Plant. I believe it is also part of the Department of Water and Sanitation.”
According to the Chairperson, Major Phiri was required not to deploy Gubis 8 on site as of 31 December 2024, and Major Phiri was not cooperative and suggested Gubis 8 should go off site; following this, engagements occurred which led Director Malatji to say Major Phiri should run the process.
“Major Phiri said that he was required to, not to deploy, I think the Gubis 8 was already on site, and this is on the 31st of December 2024. And he was not prepared to cooperate, and he actually said Gubis 8 should go off site. And from that point onwards, there was then an engagement between you and other people as well. The engagement being made by someone who I think is an engineer within Water and Sanitation. I have forgotten the name now. But an engagement that culminates in you saying that Major Phiri should run with the process.”
Director Malatji testifies that ad hoc services in City of Tshwane have been managed subject to correspodence since 23 January 2023, and any ad hoc services undertaken outside this spirit would be outside official compliance and instructions.
“That ad hoc services in the City of Tshwane since the 23rd of January 2023 have been and are continuing to be managed subject to this correspondence as evidence. So, any ad hoc service that has been undertaken out of the spirit of this would not be - would not be - actually would be having been undertaken outside of what the city has instructed all departments within the city to comply with.”
Director Malatji denied involvement in managing the procurement of Gubis 8 adhoc services, stating he was unaware of them until complaints were made.
“Director Malatji and his office was not involved when those. Otherwise, I would have made it a point that at inception, the department in question complies with all these bullet points, right. I would have made sure that the department avails budget for which they are going to be servicing these adhoc services.”
Director Malatji stated that he could not cancel ad hoc services as the directive to cancel was given by Revo Spies and he was not delegated the powers to intervene or cancel non-compliant services.
“This explanation goes back to the issue of the instruction that was given to me by Revo Spies, cancel all ad hoc services... since this directive does not delegate me with powers, duties, and responsibility to intervene and address the issue of non-compliance by departments, there is no way I would have cancelled something that was not ordered or instructed by me.”
Director Malatji admitted that the deployments were done improperly and that he could not cancel them because it was not within his remit but rather was instructed by Revo Spies to cancel all ad hoc services indiscriminately.
“You say you could not cancel because the deployments were improper... I said it, Commissioner... he wanted to throw me under the bus... instruction was cancel all ad hoc services... I could not have cancelled because it was not instructed by me to deploy...”
Director Malatji maintained he did not have the power to cancel any ad hoc services himself, despite admitting some were done improperly, because the instruction to cancel all was from Revo Spies and not within his individual authority.
“No, in this respect I did not have the power to cancel... instruction was cancel all... I knew it was not all of them... I could not have cancelled because it was not instructed by me to deploy...”
There was a complaint by Director Nwandule regarding 13 requisitions created without invoices, and it was clarified that these requisitions could not be created without attached emails on the SAPS system, a function controlled by Director Nwandule's staff.
“email response to Nwandule regarding his complaint that 13 requisitions were created without invoices. ... they said, they do not have a function that is used to create purchasing requisitions without invoices. But it is Director Nwandule's staff who have got that function on the SAPS system.”
Invoices must be submitted for further handling, which includes creation of purchase requisitions and purchase orders on the SAPS system, processes currently performed by Director Nwandule's environment.
“I must put it on record before the Commission that invoices are submitted for further handling, of which further handling would include creation of purchase requisitions and POs going forward ... functions that are, as we speak currently, performed within the environment of Director Nwandule.”
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 testified he signed the invoices but did not sign them to close any query and was unaware that there was an issue with the invoices from Director Nwandule.
“if they came to me and I signed them ... I did not sign them because I was closing any query. I was not aware that there were these invoices that Director Nwandule has got an issue with.”
Director Malatji stated that every invoice submitted to his office is verified before further handling, including verification that sites allocated in the invoice belong to the company invoicing.
“Every invoice that gets submitted to my office, we verify. We verify and part of verification includes, we want to make sure that sites allocated, sites for which the invoice is talking to, are sites that are allocated to the company.”
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.”
Payments for these services were made after executive decisions, supported by the Chief of Police, CFO, and City Manager, were taken to allocate funds into the Watchman vote account for such payments.
“already the executive ... the Chief of Police ... has requested for the 91 million, the CFO supported and the City Manager approved. So, the money got into my vote in order to ... the process.”
There is a possibility that ad hoc service site visits were not verified due to staffing shortages with more than 500 sites but less than 10 monitoring personnel.
“we have more than 500 sites, right, for which my monitoring team of less than 10 people, right, is deployed. Chances of them not covering the scope”
Director Malatji says he was not invited to participate in executive meetings despite having responsibility to ensure services are rendered.
“Somebody should have invited me to participate in these executive meetings. But let me not proceed with this. But I was never invited to participate. And at the end, whatever the executive decides upon, I accept, hence.”
Director Malatji did not respond immediately to Commissioner Spies' email regarding the cancellation of ad hoc services for procedural reasons and lack of legal authority.
“I did not immediately respond to email from Commissioner Spies. The reasons for my failure to respond immediately are stated in paragraph 8 below which are covered under response detailing a failure to immediately carry out instruction to cancel all ad hoc guards.”
Commissioner Spies gave an instruction to terminate ad hoc services for Gubis, Triotic Protection Services and Mogalagadi Security but did not have legal authority as he was not part of the organizational structure.
“Commissioner Spies did not have legal authority to do so because in terms of TMPD organisational structure in place, Commissioner Spies position was not part of the structure.”
Commissioner Spies was accommodated onto the TMPD structure only after 4 June, and not via any resolution of council.
“It was only after the 4th of June that Commissioner Spies was accommodated on the structure of the TMPD and that accommodation still was not via any resolution of council.”
Director Malatji reports to Commissioner Spies as his immediate superior as at 12 March 2025 despite Commissioner Spies lacking formal authority.
“On the 12th of March 2025, I was supposed to report to the Chief of Police. In terms of his presence, I reported to him, but... I reported to Spies, right, by virtue of him being there...”
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.”
Director Malatji received a Notice of Suspension dated 26 June 2025 alleging misconduct including failure to declare directorships and financial interests to the municipality per the Municipal Systems Act.
“With reference to the Notice of Intention to Suspend you, dated the 26th of June 025, following allegations of misconduct, in that you failed to declare all directorships and financial interests to the municipality in terms of the Municipal Systems Act...”
Both Mr. Spies and Director Malatji share the same responsibility regarding the position of Deputy Chief of Police, Asset Protection and Security Services.
“both Mr Spies and myself are actually charged with one and the same responsibility”
Director Malatji attached documents addressing funding requests for the 2025 period and says these documents are evidence indicating who requested funds and for what purpose relating to a sum of R99.1 million.
“the documents that I have attached here are evidence ... who requested the R99.1 million ... in order to pay the invoices that have been and are continuing to be a subject of my testimony before the Commission”
Director Malatji states deployment letters are issued in respect of ad hoc services that comply with the SOP directive and any deployment outside this would have been done without his instruction.
“deployment letters are issued in respect of services, ad-hoc services ... any ad-hoc service ... would not have a deployment certificate signed by our office ... he did it out of his own, not with my instruction”
Director Malatji does not remember seeing signed deployment letters for January 2025 and denies having given authority to Mr Phiri to issue deployment letters.
“I do not remember seeing such signed deployment letters ... I was not giving him authority or delegating him responsibility to deploy any ad-hoc”
The overarching purpose of the email exchanges was ultimately to have a deployment of security at the Klapperkop water pump station which had been badly vandalised during the festive period.
“the overarching purpose of all these email exchanges was ultimately to have a deployment ... the Klapperkop water pump station has been badly vandalised during the festives”
Repeated email requests from Mr Herman Segolela and the Department of Water and Sanitation for urgent deployment of security due to ongoing vandalism at the Klapperkop Reservoir were communicated to Director Malatji.
“Good day. We have responded and forwarded all the information needed by Metro Police Department. We are still waiting for them to confirm deployment ... Today I just received the bad report that the Klapperkop water pump station has been badly vandalised during the festives ... Kindly urgently confirm when you may be able to deploy ...”
Director Malatji wrote an email to Senior Superintendent Madihlaba (Colonel) instructing him to get Phirito to handle the process and for progress to be monitored, relating to deployment.
“... you are writing to Kwapeng ... Senior Sup Madihlaba, Colonel... Good evening. Kindly find request from Mr Herman from the Department of Water and Sanitation for further handling ... Please get Phirito run with the process and let us monitor progress.”
Director Malatji stated that instructing Phirito to run with the process was about ordering him to attend the meeting, not a delegation to deploy security directly.
“My comment is starting with me ordering Mr Phirito attend the meeting.”
Director Malatji denied that by instructing to run with the process, he intended that ongoing deployment of security should continue automatically without necessary conditions being met.
“It is not true that by instructing them to run with the process, I was meaning that they should continue deploying security ...”
Director Malatji described the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) requires critical information such as budget issues to be addressed before deployment decisions can be taken.
“The SOP requires it of us to make sure that there is a critical element of, for how long are we requesting the ad hoc services, right? So it was imperative ... to have those things before a decision could be taken to deploy security.”
Chairperson accused Director Malatji of effectively just waiting for others to come back and tell him what happened instead of proactively ensuring deployment despite repeated urgent requests.
“Because from your answer, you seem to suggest that you just sat and waited for them to come back to you and tell you what happened eventually. If that is what you did... we may be inclined to interpret this email in the same way as Major Phiri.”
Director Malatji admitted issuing an instruction to run with the process meaning to do due diligence, but said no further communication or follow up was made as they did not come back to him.
“I have issued an instruction. They must run with the process. Running with the process, meaning to do due diligence. They did not come back to me.”
Director Malatji issued instructions to subordinates who had a duty to report progress back to him regarding the deployment process.
“I issued my subordinates with an instruction. They had a duty to come back to me and say this is how far we have gone, so that I could evaluate, right, whatever they say they have done.”
Director Malatji authorized deployment of security guards to Klapperkop and Brickfields Pump Stations effective 7 January 2025 after vandalism occurred.
“You give an instruction that the service provider will resume deployment of security guards today, 7 January 2025 at 8:00 hours ... So you did authorise those deployments.”
ADV KHUMALO SCDay 99 · 30 Apr 2026Refers to: 2025-01-07Location: Klapperkop Water Station, Brickfields Pump Station
Department complied fully with the SOP related to deployment of security; hence, deployment was instructed.
“The department there has complied fully with the SOP that I allude to earlier on. Hence, my instruction, right, said the deployment will commence at 18:00.”
Director Malatji responded that he was not aware of an email referencing deployment instructions at the time and that his evidence may change when exposed to documents.
“I respond not being aware of the email on page 60... But in this instance, I am exposed to the evidence... due diligence to a very large extent was done... hence, I issued an instruction to say deploy ...”
Director Malatji says it is unfair to expect him to respond to questions about emails he has signed without being exposed to the evidence first, asserting he feels ambushed if questioned on matters he is merely seeing through signed emails.
“But the bottom line is, I should be exposed to the evidence. And yes, as we move on, you allow me an opportunity to explain where it is necessary to explain. But under the circumstances, I feel like I am being ambushed.”
It is the job of Director Malatji to approve invoices related to deployments such as the Gubis deployments, and he signed invoices in June 2024 indicating his awareness of the payments and deployment details.
“As we have shown you with the June 2024 invoice, it came to you, you stamped it, you signed it.”
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.”
Director Malatji says Herman Segolela took advantage of an email dated 7 January to put additional sites onto the deployment list without proper GL account numbers, which was wrong and against the correct process.
“Mr Segolela has taken advantage of my email dated the 7th of January... He was supposed to do as he did with Klapperkop and others.”
Director Malatji admits he agreed to instruct Mr Phiri to run with the process regarding the handling of further deployment requests despite concerns about additional sites added without proper GL account numbers.
“I agree. Yes, I did instruct Phiri on the 7th of January.”
Director Malatji copied Andrew and Calvin into an email because they were already instructed to deploy to the sites; he assumed deployment authority had been given to them, although he was unsure if this was confirmed with Madihlaba or Phiri regarding the service provider.
“The reason I copied Andrew and Calvin... is simple that they were, in my view, already having instruction to deploy.”
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.”
Brickfields' security requests for Klapperkop site included an email by Segolela requesting security and a GL account for payment, aligning with the spirit of the SOP.
“the email by Segolela requesting security on this, and also providing GL account from which these services would be paid from, I would say yes to the question. It was in line with the spirit of the SOP”
Director Malatji used his personal Gmail account to send instructions related to deployment because it was late in the afternoon and the Gmail account was handy for office tasks.
“Simply because it was late in the afternoon, right? I normally rely on my Gmail account, which is handy for anything that I need to do with my office.”
Director Malatji authorized the deployment of security services at two sites on 7 January 2025 before a purchase order was created, contrary to the standard operating procedure.
“I authorised the deployment before there was a purchase order created”
Director Malatji justified deployment before purchase order due to emergency nature of security requiring urgent action, with funds requested and GL account provided afterwards.
“in security we are dealing with emergency... I want the Commissioner to take note of the fact that ... payment came from Watchmen Services as a result of funds that were requested”
Adv Khumalo SC claimed Water and Sanitation did not pay for the security services and the budget had to be requested separately because proper process was not followed.
“Water and Sanitation did not pay for this. That is why the budget had to be requested, that 90 million that you referred to, because this process was not followed”
Director Malatji stated the understanding was that all would be done by Water and Sanitation, including purchase order creation, but he had to act to protect sites due to urgency and potential vandalism.
“my understanding was everything would be done by Water and Sanitation... my focus was to make sure ... to prevent further vandalisms... given the nature of the signs, the pump station ... when you are dealing with security threats ... priority is given”
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) requires steps from request to deployment authorization, but Director Malatji claimed the instruction to cancel ad hoc deployments was issued without observing the SOP.
“the SOP is about steps that must be followed from the time a request is made up to the time a deployment is authorised... instruction to cancel ad hoc deployments was issued without observing the SOP”
Director Malatji delayed compliance with SOP due to waiting on the requesting department (Water and Sanitation), but emphasized the urgency of protecting sites from vandalism.
“any amount of delay ... as a result of the requesting department taking its time would obviously have negative impact ... given the urgency of these matters”
Director Malatji argued that canceling ad hoc deployments does not have to follow SOP steps that govern authorization of deployment because the SOP applies to authorizing deployment, not cancellation.
“what has that got to do with the cancellation of the ad hoc deployments?... I do not get the logic ... That is my difficulty”
Director Malatji suggested instruction to cancel ad hoc deployments was supposed to be directed to Water and Sanitation rather than himself as the administrator.
“this instruction was supposed to be directed to Water and Sanitation, instead of me”
The SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) is a directive to all the departments and is intended to be followed by them, but one department did not comply with this directive from the City Manager, and the superior directed the instruction to Director Malatji instead of the default process.
“this one department does not comply, right, and my superior takes notice of that. I am saying logically, logically, he should have directed this instruction back to the department because the department is guilty of not complying with a directive by the City Manager, but instead he directed the instruction to me”
The SOP is relevant only up to deployment, and cancellation is beyond the scope of the SOP steps.
“the SOP is about steps that must be followed from the time a request is made up to the time a deployment is authorised - So what I am saying now is, so the SOP is up to the point of deployment... So cancellation is beyond all that.”
Director Malatji acknowledges that the SOP was not observed in an actual deployment, leading to irregular deployment and subsequent inquiry before the Commission.
“it became relevant, Commissioner, because of the actual deployment that we carried out without observing or taking this SOP into consideration... because of irregular deployment.”
Director Malatji expected his superior, upon realizing the irregular deployments, to instruct cancellation but instead was instructed by his superior (City Manager) to not cancel the deployment.
“I would have expected of him to say, City Manager, here is a department which chose to do things out of the normal way... But instead, my superior instructs me to cancel...”
Director Malatji disagrees with the reasoning for not cancelling deployment based on non-compliance with the SOP, saying that not following the SOP should have actually led to cancellation instead of being used as a reason for refusal to cancel.
“to have this as a ground or basis for not cancelling, it does not make sense because not following the SOP steps should actually have been a reason to cancel... you should not have included this at all.”
Advocate Baloyi asserts that the instruction to execute the request was made by Director Malatji's department, specifically regarding appointments connected to Water and Sanitation Department projects such as Klapperkop and Brickfield.
“the instruction was not directed to the initiator of the adhoc services, and this is Water and Sanitation Department... But you made the appointment. Your department made that appointment... Klapperkop and Brickfield... the balance of them, you had given Phiri instruction to run with this...”
Phiri is part of the appointing department and issued deployment letters, which implies the department is responsible for appointments and terminations.
“Is he not in your department? He is. So your department is issued deployment letters.”
The deployment letter serves as an appointment authorization to proceed with work at the specified site, despite some disagreement over whether it constitutes full authority.
“This letter serves as a notification of deployment to Moreleta Reservoir Pump Station... It is exactly the same as your email... It is a appointment letter that says you should go and work there.”
Director Malatji admits the appointment letter is official but suggests it might not result from a prescribed process.
“I want to establish was this appointment letter is it as a result of a prescribed process having been... Your message at page 60, your email, it did not follow the process. Okay.”
Despite not following a prescribed process, the appointment letter has contractual and legal effect and the department has authority to authorize and send termination letters.
“But there was an appointment, and it has contractual and legal effect... as the appointing authority... it is your department that has the authority to send out a termination letter.”
Director Malatji admits he did not inform Deputy Commissioner Spies he was the wrong person to receive certain instructions that should have gone to Water and Sanitation.
“Did you inform Deputy Commissioner Spies that you are the wrong person, he should send it to Water and Sanitation? Commissioner, I did not inform Commissioner Spies.”
Director Malatji became aware after the decision not to follow an instruction from the Chief of Police to stop adhoc services due to budget and money issues.
“Did you become aware that in fact there was an instruction from the Chief of Police that these services must stop... after the communication? Yes.”
The cost of adhoc services to the City of Tshwane was 82 million over five months according to emails including Deputy Chief Bolhuis requesting upliftment of funds.
“There is an email that shows what the cost of this adhoc service to the City of Tshwane is. And it shows 82 million over five months.”
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...”
ADV Baloyi alleges malicious attempts by colleagues to get rid of Director Malatji who has testified about being a victim.
“I made mention of the fact that I have become a victim... colleagues that I have spoken to... demonstrated that they would stop at nothing to get rid of this Director Malatji.”
Since the day Director Malatji was instructed to terminate ad hoc security services, those services continued until June, costing the City more than R50,000,000.
“since the day you were instructed to terminate these ad hoc services, they continued until June and the cost to the City was more than R 50000000”
Director Malatji admits some payments for ad hoc services may have occurred without verification and possibly without the services or work being done due to staff shortages.
“Yes, Commissioner, I did, and I gave those reasons”
Director Malatji received a request from Commissioner Spies to provide proof of ad hoc services deployment since December 2024 to date, mostly related to ad hoc Watchman Services.
“My question was around responding to Commissioner Spies' request or instruction that you must provide proof of the deployment of ad hoc services since December 2022, 2025 to date ... the emails says please provide proof where ad hoc Watchman Services were deployed ... since December 2024 to date”
Director Malatji stated that although the requested ad hoc services proof was not part of his bundled documents, he believes proof was provided and can retrieve it for the Commission.
“The fact that it is not part of my bundled does not necessarily mean we did not provide that proof. And we can, I can always go back and have that, the kind of proof that we provided to him available for the Commission too”
Director Malatji terminated ad hoc services in compliance with Commissioner Spies' instruction in June by drafting termination letters, calling companies, and serving letters with acknowledgements of receipt.
“You deal with the instruction from Commissioner Spies and you say... in June, you complied with the instruction. You drafted letters for termination and you personally called the companies and served them with letters ... I convened a meeting with the three companies. I handed them over the original letters and I kept a knowledge receipt letter”
Termination letters referenced (marked ST6) were prepared by Director Malatji but signed by Deputy Chief Commissioner Spies.
“That letter is done by Commissioner Spies. Could you explain why would you say this is your letter? And he testified that it is his letter. Chairperson: Does he not say that he prepared the letters for signature by Deputy Chief Spies? That should explain the signature? Director Malatji: Exactly... I prepared letters. I took them to him to sign, right? He signed.”
A tender for security services TMPD 016/2017 had expired but services continued being rendered by appointed or court-appointed providers, and a replacement tender TMPD-3 was cancelled later.
“It seems to be the case that that tender, TMPD for security services 016/2017, up to date ... would have expired. But up to date, there is continuation of rendering of those services by those appointed or court-appointed service providers. There has been no replacement tender. The attempt was TMPD-3, which was then later cancelled. Is that then the recollection? Yes, as far as I am aware, even though I am 10 months out of active service.”
Director Malatji attended all Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) meetings until the 28th of May 2025 but did not attend after that due to personal reasons, and was suspended later.
“I attended, I would say, all the meetings until meeting of the 28th ... just after I arrived in the meeting, something personal cropped up and I excused myself ... since then, I did not attend any of the meetings that followed up. I did not attend any of the BEC meetings until I was caught up in a situation where I got suspended. And from that day, I do not know what has happened with the tender to date.”
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.”
Findings in a probity report noted that the BEC did not receive a score sheet from Director Malatji in the evaluation meetings, and he confirmed he did not participate in scoring or evaluation.
“... it talks about the BEC's cautions on the 29th of May ... you did not attend that meeting and you are not aware of what has transpired since then ... finding that they did not receive a score sheet from yourself in the evaluation meetings ... You are correct ... So you did not participate at all in the evaluation or scoring? Exactly.”
The minutes signed for the 28 May 2025 BEC meeting recommended TMPD-3 tender, but there are no minutes for a meeting on 29 May 2025, indicating scoring likely happened on 28 May when Director Malatji was present.
“The signed minutes for the 28th of May 025, where the committee was recommending the tender TMPD-3 for the appointment of a service provider were provided to us ... So the issue here is there is no minutes of the 29th. And since the recommendation was made on the 28th, it seems likely that the scoring happened on the 28th and not the 29th. And on the 28th, you say you were there at the meeting.”
Director Malatji left the BEC meeting on 28 May 2025 for a personal issue before the scoring and recommendation business started, and did not participate in scoring or recommendation.
“But before the BEC could start with its business of the day, there was something personal and then I ... You left ... So you did not participate in the scoring or the recommendation. Exactly.”