Hearing day 84

Commissioner Revo Spies retired from the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department and is now deployed by the Tshwane Metropolitan Police Department since 2 March 2025.

“He comes under a completely separate stream, which is what we refer to as the Tshwane Metropolitan Police Department. He has since retired... and now deployed by the TMPD ... and he started this out on the 2nd of March 2025.”

Commissioner Revo Spies was appointed Deputy Chief of Police for Asset Protection and Security Services in Tshwane Metropolitan Police from 1 March 2025, responsible for physical and technical security and managing both in-house and contracted security personnel.

“I have been appointed in the City of Tshwane Metro Police from the 1st of March as the Deputy Chief of Police for Asset Protection and Security Services... I am accountable for the physical security and technical systems, the operational support around the technical systems and the physical security, and then physical guard services... We operate a hybrid system, meaning that we have in-house security... there are 1270 of those guards. And then there is a contracted portion, which is to 22 service providers, which I will deal with later.”

There is a tender referenced TMPD 02/2016/2017 for contracted security services in Tshwane Metropolitan Police which originated in the 2016/2017 municipal financial year and pertains to physical guarding contracted services deployed through seven regions.

“Part of this division, that contracted services, there is a tender in place with the number TMPD 02/2016/2017... It is a tender... obviously originates from the 2016/27 municipal financial year... and it deals with the physical guarding of the City where it is contracted services... That tender itself, as the number indicates, obviously originates from the 2016/27 municipal financial year.”

Commissioner Revo Spies was a section-56 contract employee at Ekurhuleni for five years but took early retirement; upon appointment to Tshwane, he became a permanent employee under a performance contract without a fixed term.

“At Ekurhuleni, I was appointed as a section-56 contract employee for a period of five years, which I took early retirement... When I was appointed in the City of Tshwane, I was appointed as a permanent employee till I reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years... I am now a permanent employee with a performance contract, but not with an employment fixed term contract.”

The tender for physical security to protect Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality property assets and personnel originated from a Tender Advertisement Request (TAR) issued in 2016 by Director Tshukudu Malatji, and was co-signed by Deputy Chief of Police Specialized Services Mr R R Mahlaule and approved by Chief of Police Mr K S Ngobeni.

“This tender originates from what we call a TAR. It is a Tender Advertisement Request form, which was issued at that stage in 2016 by a Director Tshukudu Malatji. He was the director of the Protection Services, and this TAR was issued on 8 July 2016. At that stage, it was co-signed by the then Deputy Chief of Police Specialised Services, Mr R R Mahlaule, and on 19 July 2016 this was approved by the then Chief of Police, Mr K S Ngobeni.”

There were discrepancies between the proposed Bid Specification Committee members in the original TAR and the actual Bid Specification Committee members who approved the tender, with original members including Directors Racheku, N Moosa, Commissioner Sibaya, Faik Alexander, and Pieter Robinson, and actual members including Kes Matlapen (Chairperson), Vusi Nkuna (Director Land Invasion), Sipho Nkomo (Director TMPD), Faik Alexander (Director Secretariat Services), and Pieter Robinson (Group Legal Deputy Director).

“In the original TAR, there was a proposed Bid Specification Committee, which the department then proposed, which stated that these members are Director Racheku, Director N Moosa, Commissioner Sibaya, Mr Faik Alexander, and Mr Pieter Robinson. However, when these bid specifications were serving at the initial Bid Specification Committee on Monday, 1 September, the committee members that actually did the BSC, it was not the same as the Bid Specification Committee nominations. So the members in paragraph 11 then is the actual members who approved the bid specification of this tender, and they were Mr Kes Matlapen, he was a Director at the Tshwane Metro Police, he was the Chairperson, Mr Vusi Nkuna, which is indicated as the Director Land Invasion, a Mr Sipho Nkomo, Director Tshwane Metro Police, and Mr Faik Alexander, who is from Supply Chain Management, he is the Director of Secretariat Services, and then Mr Pieter Robinson, Group Legal Deputy Director for the Corporate and Council Legal Compliance.”

The first Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) for the tender was chaired by Moloko Racheku and included members Tshukudu Malatji, Vusi Nkuna, Malusi Mahlanga, and Morutse Mphahlele, but irregularities were found during the first BEC evaluation leading to a report submitted to the Executive Adjudication Committee recommending that the entire process be restarted.

“The first Bid Evaluation Committee was a Mr Moloko Racheku, who was the Chairperson, Mr Tshukudu Malatji, Mr Vusi Nkuna, Mr Malusi Mahlanga, and Mr Morutse Mphahlele. ... It is not that I do have personal knowledge of this, because there seem to have been irregularities with the first bid evaluation process, because on 24 January 017 a report was submitted to the Executive Adjudication Committee by a Mr Thembeka Mphefu, in which irregularities during the first BEC were detected. It was then recommended that the entire process be restarted... From Mr Mphefu's report ... it stated that this first BEC Committee removed all the bid documents of all the tenderers from the supply chain management premises to an unknown venue at Premos.”

Due to irregularities in the bid evaluation process and missing tender documents, the bid was cancelled and re-evaluated. However, bidder Lebelelang Mahlatse Trading (Pty) Ltd challenged the cancellation in Gauteng High Court, which ruled on 24 May 2018 that the tender may not be cancelled but must be re-evaluated fresh, and extended the tender's validity by 90 days.

“The decision was made at the Bid Adjudication that this tender be cancelled and start afresh because of irregularities... However, one of the bidders, Lebelelang Mahlatse Trading (Pty) Ltd, they approached the High Court in Gauteng with a case number of 32325/2017, and Justice Fabricius on 24 May 2018 directed that this tender may not be cancelled, it must be re-evaluated afresh, and the same order of Justice Fabricius also extended the validity of this procurement process by another 90 days.”

A second Bid Evaluation Committee was appointed to re-evaluate the tender during the 90 day extension period, and subsequently resolved to cancel the tender again due to irregularities linked to the original missing tender documents, affecting a group of 22 companies initially proposed to be awarded the tender.

“A second BEC Committee was then appointed to evaluate the tender afresh... This committee after evaluation, it appears that they again resolved that the tender be cancelled due to irregularities during the bid evaluation process still linked to the original missing tender documents which were deemed to be highly irregular. And at that stage, the group of 22 companies that were originally proposed to be awarded the tender approached the court again.”

On 22 October 2021, Justice Molopa-Setosa issued a court ruling that the tender be awarded to the 22 companies and the City must enter into a service-level agreement with them, and the tender officially commenced on 1 March 2022 with these 22 companies.

“Then Her Ladyship Justice Molopa-Setosa issued a court ruling on 22 October 2021 that the tender be awarded to the 22 companies and the City must enter into a service-level agreement with this list of companies. And for that matter, it is listed, the court ruling, as RS 25. And then based on that court ruling, the City drafted the SLAs and the tender then officially commenced on 1 March 2022 with this list of 22 companies that was awarded in the ruling by the court.”

Tender TMPD 02/2016/17 was awarded to bidders recommended for supplying physical guarding services to protect Council property and personnel of the City of Tshwane for three years with variable amounts, and those bidders were registered with the Private Security Industry Regulation Authority as at the date of the order.

“Tender TMPD 02/2016/17 is awarded to the applicant and such other bidders who: 1.1 were recommended for the supply of physical guarding services to protect Council property and personnel of the City of Tshwane for a period of three years at variable amounts... and 1.2 are registered with the Private Security Industry Regulation Authority as at the date of this order.”

The City of Tshwane was ordered to conclude service level agreements with the bidders awarded the tender, specifying agreed services, service measurement, and response times.

“The respondent is ordered to conclude service level agreements with the aforesaid bidders which agreement shall detail the agreed services to be delivered, how such service is measured in the provision thereof, and the response time required for such service.”

The City of Tshwane is ordered to pay the applicant's costs, with the cost of 21 October 2021 to be taxed on the unopposed scale.

“The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's cost, save that the cost of the day in respect of 21 October 2021 will be taxed on the unopposed scale.”

The tender that commenced on 1 March 2022 was not a new tender process but a fresh start mandated by a court order on 22 October, due to delays caused by legal and corporate processes.

“It is because of the court order on 22 October, it took a while for the corporate and legal to design and create these service level agreements, and then the service level agreements and the contracts and everything was only done and completed in February 2022 and the tender then commenced 1 March 2022.”

Between 2017 and 2022, the previous service providers had their contracts extended on a month-to-month basis due to the tender process delay and court interdicts.

“...those tenders were extended on a month-to-month basis up to February 2022. So effectively at 28 February 2022, those tenders then were completed...”

The tender was evaluated with 22 companies considered successful by the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC), but the entire process was stopped and cancelled due to missing documents and irregularities as per the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC).

“...there was a total evaluation of 22 companies, and they did the complete evaluation and those 22 companies have been in the BEC the whole time. But when it was then submitted... with a recommendation that that whole process must be stopped and cancelled.”

The Chairperson of the BAC, Mr. Umar Banda, who was also the City's previous CFO, cancelled the tender due to irregularities, but Judge Fabricius ruled narrowly that the tender had to be started fresh due to legislative limitations on cancellation reasons.

“The then Chairperson of the BAC was the previous CFO of the City, Umar Banda, and he signed off and said it must be cancelled due to irregularities. However, Judge Fabricius very narrowly in the first court order... ruled that you cannot use that to cancel the tender, that is why it must be started fresh.”

Information about the 22 companies considered successful was probably leaked by the City, and the companies then took legal action to assert their success and the court ruled they must be awarded the tender.

“...everyone leaked most probably the information, and then the 22 companies knew that they were deemed by the BAC to be successful, but they took then the decision to court to say, no, but we are successful, and that is when the court then made the ruling to say that those 22 companies we initially were must be awarded the tender.”

The list of 22 companies commenced the tender contract on 1 March 2022 and are still working under this contract, which was initially for a three-year period ending on 28 February 2025.

“So the list of 22 companies that was then awarded and commenced on the 1st of March 2022, and to date is still working under this contract... this tender which then commenced on the 1st of March 2022, as per the prescripts of the MFMA Act, three year period, then concluded on the 28th of February 2025 as a contract at that stage.”

Three named companies, Gubis 85 Solutions, Izingwenya 210 Investments, and Triotic Protection Services, will commonly feature in the stream of TMPD due to suspicions of syndicate or cartel interference.

“These are the companies that will be forming the subject matter of our discussion... especially where there is a suspicion of interference by syndicate or so-called cartels... The first three, namely Gubis 85 Solutions, Izingwenya 210 Investments, Triotic Protection Services.”

The contract for security services was originally awarded for a three-year period starting 1 March 2022, ending 28 February 2025, but it was still ongoing beyond that date due to extension processes.

“the contract is awarded for a period of three years as per the Municipal Finance Management Act and because it commenced the 1st of March 2022, the end date will then be 28 February 2025”

The tender for security services was due to expire on 28 February 2025; a new process to replace the existing tender was initiated internally in August 2024 and registered in November 2024 as tender TMPD 3/2425.

“it was discovered that this tender would expire in 28 February 2025. So a new process to replace this existing tender was initiated already in August internally in the department, but in November 2024 this tender was then registered with a contract number of TMPD 3/2425”

The Asset Protection Unit was moved from the City Manager's Office to the Metro Police on 1 July 2024 and became a division within the Metro Police called Asset Protection and Security Services.

“this specific division that I am in charge of was created and started in the structure 1 July 2024. The Asset Protection Unit was then moved from the City Manager's Office to the Metro Police in the new division. It was originally a unit and it is now a division, Asset Protection and Security Services”

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 extension of the tender was approved by the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC), the approval process involves a committee discussion and recommendation signed off by the Chairperson and the accounting officer.

“the extension was approved by the Chairperson of the BAC ... the report is presented by the department to the committee. The committee does obviously discuss the matter between themselves and then it is recommended and the Chairperson of the committee signs off on the report as a recommendation to the accounting officer and then the accounting officer signs off based on the recommendation from the Chairperson”

The extension of the security tender TMPD 2/2016/17 was approved to supply physical security guarding services on a month-to-month basis from 1 March 2025 to 30 June 2025 to protect assets and personnel of the City of Tshwane.

“the Tswhane Metro Police Department is requesting for the approval for the extension of the security tender TMPD 2/2016 17 for the supply of physical security guarding services to protect the property assets and personnel of the City of Tshwane on a month-to-month basis for a period not exceeding four months with effect from 1 March 2025 to 30 June 2025”

There was confusion about the contract start and end dates, with the contract start being 1 March and prior contract showing end as 1 February, but the actual end date was 28 February following a court ruling and service level agreement (SLA).

“because of the confusion of dates of the contract starts on 1 March and the previous contract was stated that it ended on 1 February. Whereas if a contract starts on 1 March, it actually ends on 8 February because it is valid for a fully year... But eventually it was cleared out that because of the court ruling and the SLA, it commenced 1 March and therefore ends on 28 February”

The tender extension report was signed off by the Chairperson of the BAC and final approval was granted by the accounting officer identified as Mr Mettler, acting as the City Manager.

“it was signed off as recommended by the Chairperson of the BAC, Mr Gareth Mnisi, on the 28th of February 2025, and it was then final approval by the accounting officer, Mr Mettler, as the City Manager”

Municipal tender processes are often delayed, causing contracts to be extended past their expiry, favoring certain companies.

“Why is it that you continuously see this thing where a tender is advertised, you know that the previous contract is a three-year contract and it is going to expire at the end of February, but you do not complete the evaluation process and the new appointment before the end of February. And then you have to favour the companies that were appointed under the previous tender because you continuously extend their contracts and they get paid out of the municipality when in truth their term has expired because it was a three-year term. You are effectively giving them three and a half years now.”

The MFMA Act mandates strict 90-day deadlines for tender processes involving committee approval, advertisement, evaluation, and awarding.

“in terms of the MFMA Act, it has very strict deadlines and guidelines of let us say a period of 90 days that a tender must be through all the committees approved, advertised, and it must be evaluated and awarded.”

Tender evaluation is overwhelmed by the large volume of bidders, sometimes over 1200 companies, causing delays.

“At the briefing session, there were more than 1200 companies. I do not know what obviously happened first because I am not part of the BEC process, but if all 1200 that was at the briefing session submit a bid and it is a document this thick, you then get to the evaluation stage. The committee must physically go to every one of those companies and physically visit these sites, tick off on a checklist to say you have all the specifications, requirements, you have it, give them scoring points, then write the report, then go verify that the company's documentation with SARS, PSiRA, all of that exists. That administrative bureaucracy process is when it is a large amount often tenders, like 1200, that creates a massive delay.”

If tenders are known to expire at the end of February, the tender process should start a year earlier, not three months before expiry.

“If you know that a three-year contract is expiring at the end of February 2025 or 2020, you must start the process a year earlier. You cannot start it three months before the contract expires ... The reason I am raising this is you mentioned the three companies that the evidence leader said will be the focus of this stream. They have been favoured because it means their contracts have been extended after their term has expired, and that would apply to the other 22.”

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 City actually starts the tender process nine months before expiry for tenders.

“as a City, from now that I know of, we actually do start earlier. We take nine months before tenders expire. We as management and TMPD already sit with a nine-month list to say that these tenders will expire in the next nine months.”

Evidence exists (WhatsApp conversations) indicating Gareth Mnisi and Umashi Dhlamini played some role in the extension of certain tenders.

“there has been evidence by the previous witness, Sergeant Nkosi, dealing with WhatsApp conversations between himself, Mr Gareth Mnisi, Mr Umashi Dhlamini, in particular around that specific time of the extension of the contracts and a few days later. So what I want to ask you ... would it be your fair observation ... to say that both Mr Mnisi and Mr Dhlamini played some role in the extension of this tender?”

Even though a 90 day tender evaluation period is demanded, it often needs to be extended for probity checks, adding to delays.

“Even though we have actually asked that 90 days must be extended because we know for some tenders probity will come in, and that will add a portion to it as well.”

Gareth Mnisi, as Chairperson of the BAC, recommended and signed off on the tender award, which was subsequently approved by the City Manager.

“The question was, you had said in your statement the approved, but you will see there the signature comes as someone who recommended and signed off. Do you accept that? ... Correct. As I stated, it is that the Chairperson of the BAC recommend and sign off on it. ... That is after the recommendation by Mr Mnisi, the Chairperson of the BAC, the City Manager then also signed off approving.”

The Chairperson of the BAC recommends and signs off on tender awards, and the City Manager approves as accounting officer but does not take part in the decision-making process.

“It is that the Chairperson of the BAC recommend and sign off on it ... The City Manager is, as per the System and Structures Act, is the accounting officer for the City, as the number one official. And therefore, whatever the BAC recommend to him, he signs it off as the accounting officer... The BAC Committee is the one who make the decision and resolution, which is then signed off... The City Manager is only in his role as accounting officer signs off on it.”

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”

Removal and disappearance of bid documents during evaluation stage have occurred repeatedly, making the procurement process irregular.

“It seems the easiest way to stop a procurement process is just to removed documents, throw them away, the result of which will be that the process has become irregular. But this is not the first time this is happening . It happened at the stage of the evaluation of the very contract that is being extended from time to time now. I wonder how the documents get or go missing .”

To prevent future missing documents, from this year every tenderer must submit both a physical and an electronic digital version of their bid documents, ensuring the versions are precisely the same.

“with the new fresh tender which we started this year, we have added a specification and a clause is that every tenderer shall submit not only his physical documents, he shall also submit the electronic digital version of it so that there will now be two versions. There will be no two versions, there will be exactly the same document, but one will be a digital version that is submitted, which will be then electronically filed by the City, and there will be a hard copy which will then be evaluated to prevent any documents from going missing in future again”

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.”

The Bid Adjudication Committee chaired by Mr. Gareth Mnisi recommended the cancellation of tender TMPD 03/2024/25, with final approval by the City Manager on 29 October 2025.

“The committee's Chairperson, Mr Gareth Mnisi, also then recommended on the 28th of October 2025, and it was again signed off by the City Manager as the accounting officer on the 29th of October 025.”

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.”

After the cancellation, the specifications were revisited and corrected to remove ambiguities, leading to a fresh tender TMPD 7/2025/26 advertised and currently evaluated, while operations continue under the old tender TMPD 2/2016/17 until at least 30 June 2026.

“there was obviously then a decision made that this process, because is now cancelled, it must be started a fresh. And then we obviously as a department during December, we revisited the specifications to make sure that it is corrected as per the previous cancellation report that there could be no ambiguous in this . And then new tender was then started a fresh, which is now TMPD 7/2025/26. This tender was approved at the BSC meeting in January 26. It was advertised and it closed on the 10th of March . So when I made the statement where after it will be evaluated, this is obviously in process now. There is a BSC Committee that has been appointed that is in the process of evaluating this new tender as we speak now. But as we stand today, we are operating under tender TMPD 2/2016/17 till at least 30 June 2026, this financial year, while this tender is evaluated and awarded.”

The City Manager has real power and can refuse to sign a recommendation if he disagrees, possibly referring it back for a forensic investigation if the report does not clearly explain legislative compliance.

“I think that he will refuse to sign. He will refer it back to most probably the group audit and risk to do a forensic investigation about why the committee makes the decision if the report does not clearly explain the legislative compliance and why it is making this recommendation. So if I was the City Manager and I do not want to sign because my BAC make a recommendation which does not make sense to me, I will refer it to the group audit legal to actually verify the correctness of it, and I will also refer it for forensic investigation, and I will not approve that.”

The tender for security services comprises two elements: monthly paid Watchman Services and ad-hoc emergency services requiring temporary guards at short notice.

“This tender itself comprises of two elements to it. One is what we call the Watchman Services, which is paid to the 22... in companies, which is sites that have been identified where they are deployed on a regular basis, on a monthly basis. And then there is a second portion which we call internally ad-hoc services. Ad-hoc service is emergency need. It is when it is a situation where there could be a break-in at the site on a Friday evening and we need emergency guards at a short notice.”

The City Manager definitely has real power and can refuse to approve recommendations.

“the City Manager has definitely got real power, he can refuse.”

Ad-hoc services are short-term emergency security services added when necessary at sites such as new facilities or CAPEX projects handed over to the City, requiring the City to provide protection once the property becomes City property.

“Ad-hoc also relates to the City departments will identify, they, for instance, have CAPEX projects where they build new facilities... When he hands it over to the City and it becomes the City's property, the moment that happened, the City must become responsible for the protection of that.”

Watchman Service guards are permanently allocated to high risk sites such as energy substations across the seven regions of the City, while lower risk sites have either no guards or technology based security like alarms.

“The City had a total of 1087 sites... They were then categorised in category high risk, medium risk, and low risk. And the high risk sites... is the infrastructure sites like energy substations... Those sites are then allocated to security guards over the seven regions of the City. And when it now gets to 2025, the portion of those sites have got permanent guards because they are considered high risk... The lower risk is either no guards or technology, maybe alarm system deployed to them.”

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.”

Ad-hoc services are temporary solutions requested by City departments for increased security at certain sites due to events like sabotage at substations, funded by the requesting departments as they do not have their own budget for this.

“The ad-hoc service is when a department comes along and say I do not have any guards or there is an influx of security breaches. We experienced, for instance, sabotage at a substation or an infeed station like Kwagga. We need to increase security. So the energy department will approach us then and say I need ad-hoc guards. And from us as a department, we obviously do not have the budget. We have got a very limited budget for that. And there is then a demand that the other departments... must then budget and fund it in that process. So the ad-hoc service is a temporary solution while something is happening. It is not supposed to be a long-term solution at all.”

Service provider Gubis 85 Solutions was paid the largest amount for ad-hoc services during the tender period, totaling approximately R59,133,986.32 between July 2024 and June 2025, over and above the normal monthly deployment of guards averaging R3,500,000 per month.

“During the existence of the tender, the service provider, on one who was paid the largest amount for ad hoc services specifically, was Gubis 85 Solutions. I have also attached a spreadsheet listing the total payments made between July 2024 and June ‘25... a total amount of R59133986.32 was paid to Gubis for ad hoc services only over and above the normal monthly deployment of guards, which averaged approximately R3500000 a month. That is the normal deployment, but the ad hoc is from over and above that amount.”

Commissioner Spies agrees that the City Manager likely did not know about potential simulated approvals and notes that subordinates may contrive such situations.

“Even I did not know anything about it. It is like there is a trust relationship that your subordinates will do the correct thing. And I obviously did not know anything about the under-stream or undercurrent discussions and things that is happening, but it is possible that officials can contrive to create this at the bottom end.”

Mr Mnisiin and Deputy Commissioner Dhlamini communicated with each other via Sergeant Nkosi on March 20th regarding the creation of purchase orders for ad hoc services.

“I have been informed that Mr Mnisiin and Deputy Commissioner Dhlamini communicated with each other on 20 March by sending messages through Sergeant Nkosi in relation to the creation of purchase orders for ad hoc services.”

An amount of R590,000,000 was paid to Gubis 85 for ad hoc services, with related purchase orders created on 6 March 2025.

“So during this time, that amount of R 590 000 000 was paid to Gubis 85 for ad hoc services only...purchase orders created out of this process were registered on the TMPD system only on the 6th of March”

Mr Mnisiin is the Chief Financial Officer of the City of Tshwane.

“Mr Mnisiin is the Chief Financial Officer of the City of Tshwane.”

Deputy Commissioner Dhlamini is Deputy Chief Metro Police and Deputy Chief of Support and Administrative Services in the City of Tshwane, but has been suspended due to appearing at the Commission.

“Deputy Commissioner Dhlamini is a Deputy Chief Metro Police in the City of Tshwane and he is the Deputy Chief of Support and Administrative Services... I have been informed that he has been suspended on last week Friday due to his name being appeared here at the Commission.”

Purchase orders for ad hoc services procured for Gubis 85 amounted to R136,351,333.60, created on 6 March 2025.

“These include purchase orders for ad hoc services ostensibly procured for Gubis 85 solution in the aggregated amount of R 136 351 333.60. And that is R 110 000 000 plus VAT.”

Commissioner Yolande Faro is the Chief of Police in the City of Tshwane.

“The Chief of Police is Commissioner Yolande Faro.”

The amounts paid to Gubis related to ad hoc services, as shown on page 954, are linked to purchase orders created specifically for ad hoc services on 6 March 2025, totaling R110,000,000 plus VAT.

“The amounts on page 954 is purchase orders that has been created specifically for ad hoc services ... It comes to a total amount of R 110 000 000...”

The rank and spelling of Deputy Commissioner Dhlamini's name have been corrected from General and with an H to Deputy Commissioner and without an H respectively.

“His rank as well, I have noticed that his rank is indicated as General. He is not a General. He is Deputy Commissioner is his rank... the name is spelled without an H... I think I am correct.”

Gubis 85 Solutions provides normal Watchman Services deployed for R3,500,000 per month, which is separate from the ad hoc service payments.

“Whereas Gubis 85 Solutions has a normal Watchman Services that is deployed ... of R 3 500 000 per month.”

Typically, the procurement process involves a requisition created by the department, followed by a purchase order generated from that requisition and given to the supplier, after which the work is delivered and an invoice submitted for payment processing.

“Normally within the department there will first be a requisition created by the department for service to be rendered, and then a purchase order will be generated based on the requisition from the department, and that purchase order will then be given to the supplier... he will deliver the work as per the purchase order, and at the end of the period when he delivered the work, he will submit an invoice.”

It should not be possible to load and have purchase orders processed where the actual work has not been done, and there should be a complete paper trail including sign-offs linking purchase orders to work done.

“It is created by the finance department or in our department... If they corrupt, most probably it can happen, but it should not be able to happen... There should be a trail of the requisition, sign off, the purchase order trail. There should be a paperwork trail to that, and that should then be linked to work actually being conducted as well.”

There is a monitoring team from Asset Protection Security Services, headed by Director Tshukudu Malatji, who verify guard deployment and work completion before invoice payment is processed.

“There is also a monitoring team from Asset Protection Security Services that if there is a purchase order, that they will actually go and inspect and see that there is guards deployed, there is work being done, and then the invoice process is signed off... headed by Director Tshukudu Malatji.”

Penalty clauses for non-compliance in security guard duties were not enforced until April last year, but have been definitely implemented from May last year due to the monitoring system for guard deployment verification and checks.

“until last year April, there was no really penalty clauses levied. But from May last year, penalty clauses are definitely implemented because of the monitoring system that we put in place to make sure that the guard deployment are verified and are checked”

The Asset Protection Service (APS) has limited personnel, with only seven regional supervisors, and the department through Commissioner Faro deployed 54 Metro Police officers to conduct random site visits and inspections on a shift basis, ensuring compliance via penalty clauses if security guards do not meet requirements such as proper uniform or PSIRA appointment cards.

“in APS is the asset protection... Commissioner Faro, we have decided to deploy 54 Metro Police officers to the same functions... as per shift basis, that they actually visit all sites and the sites are randomly visited and OB entries are made... there is a penalty clauses if there is non-compliance... if a security guard does not have uniform or security guard does not have a PSIRA appointment card... there is penalty clauses that is being levied”

The inspections of security sites are done randomly but not adhoc, with a team appointed to work specific shifts on a 24/7 system as an inspection and monitoring team, ensuring all sites in the region and sector are inspected.

“It is randomly, the inspection itself is not adhoc. It is a team that has been appointed and they work a specific shift because we work on a 24-7 system. So that team is assigned as an inspection and monitoring team... they must do the inspections of all sites in the region and the sector where they are deployed”

If a breach of duty occurs, for example theft of lawn mowers or grass cutters from company stores and it is due to negligence of guards on duty (such as sleeping), the levy will be either replacement of the goods or a credit or debit note against the invoice to the security company.

“If there is a breach... lawn mowers or grass cutters are stolen... company is... if it is their negligence related to it, there is guard that was on duty and they slept... levy will be either replacement of the goods or the value of the goods will then be a credit note or a debit note...”

The three-year TMPD contract expired in February last year but was extended by 15 months until June this year, amounting to approximately R750,000,000 per year and close to a billion when including adhoc services that escalated this year.

“the three-year contract expired in February last year, and you extended it and now it has been extended again until June this year... that is approximately R750000000... this is only for the Watchman Services. When you add the adhoc that escalated this year, it is going to be close to a billion”

From 1 March 2022 to end of January 2026, the total amount paid under the TMPD contract to all service providers was approximately R2,900,023,467.84 or about R730,857,466 per annum for a financial year July to June.

“total amount paid under this TMPD 2/2016/2017 to all the service providers since inception... 1 March 2022... end of January 2026... was R2900023467.84 which makes it approximately R730857466 per annum, our annum... It is a financial year, which July to June”

The payments for watchman services historically have remained fairly consistent throughout the years with very little fluctuation in the number of guards deployed, and any fluctuations come from adhoc services assigned on the side.

“The watchman services, the deployment, it very slightly differs... the payments stay consistent through the years... very little movement therein the watchman services... fluctuations actually came from the adhoc services that was assigned on the sideline”

At the end of June financial year, the budget needed an uplift of R91 million due to exceeding the budget and inability to pay for sideline adhoc services, resulting in a letter drafted by Deputy Chief Dhlamini and approved by the Chief of Police and City Manager to authorize uplift funds payment.

“At the end of June... our budget needs an upliftment of R91 million because we have exceeded our budget and we could not pay for the sideline adhoc services... there was then, by the Chief of Police, a specific letter that was drafted in the department... signed off by the Chief of Police as recommended and requested, and the CFO to recommend it, and approved by the City Manager”

The Tshwane Metro Police Department sought approval for an upliftment of funds on security and watchman services amounting to R91 million for the 2024-25 financial year to settle invoices for May and June 2025.

“The Tshwane Metro Police Department wishes to seek approval for the upliftment of funds on security services to the amount of R91 million for 2024-025 financial year to settle invoices for”

The City of Tshwane operates a hybrid security model integrating in-source security guards and contracted private security companies, per a court ruling directing it to contract 22 private security providers for a three-year period starting March 2022 and expiring February 2025, with extensions approved until September 2025.

“The City operates a hybrid security model that integrates both in-source security guards and contracted private security companies. This approach was adopted following a court ruling in August 2021, which directed the City to contract 22 private security service providers for a three-year period...The contracted services began their services with the city on 1 March 2022, and the contract expired on 28 February 2025. An approved extension of the current contract was set to expire on 30 June 025. The BAC approved a further extension of the security services for a period of three months from 1 July to 30 September 2025.”

During the 2024-2025 financial year, the City of Tshwane approved a budget of approximately R3 billion for provision of security services to protect city property and personnel, with an additional R350 million allocated during the budget adjustment period due to initial deficits.

“During the financial year, the city approved and made a budget available of R307129702 for provision of security services to protect the property assets and personnel of the City of Tshwane...an additional R350 million was allocated to this service as the initial budget allocated was in deficit.”

The upliftment of funds for the R91 million deficit was recommended by Commissioner Faro as Chief of Police and Mr Mnisi as Chief Financial Officer, and approved by City Manager Mr Mettler on 2 July 2025.

“This is then recommended by Commissioner Faro as the Chief of Police, and it was recommended by Mr Mnisi as the Chief Financial Officer, and he had a comment that he added to say that the department... and it was then approved by the city manager, Mr Mettler, on the 2nd July 025.”

The City of Tshwane's water and sanitation client department approved additional security services but did not provide funds to the TMPD, causing TMPD to pay from its own budget, creating a deficit of R91 million for May and June 2025.

“The client department's water and sanitation department approved additional security services but did not make funds available to enable the TMPD to settle the invoices...This resulted in the TMPD having to pay for the adhoc services rendered from the normal contract budget, thereby creating a deficit of R57 million for the month of June, and a further R34 million, at total of R91 million, will be required for the month of May and June to cover for the adhoc services that would have been rendered.”

The initial security services budget was about half of the normal allocation from the previous financial year, causing depletion by April 2025 and requiring the upliftment to be borne by regional client departments through transfer processes.

“The budget initially was created, if you base it on the previous financial year, the initial budget allocated was half of what was normally allocated, and that is why in the adjustment budget...we were already depleted on our own budget... and that is why the upliftment was then stated to say that there regional departments should have paid it, and the money should be uplifted so that it can actually be transferred...”

Director Tshukudu Malatji was suspended by Commissioner Faroon on 4 July 2025 due to consequence management, with Colonel Reginald Mahlangu acting in his stead as Director of Security and Guarding Services. The disciplinary hearing is ongoing and sub judice.

“Director Malatji has been suspended by Commissioner Faroon recommendation from myself since the 4th of July due to consequence management being implemented against him...Colonel Reginald Mahlangu is acting in his stead formally as the Director of Security and Guarding Services, and that matter of Malatji is still ongoing. It is subjudice, it started as the disciplinary hearing but it is not yet concluded.”

Director Tshukudu Malatji was appointed as Director for Security and Guarding Services in the Tshwane Metro Police Department and directly reports to the head of Asset Protection and Security Services division.

“Director Tshukudu Malatji is appointed as the Director for Security and Guarding Services, and he reports directly to me. The deployment, the monitoring of these security companies and the invoicing processes fall directly under his auspices. He signs off on it, he does the deployment of it... and once he signs off it and do the deployment, he obviously, as the sectional head, he submits it directly to the Deputy Chief Support and Administration...”

A commissioned officer in the South African Police Service (SAPS) is an officer appointed and signed off by the President but when resigning from SAPS, the rank becomes merely ceremonial without powers.

“A commissioned officer in the South African Police Services Act is the South African Police Services Officer who has been Commissioned and signed off by the President because of his appointment as officer. But that is when you resign from the South African Police Service, it becomes a ceremonial rank that you, if you are not fired, you can keep the ceremonial rank, but you have no powers, no function whatsoever, it is only a ceremonial rank.”

A subordinate who was previously a captain or colonel in SAPS disrespected the witness by claiming higher rank because he was a commissioned officer, but the witness clarified that he was not a commissioned officer and belongs to Metro Police.

“he opened the discussion completely disrespectful towards me, stating that he has got a higher rank than me because he is a commissioned officer and I am not a commissioned officer... I stated to him, it is true that I am not a commissioned officer because I am not in the South African Police Service, we are in the Metro Police”

The subordinate actively disobeyed instructions given by the witness and was suspended due to ongoing forensic investigations into breaches and undeclared senior management declarations.

“whenever I give him instructions, he would actively disobey my instructions, and he would not do whatever I have informed him to do... he was then placed on suspension, and a disciplinary matter has been initiated against him and that is still carrying on to date.”

Director Malatji and Nava Pillay are responsible for the management of a contract concerning security services, specifically deployment decisions of security officers.

“Director Malatji and Nava Pillay is responsible for the management of this contract and then in the SLA it states specifically his position as director of security services. He is responsible for deployment. He must therefore, if there is a necessity for a deployment, he makes the decision to deploy security officers.”

From 1 April 2025, a new procedure for the deployment of ad hoc security services was instituted to control such deployments better, requiring motivation and sign-offs by group heads and chief operating officers.

“from between the 12th of March, which initiated from the 1st of April, where the client departments would now fill in a form that has been designed by us, and this form will then have to be signed off with a motivation and full explanation why they would need ad hoc guards. It will go to their group head, which is the head of their department... It will also have to be signed off by the chief operating officer that they actually need this extra ad hoc guards and that they make provision that we can use their funding and budget... So, between the 2nd of March and the 1st of April, this new process was instituted to control the ad hoc guards in a much better method.”

On 12 March 2025, Deputy Commissioner Umashi Dhlamini sent an email highlighting exponential growth in the deployment of ad hoc guards and additional sites added, causing concerns about budget sufficiency.

“on Thursday, the 12th of March, just after 4 o'clock in the afternoon, I was sent an email that originated from Deputy Commissioner Umashi Dhlamini, and in this email he stated that the deployment of ad hoc guards had grown exponentially. There were an extra 30 sites that were added in January 25, and then a further six sites were added in February 25, and we are using our own budget and will run short of funding.”

The email from Umashi Dhlamini dated 12 March 16:04 was sent to multiple high-ranking police officials and outlined concerns about the exponential increase in ad hoc security duties and the risk of depleting funds before the end of the financial year, potentially causing overspending on the General Ledger.

“That is the email that I am referring to from Umashi Dhlamini , and it is dated Wednesday , 12 March , 16:04 . It is sent to me and the Chief of Police , Deputy Commissioner Bolhuis , Brigadier Nkomo , as the acting Deputy Chief of Specialised Services , Deputy Commissioner Nomsa Nhlapho , Mr Veli Nwandule , Jethro Seleka , Priscilla Radiokana , Tshukudu Malatji , Reginald Mahlangu , and Colonel Elvis Madihlaba is cc'd”

The email advises managing ad hoc duties and minimizing new sites to ensure funds are available before deployment and suggests exploring engaging sister departments to persuade CFO to approve or make funds available for ad hoc duties.

“You advise to manage ad hoc duties and minimise new sites to ensure that funds are available before the commencement of the deployment . That you approve the deployment of additional new sites for control purposes . Further that you explore the possibility of engaging the requesting sister department and to persuade them to engage the CFO to approve or make funds available for ad hoc duties . That upon approval and availability of the said funds , the necessary journal be made according so that our budget is not overburdened .”

The email warns that at least 30 additional sites were added in January and six more by 25 February, and this ad hoc spending trend will consume the finances budget for the contract extension by four months, risking zero budget by the end of the contract period.

“It is observed that at least 30 additional sites were added in January , totalling 37 . By February 25 , six more sites were added for ad hoc duties . The implication with this addition is that the spending consumes the finances budget for the extension of the contract for additional four months . If this trend persists , the fear is that main contractual obligations will be at zero budget before the end of the extended contractual period .”

Commissioner Spies interprets the email as someone expressing concern about the increasing allocation of ad hoc services and financial implications.

“If you just look at it from the first two paragraphs , that is exactly what it looks like . Someone is concerned about it , and he wants to make sure that we do not run out of money .”

The email appears to be setting up Commissioner Spies to request additional funding by suggesting exploring other departments for funds.

“This email is clearly someone who is setting me up to say that I must request for additional funding , because the last one is that I explore the possibility of engaging the requesting sister departments . So , this email is actually putting a challenge and a problem that has been created , and now it says , but let us go to other departments to ask for funds .”

Commissioner Spies notes that a flurry of emails followed the initial one, including one where the Chief of Police intervened and said no additional budget would be made available.

“As I ask him this , the Chief of Police came in between with the email to say , stop this , no additional budget will be made available .”

The January annexure lists companies, sites of deployment, and payments excluding and including VAT made to them, indicating normal payments for ad hoc security by two companies and a larger number of deployments by a third company, Gubis 85 Solutions Security.

“So , this list that Commissioner Dhlamini then submitted to me , it listed the companies on the left - hand side , the sites where they have been deployed to , and then the amount , excluding and including VAT , that have to be paid to these service providers . The first two companies are Triotic Protection Services , who has been deployed to Klipgat Wastewater Treatment Works ... Then the next one for January is Mogalagadi Security ... The third company in the ad hoc services is Gubis 85 Solutions Security , which then lists a total of 37 deployments ...”

The February annexure added more sites for Gubis 85 Solutions Security to a total of 43, with a total listing of R14 million for Gubis.

“Then it lists Gubis 85 again for February , which is very similar in nature , except that there is now an extra six sites , which brought the total then to 43 , ending with Findlay Reservoir , and it is a total the listing of R14 million for Gubis .”

The initial award and tender allocation was fair and distributed evenly among companies, with no preferences based on region, but allocation depends on where companies are based and operate.

“the initial award and the way the tender is run is that it is a fair treatment and it is fairly allocated to everyone. There should be no preferences of which company depends on which region. Some companies are specifically restricted, not by us per region, but because of their own deployment.”

Commissioner Spies suggests there is favouritism towards Gubis 85 Solutions Security as the majority of ad hoc work deployment has been assigned to them, despite there being 22 companies on the tender.

“It looks like there is favouritism towards Gubis 85 , and that someone has deployed and assigned first 37 and then 43 only to Gubis , while there is 22 companies that it could be shared between . But it looks like it has been only assigned to Gubis , the majority of all the work ...”

The allocation of security sites is based on the geographic base of the companies, not favoritism towards any single company.

“the allocation of sites, wherever it is needed, is based on where the companies are based and where they are originating from... it should have been allocated to other companies as well, depending on who is closest to them.”

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

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

Chief of Police Commissioner Faro intervened by stating 30 additional sites must be stopped from increasing budget, calling the ad hoc security service irregular and instructing immediate cessation of ad hoc services.

“the Chief of Police, Commissioner Faro, also came in and saw this email and she started to reply... she stated 30 additional sites, I am not approaching anyone to increase the budget, this is irregular, Adhoc services must be stopped... stop all adhoc services with immediate effect.”

Commissioner Spies instructed Director Malatji to stop all ad hoc security services immediately until a new process is implemented, despite the practical limitations of stopping services already underway.

“stop the adhoc services with immediate effect until a new process is actually implemented... stop this service by tomorrow morning, that the service will not continue then.”

Stopping ad hoc security services immediately means sites will be left unguarded as these deployments were unauthorized and illegal.

“the site will be left unguarded when we say stop the services... it looks like it is an irregular deployment, it was done with no authorisation, so we are actually doing, at that moment in my head, we are doing illegal work, and that must be immediately stopped.”

TMPD (Tshwane Metropolitan Police Department) is responsible for the deployment and allocation of security work to private companies.

“It is TMPD... the contract management of the tender is placed within TMPD, and the award letters and the SLA assigns this function to Director Malatji. He is the one who, in terms of the award letter and terms of the SLA is the director security, he must perform the function.”

The client department makes requests to TMPD to allocate security guards to specific sites.

“the client department make a request to TMPD to say we want you to allocate security guards at this reservoir or at this site.”

Ad hoc security services with a purchase order can be stopped at any time as they are procured services; purchase orders allow quick initiation and cessation of these services.

“adhoc services with a purchase order are to procure these services of adhoc services. That can be, in terms of the SLA, it can be stopped any time. It can be very quickly initiated, and it can be very quickly stopped.”

A process to redo minimum-security risk assessments for all council sites was initiated, identifying a false need for ad hoc security services based on low incidents of breaches or attacks at sites.

“I already initiated the process where we started to do a reassessment of all sites ... there was a false need created ... there was no increase in breaches or attacks on reservoirs or water pump stations ... approximately six for that financial year.”

The ad hoc deployment of guards at 1087 to 1251 sites was initiated without prior risk assessments and involved unnecessary and costly deployment.

“The ad hoc was started, it was started on a need and ... when this stopped, immediate with the ad hoc, is that we immediately were already busy with risk assessments ... it is still not needed to have all of those sites actually protected in this serious manner of having guards ... which we are looking at, rather than deploying people to those sites at a massive cost to the city.”

An email was sent by Commissioner Spies on 12 March 2025 at 16:07 asking Commissioner Dhlamini who approved and mandated the ad hoc security services and how the process is usually managed, but no response was received.

“I replied to all again to say to Commissioner Dhlamini: 'Who approved and mandated Ad Hoc Security Services? Who decided to give the instruction for this? And how is this process managed within the department historically?' I must state that to date I have not received an answer on this email.”

Deputy Commissioner Bolhuis refused to sign off on any documentation or request additional funds for unauthorised ad hoc sites and ordered an investigation into this conduct due to potential audit queries affecting the city and department.

“I am not signing off any documentation or requesting additional funds ... This will not be entertained ... please launch an investigation in this regard ... this behaviour must stop as it will cause audit queries which will not only affect the department but the city as a whole.”

Deputy Commissioner Bolhuis was the caretaker of the Asset Protection Unit between July 2024 and February 2025, prior to the appointment of the current occupant in March 2025.

“Deputy Commissioner Bolhuis was assigned as caretaker for this division ... I was only appointed on 1 March 2025.”

Between 12 March and 1 April 2025, a new procedure with a new application form and process flow for ad hoc guards was created, finalized with the acting COO Dr Malaka, and instituted on 1 April 2025.

“I introduced a new procedure between the 12th of March and the 1st of April ... created and designed a new application form, a new process flow ... was then the acting COO, Dr Malaka ... eventually when on 1 April it was instituted as a new process for all ad hoc guards going forward.”

Despite requests, Commissioner Dhlamini and Director Malatji have not responded to requests for reports and information about the ad hoc guards' deployment, hindering consequence management.

“Commissioner Dhlamini has never responded to me in my question to date, and Director Malatji has also not responded to me at all ... I have asked that reports and everything ... and that is part of why there is consequence management happening.”

Deputy Commissioner Spies instructed to stop any ad hoc deployment until the correct procedure is implemented and emphasized no additional funding is available.

“Deputy Commissioner Spies, please stop any ad hoc deployment until the correct procedure determined by you has been implemented, bearing in mind that there is no additional funding already.”

Payments for January, February, and part of March were delayed, with ad hoc financial guards added as a stop-gap, but the January payments were stopped on March 12. February and March payments came through later, including what should have been a half payment for March, but full payments continued due to lack of written instruction to stop.

“...the January payments that is currently being affected, and we only stopped it on the 12th of March...there will still be payments coming through for February, and also then for the first portion of March...March should have been a half payment, and not a full payment again...he is not going to do the stop of it if it is not in writing from me.”

Commissioner Spies confirmed sending the letter to Gubis 85 on 24 June ordering stoppage of unapproved ad hoc security services not authorized by any written process.

“That is the letter that I then sent to Gubis 85 Solutions on the 24th of June, where I say: “Stop page of ad hoc services which have not been approved in terms of any written process.”

A letter dated 24 June was sent by Commissioner Spies to Gubis 85 instructing them to stop the ad hoc security services with effect from 30 June due to lack of approval based on written process.

“I sent a letter to Gubis 85 specifically to say, as of now, you stop this...stop the service with effect 30 June...stop the services.”

Tshwane Metro Police identified sites belonging to Department of Water as having unapproved ad hoc security services and decided to stop these services from 1 July 2025.

“all the sites mentioned on the attached Annexure A were identified by the Tshwane Metro Police as the sites belonging to the Department of Water on which ad hoc security services are being rendered without any approval based on written process. Therefore, the Tshwane Metro Police Department has taken a decision to stop these services with effect from the 1st of July 25.”

Commissioner Spies testified he issued instructions on 12 March to Director Malatji to stop further deployment of security.

“you testified earlier on that you issued instructions on the 12th of March...to Director Malatji to say that no more deployment.”

Despite instructions issued on 12 March to stop payments, payments continued, prompting a further letter to Gubis on 24 June because Malatji stated he wouldn't stop without written order.

“I queried with Malatji to say, but I have told you on the 12th of March already to stop this. Why is a full payment still coming through?...I have sent a letter to them to say, stop the service with effect 30 June.”

Gubis 85 Solutions sent multiple attachments back with their response to the stop letter, including the original award letter from 2022 and reports of their services rendered, and deployment lists signed off mostly by Inspector Phiri who conducted the deployments.

“they have also attached a lot of attachments...they have sent me the original award letter...a report through to me of their services rendered...deployment...signed off at the bottom...contact Lebohang Phiri...signature...Inspector Phiri.”

Inspector Phiri was responsible for conducting the security deployments to 43 sites listed by Gubis 85.

“I noticed that the deployments were done by Inspector Phiri who did the deployments...43 sites, there is an individual page for every deployment.”

Every deployment related document in the list from page 382 to 424 was signed by Inspector Phiri, except pages 18 and 19 in the report which were unsigned by him.

“everything according to me is signed by Mr Phiri...page 8, I say page 18 but 18 in the report, two of the files is not Mr Phiri but it is a page in my pdf, it is 18 and 19...”

A deployment letter was signed off by Dr K E Madihlaba and Inspector Phiri but the contract ended on the 30th, so services should have stopped regardless of the letter.

“page 399 and page 400 which has been signed off by Dr K E Madihlaba. There is Inspector Phiri that I have signed it off and as I stated that they sent this back to me to say that, but we had written permission to proceed with it and when they sent this to me and I looked at it, I replied back to them to say, but in any case your contract ended the 30th, so stop the services even if you had this and that. I did not say anything further to them about this.”

An investigation found there is enough evidence against Inspector Phiri to start consequence management against him for unauthorized actions.

“Mr Baloyi then responded to me about a week later and he stated to me that there is enough evidence against Inspector Phiri that we can start and proceed with consequence management against him.”

Letters authorizing deployment were issued without knowledge of senior department members and Inspector Phiri is too low in rank to authorize deployment.

“What I then did is, this is the first time that us and even the department, I even spoke to Deputy Commissioner Bolhuis about it, none of us knew that these letters were issued and I looked at these letters and Inspector Phiri, in terms of command and control, in our ranking structure, if you go from the bottom up, you have a Constable Sergeant Inspector, then a Superintendent, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, Brigadier, which is the Director level and the Deputy Chief level. Inspector Phiri, in my mind and at that moment in time, is way too low to authorise any expenditure or even to deploy.”

Inspector Phiri is a Metro Police officer assigned as a regional supervisor for Asset Protection Security Services and reports to Colonel Madihlaba, Colonel Mahlangu, and Director Malatji but should not have deployment authority.

“Inspector Phiri has been assigned, he is a Metro Police officer that is been assigned to the APSS, the Asset Protection Security Services, as a regional supervisor. And in that turn, he reports as a regional supervisor, he reports to the then Senior Superintendent Madihlaba, who is now a Colonel Madihlaba. But he reported to, Colonel Madihlaba, Colonel Mahlangu, Reginald Mahlangu, and to Director Malatji. So that is the direct line of command between them. And as I stated already, Inspector Phiri should not have at all the authority to deploy this.”

The deployment letters were created on 14 January before purchase orders created in March, which is the incorrect procedural order for deployments.

“If I base it on the dates that I receive, obviously this is speaking in hindsight because I only received this on the 26th of June. But the purchase orders that I now know was all created on March 6th, but the deployment letters were already created in 14 of January. It is completely wrong way around.”

The correct procedure is to first have a risk assessment, then create a purchase order, then issue the deployment letter.

“You must first do the risk assessment. Now in the process is where you must first do the risk assessment. After the risk assessment, if it is then necessary to deploy, there will then be a purchase order created for the deployment and then the deployment will take place.”

Deployment letters did not specify the length of deployment, making deployments effectively open-ended which is improper for ad hoc services.

“So, you are just deployed to a site with effect from the y give a date and time. But then they do not say, for example, that it is going to be a month or it is going to be for two months. So, it is an open-ended deployment until it is withdrawn.”

Metro Police cannot investigate criminal matters themselves because they lack criminal investigative powers, so such matters must be referred elsewhere.

“It is one of the challenges we have as a Metro Police Department is that when it becomes obvious that it is criminal , it becomes a criminal matter and we do not have criminal investigative powers”

The internal affairs head of Metro Police, Brigadier Minnaar, appointed Freddy Chauke from internal affairs to investigate a matter, but Chauke could not conclude the investigation due to its technical nature and inability to obtain internal evidence.

“Brigadier Minnaar appointed Freddy Chauke from the internal affairs section to do the investigation and then at a much later stage , about a month later , Mr Chauke approached me formally and said to me that he can not conclude this investigation . He has done a lot of legwork , but he could not conclude it as it is extremely technical . He also can not obtain internal evidence and more evidentiary proof .”

Ad hoc services deployment should be for a specific reason and period, not open-ended; the process followed here was definitely wrong.

“Ad hoc services is an emergency deployment for a specific reason, for a specific period, ad hoc services is not an open-ended and off we go. So, this process is definitely wrong.”

Director Malatji was appointed project manager and responsible for dealing with all aspects of the tender; an inspector does not have authority to deploy or incur costs on behalf of the city.

“Director Malatji was appointed as the project manager, and he had to deal with all aspects of this tender, and an inspector does not have the authority to deploy or incur any cost on behalf of the city.”

After internal affairs' investigation hit a dead end, the matter was reported to the Hawks in Pretoria with Colonel Livio Maseko, because it appeared to be a criminal matter requiring forensic audit.

“I then reported the matter to the Hawks , Colonel Livio Maseko , which is the head of Pretoria Hawks . I reported it to him to say we know we have got a criminal matter here which to me looks more criminal and it is not now just an administrative problem anymore and our internal affairs we cannot investigate it further it is now going to be referred to a forensic audit.”

The forensic audit report compiled by Freddy Chauke was delayed in being forwarded from Brigadier Minnaar to Group Audit and Risk (GAR), getting stuck at the Chief's office and only submitted late, despite its critical nature for the investigation.

“Brigadier Minnaar sent it to Deputy Commissioner Dhlamini to say to him DC here is our report with the recommendation that it be forwarded through the Chief's Office to GAR . It got stuck there , it never went further than that and on the 10th of March when I started to query and to say actually I started the week before because the forensic investigators were with me and I mentioned them this report and they are like no but we investigate the same matter from another avenue , it is not from that report and when I went back to Brigadier Minnaar he sent this email to me to say no here is a report I have sent it to my Deputy Chief , I omitted to include you in the original one . And then I said to him can you please make sure that it immediately gets to GAR because it is critical for the current investigation .”

The forensic audit report concerns Metro Police Inspector issuing instructions to deploy guards beyond his mandate, involving 22 companies, but the investigation faced challenges due to lack of evidence and inability to interview key individuals.

“The subject matter was the Metro Police Inspector issuing written instruction to deploy ad hoc guards beyond his mandate . And the letter then in the introduction portion it specifically stated : “ On 27 June this Directorate received allegations to investigate against Inspector Phiri for issuing written instructions to Gubis 85 Security Solution to deploy ad hoc guards which is way beyond his mandate . ” ... the investigation is unable to test the allegation against 22 companies to establish whether Inspector Phiri issued the instruction to all these service providers to deploy ad hoc guards . ... unable to interview Director Malatji ... director Malatji has then already been suspended ... He refused and he could not get hold of him at all to actually do this and he could also not confirm with SAPS if there were any cases ... He was also unable to source the standard operating procedure ... he was unable to source full financial records ...”

The report concluded that the allegations indicate possible crime of fraud and corruption but recommend a thorough forensic investigation due to potential cost implications and employee misconduct.

“But the allegations submitted have substance and indicate a possible crime of fraud and corruption . However thorough forensic investigation would be more suitable to indicate cost to the municipality and all the employees involved of misconduct .”

Inspector Phiri failed to give a statement despite instructions; his direct supervisor also failed to get him to report, leading to disciplinary steps and consequence management being introduced.

“His direct supervisor has been given instructions that he must report Monday morning past 10 o'clock at the office . He has failed to do so . So disciplinary steps and consequence management is being introduced again for that as well . So , we are trying to get hold of him , but we are starting with consequence management , not us , but the department and his regional divisional head .”

The report on challenges in the investigation was concluded by Internal Affairs and sent on 29 and 30 July, but a key witness, Inspector Phiri, was unable to be interviewed or provide a statement before finalization.

“this report was concluded on the email that was already sent on the 29th of July...sent to the Deputy Chief Dhlamini for his office...Unable to interview Malatji if he is suspended and suspended but unable to interview and obtain a statement from Inspector Phiri”

The forensic investigation related to a report that cost the City a lot of money is ongoing, with an initial report sent late and no feedback received to date.

“now there must be a complex forensic investigation that cost the city a lot of money...there is already a forensic investigation happening...the Hawks were already investigating Gubis because there was an anonymous informant and reporter who reported...I have not received any feedback on that investigation”

There was an issue where Gubis Solutions invoiced for five or six guards per shift but only deployed one or none, indicating potential irregularities being investigated by the Hawks.

“the company is supposed to deploy five or six guards per shift, but they only deploy one or none and then they will invoice the five or six guards and they will be paid accordingly...the Hawks were then already investigating the specific portion of Gubis 85”

The tender 12024-2025 relates to monitoring and prevention of illegal and building occupations in Tshwane, informally called the land invasion tender, and was advertised on 26 August 2024; the bid involved numerous officials and was processed with probity procedures.

“At paragraph 54 tender 12024-2025 it relates to the monitoring and prevention of illegal and building occupation service as well as the demolition of any illegally erected structures in the city of Tshwane...Informally ... we call it the land invasion tender...advertisement date was 26 August...the Bid Specification Committee included six named members...the bid was processed with probity and approved on 7 October”

The Acting Chief of Police signed service level agreements (SLAs) on behalf of the city for a land invasion tender involving eight companies, starting 1 November 2025.

“I was appointed as the Acting Chief of Police for the period 22 December 2025 to 14 January 2026... on Thursday the 15th of January I signed the service level agreement between the land invasion tender companies and the city... this tender is ongoing and as I stated it commenced 1 November...”

There is only one Service Level Agreement (SLA) template used for all eight companies, differing only in company name, signatories, and addresses.

“No, it is eight, 100 percent the same SLA except the name of the company and the signatories at the bottom, the address details...the SLA from where it starts with the wording of the SLA to where it ends with the wording is 100 percent the same SLA for all companies.”

Deputy Commissioner Dhlamini and Sergeant Nkosi conspired to secure the appointment of Ngaphesheya Construction Projects as a successful bidder on the tender, despite Ngaphesheya's bid being non-compliant.

“... to me is Deputy Commissioner Dhlamini and Sergeant Nkosi conspired to secure the appointment of Ngaphesheya Construction as one of the successful bidders on this tender, despite the fact that the Ngaphesheya bid was non-compliant.”

The city has paid Ngaphesheya Construction Projects a total of R2,028,54.32 for services ostensibly provided under the tender as of end January 2026.

“The city has thus far paid Ngaphesheya a total amount of R202854.32, ostensibly for services provided to the city in terms of this tender, TMPD 24-25.”

Payments to Ngaphesheya Construction Projects have been made late (approximately 30 days after invoicing), yet the total amount due for services up to the end of January 2026 has been paid.

“The payments are made later than normal, because we take about 30 days to pay companies... that has been paid to the company itself although the purchase order is dated 7 February but it is for the work linked to this company...”

Commissioner Spies states he acted as a whistleblower at the Commission and complains about victimization in his career, including being addressed abusively and mocked with the nickname 'Madlanga Commission'.

“... I testified as a whistle blower at the Commission and the victimisation of whistle blowers, even in my new career, the way I am being - and I do not want to put it openly as abuse, but it is the way I am being addressed. My nickname is, for instance, they will make jokes about it, to say Madlanga Commission, when I enter into a conversation or when I sit in a meeting.”

Commissioner Spies highlights institutional failures and subversion of lawful authority he experienced during his tenure at Tshwane Metro Police.

“I obviously submit this statement to highlight the institutional failures or the subversion of lawful authority that I experienced during my limited time at Tshwane Metro Police.”

There are people who feel threatened by the presence of Deputy Commissioner Spies at the Commission and intend to use the notes taken against future commissions.

“There are people that say that my presence threatened them, and I am taking notes, and I will use it against future commissions and that.”

Honest people often fear speaking out, and those few who do speak out face proper victimisation; thus, measures are needed to protect whistleblowers from retaliation within the law enforcement context.

“There is a lot of honest people that are too afraid to speak, and the few of us that do speak about it, we are properly victimised, and there is genuinely something that needs to be done to protect whistleblowers.”

There is a need to protect whistleblowers to encourage honest people who want to uphold the law to come forward without fear of victimization or reprisal.

“I would really ask the Commission if we can really look at something eventually in recommendations, which look at how do we protect whistleblowers? How do we make it as easy as possible for genuine people who wants to uphold the law, who wants to be honest, how can we protect them from coming out in divulge?”

Deputy Commissioner Spies will provide evidence relevant to protecting whistleblowers and related issues at the Commission.

“That will be the evidence of Commissioner Spies, Chair.”