Hearing day 93

Sergeant Nkosi provided names of bidders for the TMPD 1-24/25 tender including eight security companies.

“Sergeant Nkosi providing you with the names of bidders, including Elshadai Security Services, Two Cops in Security, Tau Tau Security, Vision Acuity Security, Shumile Security and Vmtsire Security and Protection Services”

Mr Mnisi explained to Sergeant Nkosi that he could not check compliance because there was a strict segregation of duties and he had no access to the documents of the Bid Evaluation Committee.

“Chair, I just explained that there is nothing I can do to check compliance.”

Mr Mnisi believed Sergeant Nkosi's request was based on a mistaken belief that he could check if the bids were compliant.

“I believe his request was premised at the time on the mistaken belief that I would be able to check if the bids were compliant. He was of course wrong.”

Sergeant Nkosi sent messages on 11 March 2025 naming two security companies for the TMPD tender and sought to check compliance on behalf of CIC.

“In this message he sends me a notice saying: “Two vehicles for land, Ngaphesheya and Elshadai." ... He then refers to a message where he is talking about the red berets and please check with Mfowethu, put the same from CIC.”

Sergeant Nkosi continued to send reminders to Mr Mnisi to check compliance on bids although Mr Mnisi had no capacity to do so because the tender process was closed and under lock and key.

“He then clearly explained to him unequivocally, Chair, that I cannot check compliance, this bid has closed, there is nothing I can do... this is like a reminder now... he is seeing that I am not doing anything about the request that he had sent.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledged being thankful to Sergeant Nkosi for reminders despite repeatedly telling him compliance checks were not possible.

“Thanks for the reminder... I say thank you, my bro.”

Mr Mnisi explained the repeated reminders and his responses were brought up to illuminate events around the tender and to show why he was mentioning these instances.

“But as we go along, Chair, you will understand why I am mentioning this on purpose and I am bringing in the number of events that came about with this particular tender.”

MR Mnisi admitted that he did not make it clear to Sergeant Nkosi that he could not check compliance and that Sergeant Nkosi's repeated requests showed he did not understand the tender process constraints.

“Clearly you did not do that.”

Mr Mnisi is repeatedly receiving messages from Sergeant Nkosi reminding him to check compliance of entities, but he does not recall receiving the names originally and is only thanking him for the reminder, not for the information.

“He sends me the names of the entities, he asks me to check for compliance. I tell him I do not recall during the phone call, I do not recall receiving these entities. He had sent them to me on the 11th of March. I do not recall. He said, I will remind you. He then sends it. Then, Chairperson and Co-Commissioners ... I say, I thank you for the reminder.”

Mr Mnisi expresses annoyance and eye-rolling at the persistent requests from Sergeant Nkosi and acknowledges receiving repeated requests on the same subject but does not respond for hours, clarifying he does not ignore them entirely but handles matters differently.

“I am at a stage where I am literally rolling my eyes now and I am getting a bit annoyed at this stage, at 57. This is the third instance where he is sending me the names. ... I ignore this, Chair. Clear distinction in time that ...”

Mr Mnisi states he does not check compliance on the documents because he is legally unable to; he explains that once he has said there is nothing he can do, he will not entertain further requests and considers further persistence as a waste of time.

“I clearly made it, I expressly made it clear to him there is nothing I can do to check compliance for you, this bid has closed. An individual who persists, once I have said, Chair, I am not going to waste my time and entertain that any further.”

Mr Mnisi denies ignoring Sergeant Nkosi’s texts for 4 hours on 25 March 2025 and clarifies that he responds within an hour directly to the issue of the companies, refuting the claim he ignored the messages.

“That is your response to Chair. And I am saying to you, that is incorrect because within an hour, you actually respond and your respond directly to the issue of the companies. So it is not a different incident. It is the same day, within an hour.”

Mr Mnisi claims that the persistent reminders and sending of names by Sergeant Nkosi are triggers for discussion, not initiated by Mr Mnisi but by Sergeant Nkosi.

“Is that not a trigger, Commissioner Khumalo? Is that not another trigger? With all fairness and with all due respect, do I initiate this again or does Sergeant Nkosi trigger this discussion again? With all fairness, it is a trigger from Sergeant Nkosi, Commissioner Khumalo. It is not me, hence, I am saying this is the fourth instance that this matter comes upon.”

ADV BALOY denies ignoring 'Mfowethu' and instead acknowledges the messages and arranges a meeting with him, refuting the notion that he expressed irritation or annoyance.

“You did not ignore him. You acknowledged him. ... you acknowledge his message. And then you go on to arrange a meeting with him. By any description or definition, you did not ignore him.”

MR MNISI states he was not encouraging 'Mfowethu' but was expressing himself in his own manner, and disagrees with characterizations that he ignored the persistence.

“I respectfully disagree with you. I am not encouraging him at all. ... I saw it irrelevant from my perspective.”

MR MNISI describes a pattern of persistence from 'Mfowethu' spanning multiple dates, sending reminders and lists of companies to check for compliance.

“He sends me a list of companies: “Please give to Mfowethu in order of priority.” ... I was persisting on this from 148, 152, 157 on the 11th, 18th, and 25th of March.”

Mr Mnisi understood the WhatsApp message as an instruction to check compliance in order of priority, but he did not and could not check compliance because it was outside his domain and there was nothing he could do.

“the discussion that we had starting on 148 was purely for me to check compliance which I could not do and I am clear to that ... I did not do that because it was outside my domain ... I did not check compliance, I could not check compliance, there was nothing I could do”

Mr Mnisi states that the persistent requests to check compliance came from the same individual repeatedly and were unreasonable after he made it clear there was nothing he could do.

“this is coming up for the fourth time from the same individual ... he clearly did not understand ... the persistence also shows me that over and above not understanding the context ... there is no trigger of me being triggered to try and assist with these matters”

Mr Mnisi was ordered to check compliance by a Captain, who sent a message to him involving a list of entities which was to be given to Mfowethu in order of priority, but Mr Mnisi does not know who Mfowethu is or what the exact relevance is.

“You see that? ... Who was that Mfowethu?... I cannot speak for what he was saying... I read this message that I must check compliance for these companies ... I cannot see if this is a forwarded message ... I read this as a message from him to me”

Mr Mnisi asserts he responded to messages indicating 'I am on top of this' and 'This is ours, Mfowethu, this is the final list', indicating ownership or responsibility over the matter.

“I say: 'Thanks Mfowethu, I am on top of this.' I say: 'This is ours, Mfowethu, this is the final list.'”

Mr Mnisi says the message about checking compliance lists seven companies in order of priority but it is part of a build-up of communication starting on 11 March, not isolated.

“Seven companies I see. Priority I see ... you cannot read this message on 77 in isolation of page 148, in isolation of page 15. It is a build-up, so it would be extremely unfair for us to take this as an isolated single event. It is a build-up starting on the 11th of March”

Mr Mnisi understood that the person communicating with him wanted to ensure that the municipality awarded contracts to certain entities and that Mr Mnisi would ensure these entities get the awards in the order listed, and that this understanding was due to the persistent nature of the communication.

“you came to understand that he actually wanted to ensure that the Municipality ... he was communicating with you ... you would make sure that these entities get the award and get the award in the order listed ... that was my understanding due to the persistent nature of this”

Mr Mnisi had to deal with persistent requests from an individual friend regarding an improper award related to a contract or process.

“He persists ... your understanding there, and bear in mind that when we go back, the request was about something you could not do, and you had to told him so. He persists”

Mr Mnisi admitted that he was annoyed by the persistence of a friend pushing for an improper award, but took the approach to manage the friendship and play along without doing anything to facilitate improper conduct.

“I am annoyed because I was clear to that there is nothing I could do, ... So I play along intentionally, and that playing along and me entertaining him assists me, because this is the last time he ever raises this issue”

The improper award was eventually made on 5 September 2025, about six months after the initial persistent requests.

“The award is eventually made nine months down the line, on the 5th of September”

Mr Mnisi states that his choice to play along with the friendship was to avoid constant harassment over the issue.

“Had I not treated this man in the manner that I did, I would have been constantly bombarded with this issue over and over”

Chairperson questions why Mr Mnisi did not explicitly tell his friend to stop suggesting improper awards despite repeated requests.

“And I do not understand why you would not have told your friend that, look here, my responses on this have been A, B, C, D”

Chairperson suggests Mr Mnisi cooperated with Sergeant Nkosi and that Mr Mnisi’s requests for names probably prompted the award request.

“I want to suggest to you that you were actually cooperating with Sergeant Nkosi and when the names were given a second time, probably during the telephone calls, you had asked for the names again. And now he is giving you names so that there may be an award”

Chairperson says Mr Mnisi does not come across as a weak person and that not challenging the friend’s suggestion of effecting an improper award shows weakness.

“You do not come across as a weak person. And this second alternative, which is basically not to challenge him when he is suggesting that you should effect an improper award, shows weakness”

Mr Mnisi claims he played along with the persistent friend to avoid conflict and harassment, even though he knew he could not check compliance or facilitate an improper award.

“I stick to my guns that I cannot check for you, but I see the persistent nature. ... I was playing like a fool. Was it the smartest strategy to get out this conundrum? No, it was not. But did it assist me in the long run? It did”

Mr Mnisi denies cooperating with Sergeant Nkosi and denies doing anything to suggest interference or to check compliance regarding the award request despite persistent messages.

“I was not cooperating with him, Commissioner. I could not cooperate with him. There was nothing I could do to check any compliance or to interfere in the process. I also did not do anything to suggest with the objective evidence that we are looking at that I interfered in this process”

Adv Sello questions the text exchange and suggests Sergeant Nkosi did not actually ask Mr Mnisi to check compliance, but that Mr Mnisi initiated multiple calls to Sergeant Nkosi early in the morning and requested a list that led to the award request.

“Where in the text does Sergeant Nkosi ask you to check compliance? ... if you look at 157, it is you who is making multiple calls to him before he sends you that list. It is very early in the morning. It is almost like the first thing you do when you wake up. You make several phone calls to him. And after the third phone call, he then sends you the list”

There were two modes of communication discussed: a telephonic phone call and an SMS, regarding sending a list of companies to check compliance.

“Terms of requesting or modes of communication that are in front of us is two ways. The first mode of communication would be via a telephonic phone call. A second mode of communication would be via an SMS. In this instance, I did say to the Commissioner, to the Chair, as well as yourself, Commissioner Khumalo, that the phone call on 149 that took place at 326, is when we had a discussion clarifying the above. On 148, he sends me the list of those entities and two other messages from there.”

There is no text or WhatsApp message where Sergeant Nkosi asks to check compliance in writing.

“So, let us keep this short, then. There is no text or WhatsApp where he says to you in writing, please check compliance. Yes, and I did not say there was a text, Commissioner Khumalo.”

The discussion was about sending a list of companies and was clarified in a telephonic call before the list was sent.

“This is where we have a discussion, and this is where he clarifies to me that he wants me to assist in checking compliance. So, the mode of communication might not have been in writing, but there was a telephonic phone call, from my recollection that where he explained why he is sending me the list of these companies.”

The phone call on page 149 explains why Sergeant Nkosi is sending the list of companies, and compliance issues come on board then.

“I have explained to the Commission that the second mode was a phone call, which happened on page 149, where he explains to me why he is sending me those companies, and this is where the issue of compliance come on board.”

There were multiple chats (around 390) between Mr Mnisi and Sergeant Nkosi demonstrating frequent communication and a developed friendship.

“Chair, indeed. Me and this guy used to speak all the time, and it is evident from the chats. We have more than, I think, 390 chats. He was my friend.”

Mr Mnisi denies ever inducing Sergeant Nkosi to send him a list of companies to break the law.

“From the best of my recollection, I would never and I would not induce him to send me a list of companies to break the law. I would never do that, Chair, and I did not do that.”

The term 'Mfowethu' used by Mr Mnisi typically means 'I have arrived' and was used to indicate arrival at a meeting venue.

“No, it would, this is, would mean me saying I have arrived. We were supposed to meet at a specific venue, as you will see beforehand. So when he says, 'Sharp, Mfowethu', and when I say 'Mfowethu', I am saying I have arrived, because immediately after that, I explain that I have arrived. It was not a form of acknowledgement. It was me telling him I have arrived where we were supposed to meet.”

Mr Mnisi previously claimed not to know who Mfowethu was but now accepts that Mfowethu referred to him and that he was untruthful in his earlier statement.

“you are untruthful or you were untruthful in your answer to the Chair when you say, I do not know who is Mfowethu here ... you do accept it, therefore, given your explanation, do you accept that the Mfowethu referred to in this text is in fact you?”

Mr Mnisi was sent a message to check compliance in order of priority concerning companies listed, and he accepted that the name 'Mfowethu' in that message referred to him.

“I was of the understanding that it is directed at me, it is directed at me, it is sent to me... I needed to... what was this message sent to you, what was the importance of that firstly? I said they wanted me to check compliance... to be given to Mfowethu ... I was understanding that it is sent to me and it was for me to address”

Mr Mnisi and Sergeant Nkosi routinely refer to each other by the name 'Mfowethu' in their communications.

“myself and Sergeant Nkosi, I refer to him as Mfowethu, he refers to me as the same”

Mr Mnisi denied being untruthful initially and said his answers were recollections of events and not false, expressing respect but disagreement with the accusation of falsehood.

“firstly, the indication that my answers are false, I must try and firstly address that and respectfully disagree because these are the recollection of the events and I am trying to take the Commission through what transpired at that point in time ... I would like to disagree with that inference, that my answers are false. They are not false”

Sergeant Nkosi sends Mr Mnisi names of companies as an impermissible instruction to check compliance in respect of those companies, referring to them as 'Mfowethu'.

“Sergeant Nkosi sends you names of companies that to the rest of us seem to be the names of the companies he wants to get this tender, but to you seem to be the names of the companies in respect of which he is impermissibly asking you to check compliance... your constant or repetitive way of communicating with Sergeant Nkosi is you refer to him and he refers to you as Mfowethu”

The messages forwarded by Sergeant Nkosi to Mr. Mnisi from Deputy Chief Dhlamini involved lists of candidates for a bid process, which Mr. Mnisi acknowledged.

“all three of these messages were actually messages which were forwarded by Sergeant Nkosi to you from messages that he had received from Deputy Chief Dhlamini”

Sergeant Nkosi was asking Mr. Mnisi to privilege two bidders through the tender process, even though Mr. Mnisi initially thought the request was only to check compliance.

“two of these seven out of 57 successful bidders just happened to be the two bidders who Sergeant Nkosi was asking you to privilege through this process... even though at the time you say you thought he was just asking you to check for compliance on these bidders... Is that correct?”

Mr. Mnisi acknowledged that the two companies Ngaphesheya Security Services and Elshadai Security Services were part of the panel that won the tender, and that there were about 57 bidders with 7 successful bidders in total.

“The two vehicles for land are Ngaphesheya and Elshadai... They were part of the panel that won the tender, yes, Chair... There might have been between, I think, 57... About seven.”

Mr. Mnisi accepted that Deputy Chief Dhlamini assumed that Mr. Malema gave him a list of companies for the tender, but Mr. Mnisi denied receiving any list from Mr. Malema.

“Deputy Chief Dhlamini assumes that Mr Malema has given you a list of companies in relation to this tender. You accept that?... Did Mr Malema ever give you a list of companies in relation to this tender? No.”

Mr. Mnisi stated he did not mean 'we are managing Mr Malema' when he said so, explaining he does not know Mr Malema personally but only knows he is the President of the EFF.

“I did not mean we are managing Mr Malema at all. I do not know Mr Malema, I have never met him. I just know him to be the President of the EFF, firstly, Chair.”

Mr Mnisi sent an article to Sergeant Nkosi and not a picture.

“I was sending an article. I just want to make that clear. I was not sending a picture, I was sending an article that Sergeant Nkosi should read.”

The article and screenshot sent by Mr Mnisi refer only to Mr Malema and no one else.

“The answer is incontrovertibly no”

There is a message sent less than two minutes after the screenshot that reads 'We are managing this guy.'

“underneath the screenshot, you say, we are managing this guy, my brother. Who was this guy?”

The 'guy' referred to in the message 'We are managing this guy' is Mbungulu, identified as Mpho Lekukela, a former official at the City of Tshwane.

“The message says : 'I want to show you Mbungulu will never win.' That is exactly who I am referring to... I am referring to the guy I termed here as Mbungulu, Chair.”

Sergeant Nkosi confirmed Mpho Lekukela is associated with the ANC.

“Sergeant Nkosi confirmed that he is associated with the ANC.”

Mr Mnisi did not have dealings with Mr Malema or the EFF regarding TMPD 1-2024/25.

“Did you have any other dealings with Mr Malema or the EFF in relation to TMPD 1-2024/25? No.”

Mr Mnisi described his relationship with Mpho Lekukela as a bit of a strenuous relationship involving confidential and private work-related disagreements.

“I indicated that it was a bit of a strenuous relationship... there were work-related disagreements which I said they were confidential and private... as a result of that.”

Mr Mpho Lekukela undermined Mr Mnisi's authority at the City of Tshwane and did not follow work-related instructions.

“my authority has always been undermined by a number of individuals ... from my perspective, was Mr Mpho Lekukela where I would have viewed it as a situation where he did not want me to thrive and any work-related instruction I would give they were not really followed accordingly”

Mr Mnisi denied having any dealings with the EFF related to the tender.

“You say you had no dealings with the EFF in relation to this tender ? No none whatsoever, SC”

Mr Mnisi forwarded a message to Sergeant Nkosi from the Deputy Executive Mayor Eugene Modise warning about people trying to influence the tender process related to Action SA and EFF.

“I forwarded this message from the Deputy Executive Mayor of the City ... Mr Eugene Modise ... the Deputy Mayor was telling me that to be careful, there are people who are trying to influence the process ... purporting to be from Action SA, EFF ... I shared with Sergeant Nkosi ... that this process ... people are so brazen ... trying to lure the Deputy Executive Mayor to interfere in procurement processes”

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

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

Sergeant Nkosi was warned by Mr Mnisi not to interfere with the tender process as it was highly safeguarded and it was a subtle warning to not get involved.

“this is something that we are highly safeguarding, in a subtle manner ... I was warning Sergeant Nkosi this is not something to interfere with ...”

Deputy Chief Dlamini sent messages via Sergeant Nkosi mentioning the two vehicles for land are Ngaphesheya and Elshadai Security Services, allegedly to check compliance.

“You receive a message which you understand to have originated or to have been sent to Sergeant Nkosi by Deputy Chief Dlamini that says the two vehicles for land are Ngaphesheya and Elshadai ... They wanted me to assist in checking compliance which I could not do”

Deputy Chief Dlamini allegedly asked to do something unlawful related to checking procurement compliance.

“But surely Deputy Chief Dlamini knows that you cannot check compliance . He is a senior official of the city . He understand how procurement is supposed to operate . But he is asking you to do something which would be unlawful , is it not ?”

Mr Mnisi states he was asked to assist in checking compliance but made it clear there was nothing he could do about it, indicating the request was difficult for him to comment on.

“Chair , I am going to focus on my understanding on this , and these messages when received , the purpose of that was for me to assist in checking compliance . I made it extremely clear that there is nothing I can do with that . The thought process for Mr Dlamini would be a very difficult process for me to comment on .”

Mr Mnisi denies being asked to do something unlawful by Deputy Chief Dlamini.

“Chair , he did not ask me to do that .”

Mr Mnisi considered that what Deputy Chief Dlamini had done in relation to the procurement compliance request was probably improper.

“No . So , did it not occur to you that what Deputy Chief Dlamini had done in this regard was probably improper ?”

Sergeant Nkosi would not be in a position lawfully to check compliance on two vehicles as he does not work for the city.

“Sergeant Nkosi does not work for the city , so he would not .”

Mr Mnisi understood that Sergeant Nkosi was asked to check compliance on two vehicles belonging to Ngaphesheya Security Services and Elshadai Security Services.

“Two vehicles which we need to check compliance on are Ngaphesheya and Elshadai .”

Mr Mnisi states he received a request from Sergeant Nkosi to check compliance but felt there was nothing he could do, so he ignored the matter to get it off his table.

“Chair , what occurred to me here was that they wanted me to check compliance . I had received this message from Sergeant Nkosi . There was nothing I could do about that . Hence , in my submission , ignored , did not entertain , and I had to play along in order to get this matter off my table .”

Mr Mnisi did not speak to Deputy Chief Dlamini about his request relating to procurement compliance.

“No , I did not speak to Deputy Chief Dlamini about this matter .”

Mr Mnisi did not raise a complaint about Deputy Chief Dlamini's request to check compliance because he believed it was a misunderstanding of procurement processes and did not merit alarm at the time.

“No , Chair . Purely on the basis that this was a request for me to check compliance . There was nothing improper about it . It was someone ' s misunderstanding of the procurement environment . At this stage , there is no alarm for me to raise .”

Mr Mnisi states his responsibility was to safeguard the process to the Tender Adjudication process and ensure there were no glitches, despite the unusual requests.

“Except for to safeguard the process . Apologies , SC . Except for me to ensure that the process is followed to the T and there are no glitches along the way . That was my pure responsibility .”

Mr Mnisi understood from the text that Deputy Chief Dlamini was making an enquiry for Sergeant Nkosi to check compliance.

“Looking at the text , I agree with you . Looking at this text and how they are formulated , especially on number 3 . At the first one , maybe I might not have seen that . But from the second one , when we see afternoon captain , I really start getting a flag .”

Deputy Chief Dlamini requested Sergeant Nkosi to check compliance on two vehicles although Sergeant Nkosi was not lawfully positioned to do so.

“Chair , I would not know the discussions between Sergeant Nkosi and General Dlamini . I am aware of this because I had received them as a result of that . I view this as a request for him to check that . Whether Dlamini wanted him to send it to me or anyone else , I do not know , and I cannot comment on that .”

Mr Mnisi felt annoyed and irritated by the repeated requests to check compliance after he had already stated he could not do so.

“The second request , Chair , you need to give someone the benefit of the doubt . And the benefit of doubt is maybe you did not understand me , maybe you did not get me clearly . From the third instance moving forward , I can confirm an element of annoyement [sic ] and irritation .”

Mr Mnisi did not explicitly say no in a phone call about checking compliance but said he did not remember and tried to move away from the issue.

“So , I did not say that . I said , I do not remember . I recall I said , I do not even remember what you sent me . Then he said , I will send it to you again . In the phone call , the discussion is , did you check what I sent you on the 11th ? My response is , I do not remember . What are you talking about ? I had remembered , obviously , Chair , but I was trying to move away from that issue .”

Messaging including a thank you emoji from Sergeant Nkosi to Mr Mnisi is interpreted by Mr Chaskalson as gratitude for something Mr Mnisi is expected to do or has done.

“But his response to your thank you is to send you a thank you emoji . If you look at page 53 , at message time 06 : 59 , actual time 08 : 59 , he sends you a thank you emoji . Those two hands put together . So , he is presumably thanking you for what he thinks you are either going to do or have undertaken to do or have done .”

Mr Mnisi acknowledges sending a thank you message after being reminded repeatedly, hoping it would stop further requests to check compliance.

“So , when we hung up on the call , he then sends it to me . Then in the response , I said , thank you , Chair . In the hope that , Chair , it will stop from here . He probably presumed that maybe I will check for you or do something about it . Unfortunately , he is not convinced and he persists .”

Mr Mnisi was starting a strategy of trying to play along with Mfowethu by thanking him, giving the impression that he would assist him, although he could not and did not do so.

“I am already starting my strategy of trying to play along because I can see where this is going. So, me thanking him, he is going to think that I am going to do something about it, which, of course, I am not because I cannot and I did not. He thanks me because he is of the view that I will be able to try and assist him.”

The delayed message was about two vehicles for land and related to checking compliance from Ngaphesheya and Elshadai.

“The two vehicles for land are . In receiving this, I pick up the key point of interest, which I know we had a discussion on later on, and it is on checking compliance from Ngaphesheya and Elshadai.”

Mr Mnisi knew that Sergeant Nkosi was asking him to check compliance related to his brother's company.

“you knew right through this that Ngaphesheya was Sergeant Nkosi's brother's company. True. Yes, so, you knew that Sergeant Nkosi was asking you to do something in relation to his brother's company.”

Messages from General Dlamini to Sergeant Nkosi concern checking compliance on two vehicles linked to Sergeant Nkosi's brother's company.

“these are messages from General Dlamini to Sergeant Nkosi. They must probably have their own discussion after that. But in mere receiving this, I pick up the key point of interest, which I know we had a discussion on later on, and it is on checking compliance from Ngaphesheya and Elshadai.”

Mr Mnisi suspected due to persistence that Sergeant Nkosi wanted to ensure the award to his brother's company.

“Yes, at a later stage, though, you came to realise that what he really wanted was for you to ensure the award to the brother's company. I suspect that in my own analysis due to the persistence.”

The context of the delayed message apologizing for the delay was a communication between General Dlamini and Sergeant Nkosi.

“In terms of the apologies for the delayed message, that must have been a communication, of course, between the General as well as Sergeant Nkosi, which I cannot comment on.”

Deputy Mayor and Mr Modise were concerned about people trying to influence the process improperly, and safeguards needed to be maintained.

“The Deputy Mayor is even facing issues of this nature and is raising severe alarms, which I had alerted you on. There is nothing we can do on this matter. Compliance cannot be checked. The process must be followed to the T.”

The purpose of the phone call was to contextualize Sergeant Nkosi on potential irregularities and to make the matter clear to him as he did not understand the situation initially.

“So, I think, in short, the purpose of the phone call was to contextualise him on the potential irregularities and to try to make the matter sink in, if he did not understand it first.”

Mr Mnisi had to clarify the context of a message after sending it to Sergeant Nkosi with a follow-up phone call.

“What I can confirm is that in between there, I had to clarify to him, and I did clarify to him on what was going on. So, what I am trying to say is that the call afterwards is where I explained to Sergeant Nkosi what the context of that message was.”

A meeting with ACTION SA and EFF was reported to have individuals from these groups attempting to assist in submitting names for companies to be favored, which displeased Mr Modise.

“So, in short, he was telling me that individuals, purported individuals from ACTION SA and EFF, wanted him to assist in submitting names for companies to be favoured. And that did not sit well with him.”

Sergeant Nkosi messages to meet with Deputy Chief Dlamini on 24 March to discuss an outstanding payment matter involving a meeting with Gumis, rescheduled from Saturday to Monday.

“Sergeant Nkosi messages you saying: “... let us meet General tomorrow, please.”

In a telephone call, Mr Modise said that the entities ACTIONSA and EFF were telling him to submit 5 names to be favored for the tender, which he found insulting.

“he was saying to you that these two entities, or one of them, was telling him to submit 5 names to be favoured for the tender, and he found it to be an insult”

Deputy Chief Dlamini sent a message about meeting to get clarity on something according to Mfowethu, involving Cain Mpofu who is an Acting Divisional Head in Supply Chain Management with procurement responsibilities.

“Afternoon Captain, I trust you are well and your family. I thought we will meet up today so that I could get clarity on something according to Mfowethu. Cain called me on Friday ... He then pushed the meeting to Monday ...”

The meeting request with Gumis was about an outstanding payment related to an ex post facto invoice from the previous financial year which could not be paid due to city limitations.

“this was in relation to outstanding payment ... an ex post facto payment that could not be made as a result of this being related to the previous financial year ... invoice that could not be resolved as a result of it being due in the previous financial year ... The context of that message was in relation to Gumis making a follow-up in terms of this outstanding payment”

The correct procedure to follow for outstanding payments is to escalate within the relevant user department, then supply chain management with adequate substantiating reasons, then if unresolved escalate to Mr Mnisi.

“If there is an outstanding payment, ... it needs to be escalated accordingly within the relevant user department ... then escalate that to supply chain management ... then escalate to myself”

Mr Mnisi explains that Sergeant Nkosi was involved in the payment issue after overhearing a phone call discussion and took initiatives to call Deputy Chief Dlamini and then spoke to Mr Mnisi.

“Sergeant Nkosi was already involved in this matter. He had overheard that phone call discussion ... then he took it upon himself to call the general, which I then spoke to ...”

Mr Mnisi admits it would have been better to have requested the General's number earlier for direct communication, but denies sharing any confidential or sensitive information with Sergeant Nkosi, stating the involvement was merely coordinating engagements.

“I probably should have requested the numbers immediately ... I have never shared any confidential or sensitive information with Sergeant Nkosi in this matter. It was merely coordinating those engagements.”

Adv Baloyi questions why Sergeant Nkosi is involved in a Tswhane payment issue given it is a confidential internal matter, and that Sergeant Nkosi is an outsider with no business being involved.

“You do not consider payment issues between Tshwane and its service provider to be matter confidential to Tshwane, to which an outsider like Sergeant Nkosi has no business to be involved and should in fact not be involved?”

Water and Sanitation department was engaging the TMPD (Tshwane Metropolitan Police Department) and TMPD was issuing deployment letters, but payment delays led to a standoff over cost centers and budget availability.

“water and sanitation were engaging TMPD and TMPD was issuing deployment letters. The standoff came when it was time to pay. Risk assessments were done between water and sanitation business units as well as TMPD when it is time to make a cost centre available for the payment. TMPD said, no, the budget that we have is sufficient for our programmes.”

The correct procedure for resolving payment issues starts with engagement with the relevant department that issued the deployment letter, in this case TMPD, and if unresolved escalates to procurement and then higher offices.

“From my perspective, whichever department has given them a deployment letter, if it is TMPD, they need to engage TMPD accordingly. So, in this instance, they would have gone back to the necessary people within APSS and make follow-ups or clarity-seeking questions from them... If they cannot, they should escalate it to procurement. And if they still cannot, they can then raise it with you.”

An invoice standoff occurred because it was a prior financial year matter and the invoice had not been technically approved due to restrictions, delaying payment processing.

“In this instance, there was an issue because this was a prior financial year matter. Hence, this invoice had not been approved, technically speaking, because of those restrictions.”

Deputy Chief Rev Spies is the head responsible within TMPD for attending to payment issues.

“Well, the head is Deputy Chief Revo Spies.”

Deputy Chief Dlamini is responsible for support services and finance matters within TMPD, including processing payments for invoices once approved by relevant deployment or portfolio.

“Deputy Chief Dlamini is responsible for support services and for finance matters within TMPD. Meaning what falls within his portfolio is invoices that have been approved with the relevant deployment orders which have been certified as correct and work done. He can then take that forward in terms of processing the relevant payments.”

Process and internal controls must always be followed to ensure compliance in payment matters, which cannot be broken down in the procedures that the city has set.

“It means the process must always be followed to the T. Compliance matters are essential. It cannot be a breakdown in terms of any procedures that the city has set. So, the centre must hold. Internal controls must be followed. Processes and procedures and internal controls must be adhered to.”

Deputy Chief Dlamini advised that all matters must go back to Mfowethu as the only gateway and that protocol must be observed at all costs; no backdoor actions will be tolerated.

“I have told them that they should go back where they have started Mfowethu. I said to them, he is the only gateway. They cannot go with a backdoor. I will only be able to assist if I get an indication from Mfowethu. Protocol must be observed at all costs.”

The protocol must be observed and the city has established systems and controls to handle payment matters that cannot be bypassed by one individual.

“The protocol must be observed. The city has established systems and controls to deal with this matter. It cannot be dealt with by one person individually or another without demonstrating that I have been through this matter.”

Deputy Chief Dlamini emphasized the protocol that issues must start with the relevant person (Mfowethu), then escalate to supply chain management, and finally escalate to him if unresolved; no backdoor approach is allowed.

“He is saying they must start with you. And he will not be a backdoor.”

Matters related to outstanding payments require following proper processes and cannot be resolved by bypassing established protocols, including avoiding backdoor dealings.

“You cannot jump a process when escalating matters that are outstanding, Chair. That is the context of that. So, this is the individuals trying to use a backdoor to deal with this outstanding payment, whereas they are fully aware of the protocol that they had followed previously. So, they need to follow those processes. Once I am convinced that there is sufficient appropriate audit evidence, and the TMPD as well as supply chain management have either not dealt with this issue for whatever reason, I can then take it forward.”

Deputy Chief Dlamini said that any issues must go back to the CFO and not use a backdoor.

“He is the only gateway. Do not use me as a back door.”

The invoice dated 28 June for the previous financial year had not been captured or recognized in the system and required formal submission and portfolio of evidence.

“The invoice that I am standing is the 28th of June for the previous financial year. That had not been captured in our accruals, it is not recognised in the system whatsoever.”

The procedure for dealing with the previous financial year invoice requires raising it with TMPD, then if unresolved, escalating to Supply Chain Management, and finally escalating to the CFO as the last resort.

“As I understood it, it was they should first raise it with the TMPD. If they got no joy there, they should then raise it with Supply Chain Management. If they got no joy there, they should escalate it to you. So, you should be the last port of call, not the first.”

During the escalation process, they must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the invoice is due and payable, otherwise the CFO will not consider it without proper motivation and evidence from APSS.

“During the escalation process, they need to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that this invoice is due and payable. Hence, I do not want us to leave the step that they needed to start with an APSS first. An APSS needs to make a motivation now. So, for me to even consider this, I would have to get the invoice from the service provider along with the motivation from APSS on why I should even think about considering an invoice from a previous financial year that is closed.”

The unpaid invoice amount of R397,000 is being claimed by the entity after having received payments for other invoices.

“They are claiming the city still owes them R397000. Hence, they are making follow-up after they had received the other payments for the other invoices. This one remained outstanding.”

Since the invoice is for a previous financial year, the CFO would need to make prior period error corrections and amendments to financial statements with proper justification to AG for discrepancies between closing and opening balances.

“This would now necessitate for me to make a prior period error correction to my financial statements that had been submitted in the previous financial year. Hence, I was not willing to entertain that without having appropriate evidence. I would have to ensure disclosure notes of the financial statements are amended. I would need to ensure justification to the AG coming back next year on why there is a difference now between the closing and the opening balances. Hence, that process is now peculiar because it needs an additional justification.”

Gubis was obligated to engage with TMPD and APSS to make necessary submissions and motivations for the invoice approval; the CFO cannot act until this process is done.

“Formally, the onus was on Gubis to make sure that they make the necessary submissions, and they make a motivation to APSS. APSS is a division within TMPD where DC Revo Spies is in charge. Once that has been approved, it would have automatically been transferred to Deputy Chief Dlamini, who is the Support Services and Finance Head within TMPD. That is when I can now assist in terms of taking the way forward.”

Between 23 and 27 March, MR MNISI received nothing from TMPD despite the obligation on Gubis to engage with TMPD; Deputy Chief Dlamini directed that any motivation must come through CFO and not backdoor.

“No, nothing was there, Chair. ... He did not say, I told them, give me a motivation, I can then escalate it to supply chain management which in turn can escalate it to the CFO. Instead, he said, they should go back where they have started Mfowethu. He is the only gateway. They cannot go with a back door. So, he is saying, you have got to go back to the CFO.”

Payments must be made according to strict protocols and internal controls set by the City and TMPD and TMPD APSS must be involved in handling these payments.

“payments that need to be made , there must be sufficient protocol that has been adhered to and observed at all costs . Within those protocols is ensuring that the internal controls that the city has embarked on and set are followed to the T . Within that is handling the matter with TMPD and with TMPD APSS”

The matter about the outstanding payments started with supply chain management, not with Mr M N I S I, contradicting General Dlamini's understanding.

“Gubis did not start with me . They started with supply chain management . And maybe we should go to GM 22 and 23 . They started escalating , so they did not start with me .”

Deputy Chief Dlamini was not copied in discussions about the outstanding payments process and must be formally referred to if the matter is to be escalated.

“Deputy Chief Dlamini was not copied in any of these discussions . Hence , he is saying they must refer to that process again , formalise it .”

The matter did not come to Mr M N I S I again in a formal nature and he did not take it up with General Dlamini.

“It did not come to me again in a formal nature , so I did not take it up with him .”

Sergeant Nkosi was involved in issues relating to all invoices valued at R14 million.

“You are involving Sergeant Nkosi issues relating to all invoices to the value of R14 million .”

All invoices for the financial year commencing 1 July were resolved except for one invoice worth between 12 and 14 million Rand, which remained unresolved.

“Remember it was a number of invoices to the tune of between 12 and R14 million . I might not remember the figure in its entirety . So , all invoices for the financial year in question , which commenced from the 1st of July , were resolved . It was all invoices except this one . This one was not resolved .”

Sergeant Nkosi was already involved in the invoice process by taking his phone and phoning Deputy Chief Dlamini during a car discussion about the issue.

“He had already been involved . ... he took his phone , and he phoned Deputy Chief Dlamini while we were in the car . When he called him , he then gave me the phone . I explained to the Deputy Chief the issue that I had been facing and the discussion that I just had with Mr Calvin Mahlangu .”

Mr M N I S I did not share any information with Sergeant Nkosi and did not send him any single invoice.

“I did not share any information with Sergeant Nkosi . There is no single invoice that I have sent to him .”

Mr Mnisi admits sharing information with Sergeant Nkosi regarding purchase orders as per request.

“I am sharing information.”

The message Mr M N I S I sent to Sergeant Nkosi saying 'purchase orders as per requested have been approved' is a general message and not confidential information sharing.

“The second last text , no . There is nothing confidential about the text . It is a general message saying purchase orders have been approved .”

Mr Mnisi acknowledges it was convenient to involve Sergeant Nkosi in discussions with the General but agrees in hindsight he should have obtained the Deputy Chief's contact earlier and engaged with him properly.

“He was already involved, and it was convenient for me. He was already in discussion with the General, and thus he fell in general terms. ... In hindsight, I should have got the number of the General much earlier than this. Unfortunately, I had not.”

Mr Mnisi states that discussion with Deputy Dlamini did not continue after the initial talk in the car, and that he was not sharing any sensitive or confidential information at that point.

“The discussion did not continue any further at that stage after the discussion with the Deputy Dlamini. ... I was not and I did not share any sensitive or confidential information.”

Mr Mnisi states that the messages exchanged about purchase orders were not confidential and were routine information to ensure payments were processed.

“No, what I am saying is I did not send confidential message. That message was not from me. The second one is from me. ... There is nothing sensitive in that message, nor is there anything confidential at this stage.”

Mr Mnisi explains that the established procurement process requires issues of confusion to be escalated properly through Tshwane Metropolitan Police Department (TMPD) and supply chain before reaching his desk.

“The processes must be followed to the T. It needs to be escalated accordingly in the correct fashion. ... If there is an issue of confusion, it must be escalated.”

Mr Mnisi denies knowing Mandla Mgcina and characterizes him as an associate of Sergeant Nkosi, whom he met coincidentally and had no common interests with.

“I had nothing to do with him. I had no common interests with him. ... He is an associate of Sergeant Nkosi.”

Mr Mandla Mgcina called Mr M R M N I S I unexpectedly shortly after Gubis were told the only gateway was him.

“out of the blue , shortly after Gubis are told that the only gateway is you , you get two unprecedented calls from Mandla Mgcina”

Mandla Mgcina asked Mr M R M N I S I for a meeting or coffee or a drink but did not explain the reason.

“He was asking me if we could have a meeting , or if we could meet for coffee or a drink.”

Mr M R M N I S I denies that calls around 08:01-08:02 to Sergeant Nkosi about Elshadai and Ngaphesheya security services were about checking compliance.

“Not on those calls . The reason he sends me these is he is asking me to check compliance . But the reason for the calls , Chair , was general matters that we would always discuss on a daily basis .”

Mr M R M N I S I says the call from Mandla Mgcina was out of the blue and unrelated to an outstanding Gubis payment issue, which would have triggered contact from Mr Calvin Mahlangu.

“It was out of the blue for me as well . Had there been an issue on the outstanding Gubis payment , Mr Calvin Mahlangu had direct contact details of mine , he would have called me on that . That is the pure reason why we even had a light moment of this matter . It was purely out of the blue for me .”

Mr M R M N I S I met previously with Mandla Mgcina at a restaurant and exchanged numbers.

“I did give him my evidence that we met at a restaurant , we had some pleasant tries , we exchanged numbers .”

Mr M R M N I S I eventually understood Mandla Mgcina kept raising the matter persistently despite being told twice that it could not be done.

“Hence , I say , Chair , at this point I started to understand as well that he is not saying it in general terms , I see , but obviously he is still touting for the matter to proceed .”

A meeting took place at Jean Avenue with Sergeant Nkosi but General Mfowethu did not attend as he was committed elsewhere.

“The meeting with Sergeant Nkosi did take place . However , the General was not there . ... The General did not attend that meeting . He was committed on other matter”

The issue discussed was a persisting outstanding payment to Gubis.

“I mean , this issue of outstanding payment was persisting .”

Mr M R M N I S I did not initially consider it necessary to get General Mfowethu's number because they were still resolving the outstanding matter.

“At this point , I did mention that it was the hindsight view of mine , where I should have obviously gotten the General 's number at this point , but it was not necessary because we are still resolving that outstanding matter .”

Mr M R M N I S I admits to continuing to follow up outstanding matters personally to resolution, including billing issues raised by clients, despite formal procedures.

“I am a person who wants to complete matters end to end , even if it is a resident raising an issue on an account . Once that issue is being raised , I do make follow - ups with my colleagues . ... The purpose of this was for me to get feedback from the General in terms of what is happening . We can not just ignore this thing . I am not breaching any processes . I am dealing with the General who is part and parcel of the process .”

The feedback given at 178 by General Dlamini was not followed according to the process described, yet there was acceptance of his directive to redirect the service provider to the CFO, inconsistent with the stated process.

“this feedback that he gives you at 178, it is clear from it that it is not followed the process that you have described to us, and yet you do not say to him in response, you do not say to him, follow the process. In fact, you accept when he says, I have directed them to you, which is where they started.”

General Dlamini instructed the service provider to go back to Mfowethu, which is problematic because the onus is supposed to be on the service provider to submit necessary documents.

“Dlamini says, I have told the service provider to go back Mfowethu. That is a problem I have. That right now you say that the onus is on the service provider, and I accept that. They must submit the necessary documents.”

Mr Mnisi states that once colleagues raise a matter, the onus is on the service provider to take the matter forward and he does not intervene, requesting only feedback as part of resolving matters.

“I need to accept that as the status quo, meaning the onus is now on the service provider to take the matter forward. Meaning I am not breaching our processes because I am not actively intervening. I was requesting for feedback, and that is normal in terms of resolving matters.”

There is internal confusion because General Dlamini says the service provider must meet with certain parties, but the process requires submission to APPS, then SCM, before coming to the speaker.

“he must go and meet with them, right, in those WhatsApp exchanges where Sergeant Nkosi forwards to you where General Dlamini says I need to know whether to meet with Gubis. You say, let him go meet them. He gives feedback. He says, I have met with them, and in my meeting with them, I have redirected them to the CFO. I have said, they must meet with the CFO because that is where they started. Your respond, and you say, this is the way. Much appreciated. So, on your own handling of this matter, you do not say to General Dlamini, tell the service provider to do our internal process, which is submit to APPS, then it must go to SCM, and then it will come to me. You do not do that.”

Mr Mnisi confirms the matter discussed was about payment and that once communication is received, the matter is considered fully ventilated with no further action expected from him except waiting for further communication.

“this was about payment, firstly. Secondly, once I receive such communication, it means the matter has been fully ventilated, and I do not expect anything further. There is nothing further I can do except for wait for any form of communication that I will refer accordingly.”

TMPD is likely to have evaluated the payment matter and found no probable case for payment, suggesting escalation and submission of proof of evidence if the matter is to be taken further.

“He, at this stage at TMPD, is most likely saying, I have evaluated this matter. I do not see any probable case for payment. You can escalate this matter if you want. It then respond and say, okay, that is the way. Let us see what they have. Let them escalate and let them submit POE now.”

General Dlamini or Deputy Chief Dlamini are critical players in the Gubis payment issue, but General Dlamini did not attend a meeting on the issue because he was unavailable.

“the critical player there would be General Dlamini or Deputy Chief Dlamini... But he did not come to the meeting... He was not available.”

Mr Mnisi met with Sergeant Nkosi socially and had meals together on the day of the meeting despite General Dlamini not attending the meeting.

“We socialised all the time. We had a meal after that. It was a long day. We probably had lunch.”

General Dlamini informed Sergeant Nkosi he was not going to come to the meeting but did not inform Mr Mnisi directly.

“He did not tell me. He told Sergeant Nkosi.”

Sergeant Nkosi sent Mr Mnisi a screenshot of a message at 08:31 pm with tender number TMPD1 and a list of seven companies, indicating a mandate assigned by 'Nico' to Victor, who is responsible for these companies related to the tender.

“the last text on the page is a screenshot that Sergeant Nkosi sends you at 08:31 pm. And it is a screenshot that on its face comes from a message that the General sent to him at 08:02... And it is a table that has tender number TMPD1 and then it is got a list of seven companies on it. And at the bottom it says: “Captain, nayim and ate u Victor aphiweyo na”. And helpfully underneath it, the Sergeant Nkosi has said: “Companies given to Victor by Nico”.”

The mandate was given by 'Nico' and assigned to Victor, who is chairperson of the evaluation committee and BEC, related to the tender for seven companies.

“the mandate was given by someone called Nico. Victor is a chairperson of this evaluation committee. He is the Chairperson of the BEC and he has been given a mandate. Seven companies. Victor has been given a mandate to make sure that these seven companies get the tender.”

Mr Mnisi understood the message about the mandate to Victor to mean Victor must either appoint the seven companies or check their compliance, but he did not entertain the message or confirm either interpretation.

“I understood it with those probabilities that it could mean a number of things... that Victor must make sure companies are awarded which he cannot because he sits with a committee of individuals. Secondly, it could have meant that Victor must check compliance, so it is difficult for me to give you an answer. I did not entertain this message. ... I am not going to comment on what that is because I can assure you now, I did not even entertain this thing.”

There is no official role known by Mr Mnisi for Nico Mathobela in the award of this tender.

“No, I am not aware of any official by the name of Nico Mathobela.”

Mr Mnisi says neither possible mandate given to Victor (appointing companies or checking compliance) would be lawful because tender is closed and compliance checking is not permitted after closure, and Victor cannot appoint from external individuals.

“Would either of those mandates given to Victor be lawful? No, he cannot. There is no way he could check compliance. Firstly, tender is closed. He can only by law give clarification on the outcome of the bid. ... Secondly, he is not allowed to get names from external individuals to appoint.”

Mr Mnisi denies knowing Nico Mathobela and says he never had any dealings with him, nor met him.

“I do not know Nico Mathobela... I have never met him. I do not know him. I have never had any dealings with him, SC.”

Mr Mnisi did not raise concerns with Mr Kgopa because his job was to strengthen the award process of TMPT01 and ensure stringent and correct assessments.

“No, Chair, I did not raise it with him. ... my job was to ensure that I strength the process and ensure that there is no glitch within the award of TMPT01.”

Mr Mnisi insisted on probity occurring without fail to strengthen the tender award process despite not escalating reports about mandates given to Victor to rig the tender.

“No, I did see to take it further. And me taking it further was insisting on probity to occur without fail.”

Probity would not have detected external attempts to influence the tender process, such as approaches to Mr Modise or Sergeant Nkosi to influence compliance and the tender.

“Probity would not have picked up attempts, external attempts to interfere in the process. For example ... that Mr Modise has been approached to do something ... Sergeant Nkosi asked you to confirm compliance, and later on you suspect ... wanted you to influence the tender. Probity would not have picked up this mandate to Victor.”

Mr Mnisi asserted that probity focuses on assessing actual tenders and documentation rather than attempts to unduly influence the process.

“Probity would have picked up whether there was an actual tender of those documents, whether there was actual influence. They would not have picked up an attempt.”

Mr Mnisi became aware of attempts to influence the tender through mandates given at the BEC level, involvement of General Dlamini, and knowledge of meetings discussing such interference.

“ADV BALOYI SC”

Mr Mnisi reported that he took no direct action to discourage Sergeant Nkosi's involvement in tender interference due to lack of evidence of gratification or inducement, and his role was to strengthen processes and ensure adherence to procurement stages.

“You have a complete outsider involved, who has a personal relationship with you. You do absolutely nothing to discourage his involvement in affecting the tender or the procurement processes of the city. ... For me to raise anything further, I need to have evidence of gratification, inducement, or an acceptance by the other party that indeed you do this for me.”

General Dlamini directed that seven security companies be given priority for vehicle land allocation, with Elshadai and Ngaphesheya as the first two on the list, communicated through Sergeant Nkosi on 25 March.

“Sergeant Nkosi says, a message which is, again, from its language forwarded from General Dlamini that says: "Captain, find below our vehicles for land to be given Mfowethui in order of priority." And then there is a list of seven and the first two are Elshadai and Ngaphesheya.”

Mr Mnisi understood General Dlamini's message as a request to assist in checking compliance regarding the allocation, but was irritated as such requests were persistent and seemed more than just compliance checking.

“That I would be able to assist in checking compliance. This is also the fourth time that this is coming on board. ... I was at a tad, you know, irritated and annoyed because this thing was persisting right from page 148. This was the fourth instance that I was facing with receiving requests of checking compliance. ... I already had an idea that it might not have been stated verbatim, but it was more than just checking compliance.”

Mr Mnisi suspected that requests to check compliance were actually attempts to rig the tender in favour of certain companies.

“I had suspicion because I have explained on many occasions that I cannot do that, but the matter kept persisting.”

The order of priority mentioned in the message from General Dlamini was perceived by Mr Mnisi as an attempt to rig the tender rather than a legitimate compliance check.

“If they were not asking you to rig the tender, it is difficult to make sense of order of priority, is it not? What could order of priority relate to other than an attempt to rig the tender?”

Mr Mnisi was asked to check compliance starting with Elshadai and then Ngaphesheya, implying preferred status to these companies for the tender process.

“Check compliance, starting with Elshadai. Then you can check compliance followed by Ngaphesheya, etcetera.”

Because the bids had already closed, Mr Mnisi could not remedy any compliance deficiencies. Requests to check compliance after bid closure were nonsensical in his view.

“But at this stage, it is not possible to cure any deficiencies in relation to compliance. The bids have closed.”

Mr Mnisi indicated he knew the requests were more than just compliance checks and related to rigging the tender, even though it was not stated verbatim.

“Even though it was not stated to me verbatim, I knew that.”

Mr Mnisi denied receiving a phone call preceding the list sent by Sergeant Nkosi that would explain the list or frame it as a compliance check.

“Commissioner Baloyi, in this instance, no, there was no telephone call.”

Mr Mnisi felt he was being taken for a fool by persistent demands to check compliance and decided to play along to stop the requests.

“So at this stage, I realise that either I am being taken for a fool here ... so I am also going to play along and take them for a fool. ... I needed this to stop. It was persisting over and over and over again. So I played along. I entertained. I used what we generally refer to as shuffling and puffing.”

Although the message contained a list of companies, Sergeant Nkosi did not explicitly say it was for compliance checking, but Mr Mnisi concluded it was about checking compliance based on context and other messages.

“He just sends and you conclude without him saying anything to you, you conclude that it is about checking compliance.”

Mr Mnisi related the message with the mandate to check compliance discussed earlier, despite the list on page 177 being different from the earlier list on page 148, indicating competing views or agendas.

“...I can already see and I can relate this to the context of 148, 152, and 157. ... I relate this to the same TMPD-1. They came in succession of one another. Even if you look at 148, the first request me to check Ngaphesheya Elshadai and then a list of seven companies. Moving further to 177, they send me a whole different list with a caption of a mandate to Victor, but then thereafter another list as well. So from my perspective, there is a clear understanding that this is in relation to one event. Yes, there might be competing views coming from wherever, which I am not involved in, and I will not entertain and I did not entertain.”

Mr Mnisi understood he was being asked to check compliance of 21 different security companies, with priorities changing over time and lists being sent in groups of seven companies as per the mandate for the tender TMPD-1.

“My understanding was that I must check compliance, yes. ... Yes, and then their priorities changed. ... Seven companies were appointed. I think that was the mandate, one per region. They obviously understood that.”

Mr Mnisi explained the compliance to be checked related to mandatory administrative requirements and whether companies were ticking the boxes, something he could not do at the stage of the request.

“Compliance with mandatory requirements, administrative requirements, whether they were ticking the boxes. And it is something I could not do at this stage at all. I could not even advise on that.”

Mr Mnisi respectfully disagrees that receiving a different list means he was not reminded to check compliance with the previous list, explaining that the repeated sending of the list after phone calls acted as reminders.

“I respectfully disagree with that, Commissioner. The request was to check compliance, whatever they were sending me. ... The phone call this time comes first. There is a request while we are speaking. Did you check that? No, I did not check. ... which is why, from my perspective, that is a reminder.”

Sergeant Nkosi sent Mr Mnisi names early in the day (Ngaphesheya and Elshadai) and later sent seven strange names, claiming these were mandated by someone named Nico, who Mr Mnisi does not know.

“Sergeant Nkosi has sent you two names, Ngaphesheya and Elshadai, early in the day. ... He sends you seven names saying this is the mandate given to Victor by Nico. You do not know who Nico is. No, I do not know who Nico is.”

The seven strange names were followed by another seven names for land vehicles to be given to Mfowethu in order of priority, and Mr Mnisi acknowledged this was so.

“Here are another seven names. Find below our vehicles for land to be given to Mfowethu in order of priority. ... I n order of priority. ... Yes, I see that.”

Mr Mnisi clarifies that an alleged night out with Sergeant Nkosi and General Dlamini was actually a 45-minute lunch meeting.

“It was not a night out. It was probably just lunch for 45 minutes, not a night out.”

Mr Mnisi confirmed that the top two on that list were awarded the contract a few months later and denied it was a coincidence, saying the companies were compliant per evaluations and probity checks.

“It is not a coincidence ... They were compliant. The documents that were submitted, that were evaluated, that were probity checked, deemed these companies as compliant.”

Mr Mnisi denied bias or appearance of bias in the awarding of the contract and stated bias would only be evidenced by physical proof such as exchange of documents.

“There is no bias at all. ... The appearance of bias is in the event that physical exchange of documents and there is physical proof to prove that.”

Adv Chaskalson SC alleged that an outsider repeatedly asked Mr Mnisi to give preference to bids from Elshadai and Ngaphesheya four separate times, which Mr Mnisi accepted but explained was to check compliance.

“A complete outsider acting with the deputy head of the client department is repeatedly asking you to give preference to the bids of two companies, Elshadai and Ngaphesheya. You accept that? Four separate occasions. I accept that with an explanation that it was for me to check compliance.”

Mr Mnisi admitted he realized the requests were actually to interfere with proper tender processes in favour of certain companies but said he lacked sufficient evidence to confront anyone, so he decided to play along and then stopped receiving such communications.

“I have seen this and I see the persistence ... I still do not have sufficient evidence to confront anyone. ... It was clear ... You cannot persist so much being rejected but you still persist on the same matter. ... You are either ignorant or playing me for a fool ... Hence I had to decide to play along ... Not ever again do I receive any communications of this nature.”

General Dlamini sent messages on 13 April about documentation requirements including lease agreements, audit certifications, and insurance needed for compliance with tender TMPD-1.

“General Dlamini sends two messages to Sergeant Nkosi. The first one says: 'Lease agreement for both company and director for rates and taxes. Interpretation of PIE Act. Three years’ financials must be done by independent auditor and signed or certification that they have been audited... Public liability insurance for 10 million.' These look like documents that would be mandatory requirements for compliance with that tender TMPD-1.”

Mr Mnisi claims he never received or was forwarded the chat from 13 April between Sergeant Nkosi and Deputy Chief Dlamini that contains alleged deficiencies.

“Maybe if firstly, I have never received this. This was never, ever forwarded to me.”

Mr Mnisi states the documents referenced by General Dlamini on 13 April were submitted and closed by 2 October and kept securely.

“That has been submitted and closed on the 2nd of October, SC. These documents are under lock and key.”

ADV Chaskalson SC pointed out deficiencies in a conversation between Sergeant Nkosi and Deputy Chief Dlamini and asked Mr Mnisi to explain alignment with mandatory tender TMPD-1 requirements.

“You are pointing out a conversation between Sergeant Nkosi and the Deputy Chief Dlamini and you are pointing out areas of deficient. I can see that. I am just requesting for you to please show me the alignment between TMPD-1 and this.”

Mr Mnisi confirms the tender TMPD-1 requires lease agreements and tax documentation for companies and directors as mandatory requirements.

“Lease agreement for both company and director for rates and taxes a mandatory requirement for TMPD-1?”

Mr Mnisi verifies the mandatory documentation requirements related to tax compliance, CSD documentation, and verification of company rates and taxes for bid compliance in Annexure GM13.

“I am on my bundle and I am on Annexure GM13. ... There is reference to tax compliance, CSD documentation, confirmation that the bidder's company rates and taxes are up to date ... I can confirm that as a requirement.”

Mr Mnisi states that items on the council's bundle confirm mandatory requirements such as a letter or affidavit from a landlord confirming no disputed account and accounts not in arrears for bidders.

“There is a company document that is required or a letter in the form of an affidavit ... confirming that the bidder has no disputed account and that the account is not in arrears.”

Under the MFMA, the rates and taxes must not be in arrears for either the company or the directors before awarding a contract; this is a mandatory requirement in the tender specification.

“The MFMA contains a provision that the rates and taxes that are submitted must not be in arrears. ... Or. ... Yes.”

Tender requirements include ensuring both the bidding company's rates and taxes and the individual owners' rates and taxes are up to date.

“It says confirmation that the bidding company's rates and taxes are up to date. ... And then D, in addition to the above, confirmation that all bidding company owners' rates and taxes are up to date.”

Both conditions C and D regarding tax compliance are mandatory requirements of the tender.

“If you look at both C and D, yes. ... These are mandatory requirements.”

The Prevention of Illegal Evictions Act (PIE Act) is legislation governing the tender related to illegal and invasion and illegal occupation of city's buildings.

“Illegal and invasion and illegal occupation of the City's buildings. ... That is TMPD competency ... That is PIE Act ... Prevent ion of Illegal Evictions Act.”

Tenderers must submit audited annual financial statements for the most recent three years or since establishment if less than three years, certified by independent auditors.

“Three years’ financial must be done by independent auditor and signed or certification that they have been audited. ... The bidder must submit signed, audited annual financial statements for the most recent three years, establish for a shorter period, submit audited annual financial statements from the date of establishment.”

All tender requirements for documents such as lease agreements for vehicles and public liability insurance are mandatory as per GM13 specifications.

“Lease agreement for vehicles ... including five-tonne truck ... Lease vehicle, signed lease agreement by either director or company along with the title holder for certification. ... Public liability insurance for 10 years, for 10 million, apologies, it is captured for under seven, 166 ... These are mandatory requirements as per GM13, yes.”

Financial statements must be audited and signed off by an independent auditor to qualify in the tender process.

“Audited financial statements are financial statements that are audited. ... Yes. So what I am looking at there is the element which covered that ... If it is established for a short period, submit audited annual financial statements from the date.”

Six months after tender closure, General Dlamini and Sergeant Nkosi were attempting to arrange to cure five mandatory disqualification features of the Ngaphesheya bid which should have been locked down.

“Some six months after the tender has closed and documents are supposed to be under lock and key, General Dlamini and Sergeant Nkosi are trying to make arrangements to cure five different mandatory disqualification features of the Ngaphesheya bid.”

Mr Mnisi states that Nico Mathobela is not an employee of the City.

“he is not an employee of the City, as far as I am concerned”

Documents cannot be amended after tender closure from the witness's perspective.

“There is no way documents could be amended from my point of view. I have outlined how the process operates.”

Nico Mathobela had no legitimate role to play in the contract related to TMPD-1 tender according to Mr Mnisi.

“Nico Mathobela had no illegitimate role to play in this contract”

Sergeant Nkosi identified a person named Nico Mathobela, unknown to the witness.

“Sergeant Nkosi identified him as Nico Mathobela. ... I do not know him.”

Mr Mnisi states that the exchanges were about assessing documentation or preparing a bid document, not related to TMPD-1 tender as it was already closed.

“So this looks obviously like they are assessing documentation or they are preparing a bid document... it looks like people analysing, assessing, auditing documents... not related to TMPD-1 whatsoever”

Sergeant Nkosi was persistently sending Mr Mnisi documents from companies like Elshadai, and appeared to be asking for interference in the process to favor Elshadai.

“Sergant Nkosi has repeatedly been sending your way... we believe he was asking you to interfere in the process in favour of Elshadai”

Mr Mnisi admits sending messages advising to provide correct information to get 'Grade A' guards, correcting the 'Grade B' issue in tender documents.

“Ngaphesheya is Grade B and has nothing in the documents... please send to us and request him to provide with information for the correction. We need Grade A guards.”

Mr Mnisi states that he was advising Sergeant Nkosi and General Dlamini with free tender advice for a bid not related to City of Tshwane, but to another government institution.

“I am purely providing advice on something that they are interested in... that was not in relation to TMPD-1 whatsoever”

Mr Mnisi received a raw tender document from Sergeant Nkosi for another institution and had no completed documents from Ngaphesheya.

“I did not have Ngaphesheya's documents. I had a raw tender document that was not completed... I had known this requires Grade A, they did not have Grade A guards.”

Mr Mnisi clarifies the message saying Ngaphesheya is Grade B and there is nothing in the tender documents about Grade B guards, which were required to be Grade A.

“Ngaphesheya is Grade B and there is nothing in the documents about Grade B... the tender required Grade A... I meant there is no mention of Grade B in the documents”

Mr Mnisi describes informal conversation style in chats using 'yours' for the other and 'mine' for self, explaining terminology usage.

“there are many instances in the chat where I say yours which should have been him... that is just the way we adopted of speaking. It was an informal conversation.”

The key grading requirement for the tender was Grade A, but Ngaphesheya was Grade B and had nothing in the document about Grade B.

“I had the raw document. It required Grade A. Ngaphesheya is Grade B. They had nothing in the documents about Grade B.”

Mr Mnisi was informed Ngaphesheya was Grade B but did not personally see the document at page 535; his role was to advise on the raw tender document whether Grade A or B was required.

“Firstly, I was aware that it is Grade B because I was informed. Secondly, my job was to advise on the raw tender document whether is it Grade A or B... They are Grade B.”

Ngaphesheya's grading as Grade B was established from a document at page 535, which showed recognised training qualifications as of date of issue as Grade B.

“These are Ngaphesheya's documents. In the PSiR grading, you see the recognised training qualification as of date of issue, Grade B.”

MR MNISI never received the chats between Sergeant Nkosi and DCD Iamini and denies having seen the documents referred to in the chats; he only responded to questions posed by the Commission.

“This was never sent to me, by the way. So I do not have these chats... I have never seen them... I am only responding now because the Commission is posing questions to me.”