Hearing day 94

The Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) chaired by Mr Mnisi noted that six documents were lost during the relocation of documents to another storage in relation to the TMPD-3 tender, and recommended measures and controls to safeguard documents should be implemented.

“that there were six documents lost during the relocation of documents to another storage . Therefore, measures and controls to safeguard documents should be implemented”

Mr Mnisi stated that irregularities were noted concerning the TMPD-3 tender and that these were among reasons why the tender had to be cancelled.

“these are one of the reasons why this tender had to be cancelled . Irregularities were noted”

Mr Mnisi disagreed with the assertion that all documents relating to tenders are kept under lock and key throughout the process and cannot be tampered with.

“My answer is that I do not agree with you . ... documents are kept under lock and key ... I disagree with the notion ... that documents are never under lock and key”

Mr Mnisi explained the internal controls regarding document transfers in the tender process, including signing off responsibilities and storage under lock and key to safeguard documents and prevent tampering.

“documents are kept under lock and key. The ability of any committee to pick up any mishap from transferring a set of documents to another is an internal control ... The individuals sign off for them as part of the segregation of duties ... they accept and they make a vow to ensure that they will safeguard these documents and they will ensure that there is nothing that occurs in the form of tampering”

Mr Mnisi confirmed that six documents did disappear despite protocols of lock and key and the vow to safeguard the documents.

“in this case, despite that vow and despite the protocol of lock and key, six documents disappeared”

The recommendation made was that measures and controls to safeguard documents should be implemented as a response to the loss of documents.

“the recommendation is that measures and controls to safeguard documents should be implemented”

The disappearance of six documents allowed the internal control processes to be tested and proved effective as the process was able to hold the process accountable and determine an individual responsible for the lost documents between Probity and BEC.

“this was a positive thing that we were able to pick this up because it showed that the internal control processes were in place and they were working adequately. We were then able to hold the process accountable ... we were able to hold an individual accountable for documents that had been lost”

At the stage when documents were lost during the transfer process, recommendations were made and sent to the accounting officer, but no specific individual was recalled to have been held accountable.

“At this point in time, I do not recall ... So at this stage, we make recommendations and we send them through to the accounting officer. At this point in time, I do not recall”

Mr Mnisi confirmed that the recommendation was aimed at enhancing the procurement processes because proper safeguards had not been implemented leading up to 23 October 2025.

“We have BEC, and as a BEC, we have to make recommendations that will enhance the procurement processes ... proper measures and controls to safeguard documents had not been implemented in the time leading up to 23 October 2025”

Mr Mnisi clarified that documents were lost or could not be found between Probity and BEC after the Probity process was done during the transfer process.

“documents were lost or could not be found between Probity and BEC after the process was done ... it was between the transfer process where the Probity report was available”

Mr Mnisi agreed with the statement that no scoresheet was received for BEC member Mr Tshukudu Malatji, which compromised the integrity of the evaluation process.

“No scoresheets were received for BEC member Mr Tshukudu Malatji ... The absence of scoring from one member undermines the integrity of the evaluation process and compromises fairness and consistency”

Mr Mnisi confirmed the BAC's concern about the missing scoresheets as an additional shortfall not identified in the Probity report, necessitating isolation of that shortfall.

“BAC raised that as an additional measure, as an additional instance, which was not picked up or identified in the Probity report ... We had to isolate that as an additional mechanism or as an additional shortfall that was identified”

Mr Mnisi explained that the documents lost were entire tender documents of bidders, not individual components, and that for the TMPD-1 tender, six bidders' documents were missing from the returned bundle of 51 out of 57 bidders.

“When they say documents, they are not referring to individual components of documents. It was actual tender documents of bidders ... because from the top of my head I am aware of 57 bidders from TMPD-1, what was brought back was 51 bidders without six documents”

The six documents were six bidders' documents that could not be tracked back between.

“The six documents were six bidders ' documents that could not be tracked back between”

Score sheets are kept within the same room under lock and key and should be safeguarded properly.

“Score sheets are within the same room under lock and key. They should be.”

The Probitiy report on TMPD-1 did not identify any shortcomings related to document control and found no irregularities.

“the Probity report of TMPD-1 did not identify any shortcomings of that nature. That then, of course, gives me assurance that for TMPD-1, there were no shortcomings, documents were validated to be under lock and key, and there were no instances of irregularity that were picked up.”

Members of BEC must be accountable for safeguarding certain documents and there were major shortcomings identified at some point in time.

“this is where now members of BEC must be accountable for safeguarding certain documents. And these are the major shortcomings that were picked up at this point in time.”

There must be a test to ensure that tender documents were still under lock and key and safeguarded; a failure of this test was a key factor leading to disqualification in TMPD-3.

“There must be a test to ensure that documents were still under lock and key and they were safeguarded. For this instance, that test failed, which was then, as a result, one of the key factors that led to disqualification.”

Probitiy uses several systems to evaluate documents and probably has mechanisms to detect amendments or tampering.

“Probitiy utilises a number of systems when they do their work. Within that, they evaluate documents as well. Within that, they could probably have systems to see whether there has been an amendment or a tamper of a document that was there.”

It is not accepted that Sergeant Nkosi wanted the award of the tender without leaving traces that might lead to cancellation.

“No, I cannot accept that.”

There is no suggestion that documents were tampered with before going to Probitiy.

“There is no suggestion that documents were tampered.”

BEC's document control measures were faulty over the period.

“You have already conceded that document control measures by this BEC were faulty over the period.”

If one wanted the tender award to two bidders and left traces of tampering like removal of documents, there would be the risk of tender cancellation.

“If you wanted the award of the tender to two bidders and you left traces of tampering, like the removal of documents, you would expose yourself to the risk that the tender got cancelled and then there would not be an award.”

There was no tampering of documents identified in the assurance exercise related to the tender process TMPD-3.

“But in this instance, to the assurance exercise, there was no tampering of documents that was identified.”

The Commission's work is not to speculate; suggestions like tampering must be based on actual facts from evidence collected.

“The Commission 's work is not to speculate when you put proposals to witnesses. You can only put a suggestion or put a version or put a proposal to a witness if it is based on an actual factor inference that is drawn from facts.”

It is challenged that the witness's prior assertion that everything was under lock and key and thus no tampering occurred is incorrect given the acknowledged faulty document control by BEC.

“I am simply testing the proposition that the witness refrain of the witness from yesterday that none of this could happen because everything was under lock and key. There could be no tampering because everything was under lock and key.”

Mr Mnisi must either rephrase his question or deal with the specific allegation of tampering if he insists on putting the proposal.

“I would with respects say my learned friend needs to either rephrase his question or withdraw it or deal with it. If it is his case that there was tampering, then put to the witness there was tampering, we have got evidence there was tampering, but not in the manner that is currently going on.”

From previous testimony, the witness has stated no less than four times that documents were kept under lock and key.

“I actually counted from when he testified last week up to yesterday. He said this no less than four times.”

Tenders TMPD-1 and TMPD-3 should be viewed in isolation as different committees and individuals were involved; shortcomings in TMPD-3 should not be linked to TMPD-1 because TMPD-1 passed the safeguard test and had no shortcomings.

“It is not the same members, first of all, that sit in TMPD - 1 versus TMPD - . So it is incorrect to make an inference from shortcomings that were identified as a result of internal controls that we have had put in place and align those shortcomings to TMPD - 1 where the test of time was passed. The test of document arrangements, safeguarding and safe keeping was conducted at TMPD - 1. It passed the test of time. The Probity report has been attached. TMPD - , as a separate set of individuals conducting the same work, when assurance exercise is being conducted, the test of safeguarding is failed. So I would respectfully disagree with you when you link shortcomings of TMPD - 3 to shortcomings of TMPD - 1, particularly when you are testing the notion of documents being safeguarded under lock and key. That test was passed and we have got sufficient evidence to prove that.”

No assurance can be given to the Commission that everything was kept under lock and key and that document control was perfect.

“You cannot offer this commission any assurance that everything was kept under lock and key and thus we can assume the document control was perfect.”

TMPD-3 differs from TMPD-1 regarding Sergeant Nkosi's intent: in TMPD-1 he wanted the tender award to Ngaphesheya and Elshadai, while in TMPD-3 he wanted cancellation of the award.

“The fundamental difference is that in TMPD - 1 Sergeant Nkosi wanted the award of the tender to Ngaphesheya and Elshadai. In TMPD - 3 he wanted the cancellation of the award.”

The bid was advertised on 12 December 2024 with a closing date of 21 February 2025 and an expiry date of 21 May 2025.

“The bid was advertised on the 12th of December 2024 with a closing date of 21 February. The bid expiry date at the foot of the page 47.3 was 21 May.”

The BEC met on numerous days from 24 March to 7 May 2025, with a meeting on 28 May recommending the tender award.

“the BEC met on numerous days starting on the 24th of March and ending on the 7th of May. Ending on the 7th of May is incorrect because there was a meeting of 28 May where the recommendation was made.”

There were anomalies regarding BEC scoresheets dated 29 May with no minutes to support a meeting on that date, which are uncurable and suggest issues in the tender process.

“BEC scoresheets are dated 29 May. However, there are no minutes to support the assumption that there was a BEC meeting on the 29th of May. This is not curable.”

Normally, Probity Reporting Team and BEC meet before reports are finalized and findings are put towards them, allowing BEC to provide supporting evidence if disputing findings.

“Probity Reporting Team as well as the BEC meet before the reports are finalised. Findings are put towards them. When findings are put towards them, the BEC has got the opportunity to provide the relevant supporting evidence if they are disputing a particular finding from Probity.”

Minutes of 28 May might exist but could be incorrectly dated, implying the recommendation could not have been made before scoring.

“What if it turns out, as it seems to be, that there were, in fact, minutes that minutes were just incorrectly dated 28 May because minutes of 28 May reflect the recommendation?”

In one case TMPD-1, Probity Team indicated two instances of disqualifying a bidder due to missing audited financial statements and a missing five-ton truck, and BEC provided evidence to Probity to amend confirmation letters accordingly.

“We had a discussion on TMPD-1, on the Probity report, where the Probity Team came on board and clearly indicated there are two instances where we are disqualifying this bidder... as a result of the audited financial statements not being there and as a result of the five-ton truck not being there. Probity Team provided the relevant evidence to – no, apologies. The BEC team provided the necessary evidence to the Probity Team, convinced them accordingly, and amended confirmation letter was provided.”

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

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

There is a major deficiency with minutes not being available which is key to ensure tender legitimacy in the process, and the minutes were not there for this case despite internal discussions and arrangements.

“There was a major deficiency in terms of minutes not being available, which are key part and parcel of the process in order to ensure that a tender is legitimate. That was not there in this case... The minutes were not there.”

The BEC accepted that a recommendation was made in a meeting on 28 May while scoring took place on 29 May, which is irregular and an anomaly.

“You accept that the recommendation was made in a meeting on the 28th and scoring took place on scoresheets dated the 29th... Those are exactly their irregularities that we picked up. This is an anomaly. It cannot be like that.”

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

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

If a recommendation was made on 28 May and scoring done on 29 May, this implicates BEC members in possible fraud for participating in making irregular recommendations.

“If the recommendation was made on 28 May and the scoring was done on 29 May, you have a series of members of the BEC who are participating in a fraud.”

MR MNISI could not comment on whether there was fraud without corroborative evidence.

“I cannot answer that question, SC. If an individual is committing fraud, it is a very difficult question for me to answer without having any corroborative evidence for me to rely on.”

There were matters and findings in this tender that were uncurable without committing fraud such as backdating of minutes and recomputing scoresheets that were not present, making the tender uncurable.

“There were matters and findings that were uncurable without committing fraud. And that fraud will be backdating minutes and re-computing scoresheets that were not there. Hence, this tender was uncurable.”

There was an anomaly where a recommendation was made on the 28th, but the scoring of bids was done the next day by the same people who made the recommendation, suggesting irregularity.

“you accepted that a recommendation was made on the 28th, and then the next day the people who had made the recommendation purported to score the bids in respect of a tender where they had already made a recommendation”

Mr Mnisi accepts that the situation where scoring the bids was done after the recommendation is an anomaly.

“We accept that, and it is an anomaly.”

The facts about the anomaly were validated by a third party and it is a major cause for concern, but Mr Mnisi does not have sufficient evidence to conclude that fraud was committed; however, investigation is needed.

“The facts are correct, because we have seen this having been validated by the third party. ... It is a major anomaly from our perspective ... there needs to be an investigation, firstly, on that, which will now give me guidance that, indeed, fraud was committed. I do not have sufficient evidence to make that conclusion. The only conclusion I can make is that there is an irregularity here. It is a major cause of concern.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Six bid documents were lost during relocation, which indicates that controls systems were not working and need improvement.

“there were six documents lost during the relocation of documents to another storage ... documents that were missing are six documents ... they are bid documents ... which means that your control systems are not working”

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were findings that were incurable, leading to the cancellation of the tender, and in hindsight, possible further steps should have been taken.

“There were findings that were uncurable, which then led to the cancellation. But in hindsight, I agree with you. Possible further steps should have been taken.”

Material irregularities identified by Probitiy were due to the pricing schedule issued as an addendum, requiring the pricing schedule to be completed in full with no blanks.

“The material irregularities identified by Probity were due to the pricing schedule, which was issued as an addendum. In regard to the interpretations of the addendum, it stipulated that the pricing schedule must be completed in full, with no blank spaces.”

During the bidding adjudication meeting held on 23 October, six documents were lost during relocation and measures should be implemented to safeguard documents.

“During the discussion of this matter by the bid adjudication meeting held on 23 October, the committee noted the following: • There were six documents lost during the relocation of documents to another storage. Therefore, measures and controls to safeguard documents should be implemented.”

There was no mention of meetings held on the 28th and scoring on the 29th in the BAC narrative resolution.

“So we see nothing in that narrative of what was discussed as to whether the meeting was held on the 28th and the scoring was done on the 29th. That is just not mentioned.”

Matters raised in isolation within the BAC report are additional matters not noted in the Probitiy report and the BAC wants to emphasize these.

“matters that are raised in isolation within the BAC report are additional matters that the BAC wants to emphasise on one or that the BAC did not take note of within the Probity report.”

BEC interpretation was that the pricing schedule need not have blank spaces, differing from Probitiy's requirement that blanks be filled with numerical figures, resulting in potential selective evaluation and unjustified disqualification of bidders.

“The BEC interpretation is that the pricing schedule need not to have blank spaces. According to Probity report, which its recommendation have changed the initial BEC recommendation, states that blank spaces must be completed with numerical figures. This resulted in potential selective evaluation of bidders and the potential unjustified disqualified bidders.”

The cancellation resolution adopted by BAC notes material irregularities were found and the tender be cancelled due to material irregularity.

“During the evaluation of the tender, the Committee identified the following misalignment and material irregularities. ... tender ... be cancelled due to material irregularity as indicated below.”

There was no consensus or agreement between Probitiy and BEC on the findings, rendering the matter unresolved.

“There is no consensus. ... There is no agreement. This matter could not be resolved.”

Misalignment and material irregularities in this context are both material irregularities; there was no coherence and no consensus on them.

“They are both material irregularities in this context. There was no coherence. So there was a misalignment.”

The findings in the Probitiy report were accepted by the BEC, but the irregularities were not cured and the tender needed to be cancelled.

“The findings were accepted, and that is what we are raising. ... The findings stand. The findings were not cured. This tender is irregular. It must be cancelled.”

Procurement process does not require consensus between Probitiy and BEC; Probitiy submits a report which is considered by BEC but consensus is not mandated by City supply chain policy.

“It is not required in terms of the City's supply chain management policy ... It is not what I meant.”

There was a dispute between BEC and Probitiy on pricing schedule requirements: BEc allows blanks with lines while Probitiy requires blanks to be completed with numerical figures zeros.

“There is a dispute as to what the requirements are between BEC and Probity. Probity say you have got to fill in a zero when your pricing on a certain matter is zero. BEC say provided you do not leave blank spaces, for instance by just drawing a line through the space where you have nothing to price, that is compliant.”

The Probity report was accepted by the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) and brought to the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) with acknowledgement of shortcomings, leading BAC to agree to cancellation of the tender due to incurable issues.

“The Probity report was not disputed. The Probity report was already accepted by the BEC included. In actual fact, the report when it came to BAC, it came with an acceptance of the findings and an acknowledgement by BEC of the shortcomings that were there. When it comes to BAC, it does not come with a recommendation, SC. The BEC report already came to BAC having acknowledged the shortcomings that were presented to them by Probity.”

The cancellation resolutions cited difference in interpretation between BEC and BAC and BEC and Probity as the primary reason for cancellation, which was confirmed as accepted by BEC.

“The first reason for cancelling is a difference in interpretation between BEC and BAC, BEC and Probity. You have confirmed that BEC accepted that Probity was right. Can you confirm that ? I can confirm that .”

Two findings raised in the tender process were incurable, making referral back to cure the issues a futile exercise, as cancellation would still result.

“However, there are two findings that were raised that are uncurable. It would be a fruitless exercise referring a team back to go and cure matters in isolation where other matters cannot be cured. So even if BAC took a decision to refer this back, cure these irregularities, it would have come back and been cancelled in any case as a result of finding number one and two. It would have been a time waster.”

While the tender irregularity regarding firearm licences was curable in isolation, procurement processes must be considered as a whole and the presence of incurable matters justified cancellation.

“When you are doing supply chain management processes, you cannot look at matters in isolation of each other. So I just want to give that overview that, indeed, you are correct. This is a matter that could have been cured. However, procurement process is the entire picture. It is not certain aspects. That is why we have administrative, mandatory and evaluation - related criteria. But if an individual is compliant in one aspect, we cannot just look at that aspect in isolation of the entire picture. So this instance, with all due respect, we had to look at the entire picture, and the entire picture included the uncurable matters as raised by Probity Team.”

The tender specification's requirement that bidders must submit firearm licences is disadvantageous to those who lack them and was identified as an irregularity at the time.

“The mandatory requirements 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. It was identified as an irregularity at this point.”

The tender document from the Bid Specification Committee contained contradictory requirements regarding armed guards and firearm licences, causing confusion and conflict in the specification.

“Yes , that contradicted . So the specifications , the entire document had two points that were contradicted to one another . The first is that specifications stipulate that some areas do not need armed guards , and it must be clear . However , in the mandatory requirement , the same document now dictates that bidders who do not submit firearm licences must be disqualified . The problem was that there would be bidders who...”

Bidders sometimes raise confusion about the need for firearm licenses, which is a mandatory requirement in the bid specification document and failure to meet it leads to disqualification.

“In some instances, yes, some bidders raise that. However, in some instances after the fact, when a bidder has not been awarded and has been disqualified for this reason, it might be an issue for the City.”

The tender document had contradictory provisions where some areas stated armed guards were not required, yet every bidder had to submit firearm licenses as a mandatory requirement, which could lead to litigation and was seen as a problematic contradiction.

“We have seen in the past that this exact same tender was taken to court, irregularities were identified. ... It was a highly litigated tender. ... The contradiction came in the form within those discussions that you now need to be clear. Which of those sites would not require fire arms? ... So the distinction needed to be there.”

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

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

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

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

The tender was for watchman services to guard all City sites, not specifically for ad hoc security services.

“As far as I am concerned, this is for watchman services. ... The content of this tender was for watchman services and replacing the existing tender that was there. Not specifically for ad hoc. It was to guard all City sites. All City sites.”

Risk assessments to identify sites needing additional security services are done by TMPD and relevant user departments; these assessments are included in the tender to cover all key and essential sites.

“Risk assessments are done by TMPD and the relevant user department, which identifies the need to add an additional site for security - related services. ... All key and essential sites would have been taken into account.”

The contradictions identified in reports from the Probity Team were valid and constituted key issues that needed highlighting.

“when we looked at this, it was a valid contradiction ... that contradiction was raised at that point in time as a key issue that must be highlighted”

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

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

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

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

The Probity Team had previously raised more than twelve findings, including essential matters that could not have been remedied, which were relevant to tender cancellations.

“There were more than 12 other findings that had already been raised by the Probity Team. Amongst those, there were essential matters that could not have been cured ... in some instances we were also taken to court for cancelling tenders”

In court cases about administrative acts of cancelling tenders, the validity of the cancellation depends only on the stated reasons in the committee's decision.

“When you get taken to court for an administrative act of cancelling a tender, your decision stands or falls by the reasons that are given for it... the only reasons that are given for it are these three bullet points”

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

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

The tender specifications did not explicitly refer to or consider the PSIRA pricing guidelines, which are regulated and relevant for assessing pricing.

“The specifications were silent on the PSIRA pricing guidelines that should be considered ... PSIRA is regulated and they give pricing ... The document in its own was not clear whether that would be taken into account ... The specifications did not have a clear indication on what happens on the regulations of PSIRA and the prices that are there”

The tender process excluded considering regulated pricing from PSIRA, which is viewed as a material irregularity.

“Because this is a regulated area from a pricing perspective. So we need to be clear that we are not going to follow those potential pricing that are regulated by PSIRA ... why is that a material irregularity? ... You are going to assess these bidders on price and BEE after you have excluded people who do not qualify ... Why do you have to refer to PSIRA guidelines?”

The reason for bringing the additional issue about the PSIRA pricing guidelines was to ensure all potential loopholes in new tender specifications being compiled were covered comprehensively before cancelling the current tender.

“It was an additional issue that was raised over and above the myriad of issues that were there ... when the new specifications are being compiled ... they need to ensure that all potential loopholes would have been covered, including these ... this was an additional reason that was identified”

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

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

PSIRA has strict guidelines on how much is to be paid per guard which should have been clearly indicated in the City’s bid specifications to avoid binding bidders to their own prices instead of PSIRA prices.

“PSIRA has got strict guidelines on how much you need to pay per guard... The City’s specification document was silent on this matter... they are aware of how the industry operates, to avoid a situation where we award a bidder then comes award date, he then tells us PSIRA says you need to pay this amount”

The City did not want to go with PSIRA rates to obtain cheaper and more competitive bids but this was a safeguard to clarify pricing expectations to bidders.

“Because in most instances, I would suspect that the reason the City did not have or go with PSIRA rates is that they wanted to get cheaper prices, wanted to get a competitive bid. So that was there to safeguard the City in the instance of that as well”

There was concern that bids with prices below PSIRA guidelines might escalate later up to the PSIRA maximum during renegotiation or escalation periods.

“If I understand you correctly... PSIRA has guidelines that may be higher than the bid prices and you were worried that come renegotiation time, or come escalation time, people would want to escalate up to the PSIRA maximum. Is that what the concern was?”

The failure to refer to PSIRA pricing guidelines in the specifications is not an irregularity that justifies bid cancellation but rather a specification error that could have been drawn differently.

“that is not an irregularity, a material irregularity in the bid. It is not an irregularity. At best, it is a specification that you should have drawn differently. You have changed your mind on the specifications”

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

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

A bid silent on PSIRA pricing guidelines would open the City to court challenges from losing bidders on these grounds.

“If the tender was silent ... losing bidder goes to court and says I want to have this tender reviewed and set aside because it is silent on PSIRA pricing guidelines”

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

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

The tender document did not grant right to escalate prices in accordance with PSIRA and had no reference to PSIRA guidelines making the bid binding to its stated price only.

“If they do not give you a right to escalate in accordance with PSIRA ... then your bid is your bid. And in this case, there was no reference to PSIRA guidelines”

Requests for special dispensation to escalate prices according to PSIRA were denied, leading to litigation from those parties.

“people asked for special dispensation to escalate by PSIRA and you said no. So, in some instances, they take us to court. When we say no, they take us to court. And I am aware as we speak now, there are litigations on this matter”

Using silence on PSIRA pricing guidelines as a ground for tender cancellation would have entitled bidders to go to court and is not a valid reason for cancellation.

“that last reason, the requirement that specifications are silent on PSIRA pricing guidelines... using it as a ground for cancellation... would have entitled any bidder to take you to court ... That is not one of the prescribed tender stipulations and it cannot, therefore, be a valid reason to cancel”

The City was lucky no bidder took them to court on the absence of PSIRA pricing guideline requirements, and therefore cancellation on this ground is invalid.

“I think the City is very lucky that no bidder took you to court on this ground ... you cannot cancel on this ground. I am putting that to you as a correct position of law. That is not a valid reason to have cancelled this tender”

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

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

Sergeant Nkosi received a draft administrative report related to tender TMPD-3 from someone inside the BEC process on 25 March, which was not supposed to be accessible to him.

“on the 25th of March, Sergeant Nkosi sent you this document...a draft report of the BEC on this tender...It is a draft prepared by someone inside the BEC process”

There was no legitimate basis for Sergeant Nkosi to have access to the draft administrative report; he could have obtained the closing register published on the website instead.

“there was no need for him to get this. He could have just got the closing register, which would have been published. It was there on the website. That would have been the best document to get.”

Mr Mnisi denied that Sergeant Nkosi had a source inside the BEC giving him documents; he did not know where Sergeant Nkosi got the document from.

“I take. That is not true ... The truth of where he received this is.”

Sergeant Nkosi had some unknown source inside the BEC who gave him documents related to the tender TMPD-3.

“the obvious inference to draw from the fact that Sergeant Nkosi sent you this document is that he had someone inside the BEC who was giving him documents.”

Sergeant Nkosi had an indirect route into the BEC through the General to get documents related to the tender TMPD-3.

“Sergeant Nkosi had an indirect route into the BEC through the General ... Sergeant Nkosi must have had a route into the BEC to get this document.”

Mr Mnisi stated that Sergeant Nkosi received the document from the General and not from anyone inside the BEC.

“He received this from the General. He did not receive it from anyone in the BEC”

Sergeant Nkosi had access to a tender-related document that should not have been in his possession.

“Sergeant Nkosi had access to a tender-related document that should not have been in his possession”

Having a tender document internal to an incomplete tender assessment process sitting with a member of the public is problematic for that tender process.

“a tender document that is internal of an incomplete tender assessment process is sitting with a member of the public, because that is what he is. It is sitting with a member of the public. That is problematic for that tender process.”

The document related to the tender process was outside of the municipality with a member of the public, which is an irregularity.

“That it is outside of the municipality with a member of the public itself is an irregularity. You must be able to accept that.”

Mr Mnisi assessed the content of the leaked tender document and concluded it did not contain any sensitive or confidential information and did not require further action.

“Indeed, again, I assessed the content of the document. The document, from my perspective, did not need me to take any further steps. The sort of information that was readily available to the public, upon my receiving of this document, did not contain anything sensitive or confidential. There was nothing for me to raise.”

Mr Mnisi states the leaked document was a draft administrative report that did not contain sensitive or confidential information and he had nothing to report further.

“I do not have any conclusive evidence on any leak at this stage in time, but I do agree this is a leaked draft administrative report. It does not contain anything sensitive or confidential. I had nothing to report.”

The processes and systems designed by the Probit Teams are sufficient to test any potential leaks within the system, and this tender document did not contain sensitive information.

“There are sufficient processes that I have designed by the Probit Teams to test any potential leaks within the system. This was a closing register, firstly. There is no sensitive information that is contained in this.”

The Probit report did not specifically say that Sergeant Nkosi received the tender-related document.

“It did not specifically say that Sergeant Nkosi received this, no.”

The Probit report did not speak of leaking any documents to members of the public.

“It did not specifically speak of leaking of any documents to members of the public, did it? No.”

The Probit report was unable to pick up the leak of the tender document to members of the public because it did not focus on that.

“No, it was unable to. It did not focus on that.”

ADV VANDENHEER contends that Mr Mnisi is wasting time of the Commission by the manner in which he answers questions and that Mr Mnisi is not given proper time to answer and explain what happened during the tender deliberation.

“We believe that to put to the witness that he is wasting time of the Commission by the manner in which he answers is unfair to the witness. And to edit his responses is equally unfair at the end of the day.”

Mr Mnisi says there are questions that do not require explanations and answers to those questions cannot depend on what a witness thinks or feels.

“And I will tell you this. As a practitioner, unfortunately as a judge, I sat at an Appellate Court, so I did not again experience issues of questions, responses, and proper responses, improper responses. But I practise for a number of years, and I will tell you this ... there are questions that do not require explanations. And I would be surprised if you disagree.”

Mr Mnisi was not given insufficient time to explain what transpired at the adjudication process and provided substantial responses when given the opportunity.

“I t h i n k y o u f e l t t h a t h e w a s n o t g i v e n s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y , f r o m w h e r e I a m s i t t i n g , h e g a v e l o t s a n d l o t s o f r e s p o n s e s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h i s s u b j e c t”

Mr Mnisi has been given much leeway in explaining his responses in the inquiry, more than other witnesses, though sometimes his answers do not directly address the questions asked.

“much leeway h a s b e e n g i v e n t o M r M n i s i . B u t t h e r e a r e t i m e s w h e n y o u w i l l a s k a q u e s t i o n a n d f r o m t h e m o m e n t , h e o p e n s h i s m o u t h , y o u s e e t h a t t h e r e s p o n s e h e i s b e g i n n i n g t o g i v e h a s n o t h i n g a t a l l t o d o w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t i s b e i n g a s k e d”

Mr Mnisi knows of the late Mr Msibi from newspaper articles but has no personal relationship with him.

“I k n o w h i m I d o n o t k n o w h i m . I h a v e r e a d a b o u t h i m i n n e w s p a p e r a r t i c l e s . I k n o w w h o h e w a s . ... N o t a p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p”

Mr Mnisi was unaware of any close personal relationship between Sergeant Nkosi and the late Mr Msibi, only that they knew each other.

“I w a s n o t a w a r e h e h a d a c l o s e p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . I w a s a w a r e t h a t t h e y k n e w e a c h o t h e r”

Mr Mnisi does not know who Mr Mampane is and has never met him, despite Sergeant Nkosi sending the TMPD3 draft report to Mr Mampane as well as messaging him.

“I d o n o t k n o w w h o i s M r M a m p a n e , a n d I h a v e n e v e r m e t M r M a m p a n e . ... h e s e n t t h e s a m e d o c u m e n t t o M r M a m p a n e ... And shortly after receiving this list ... Mr Mampane wrote back WhatsApp back, saying, ... 'Boetie, please let him say no to that appointment' ... Did Sergeant Nkosi ever speak to you about the TMPD 3 tender ? No.”

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

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

Mr Mnisi disagrees with the assertion that none of the three reasons given in the tender cancellation resolution justify the cancellation and denies knowledge of any discussions between Mr Mampane and Sergeant Nkosi regarding the tender.

“Yes, I do, SC, I respectfully disagree with that ... I further disagree with the notion that I had any knowledge of whatever discussions were occurring between Mr Mampane or Sergeant Nkosi”

Mr Mnisi received pictures of weapons from a friend via WhatsApp status, which he shared with Sergeant Nkosi as part of their social activities involving shooting and intended to try out those weapons.

“These are pictures that I saw from the status of a friend ... These are weapons that I like shooting, as part of my socialising ... These are weapons that I wanted to try out as well”

Mr Mnisi denies that the message "They say he is coming for me boet" meant anyone was coming for him, explaining it referred to planning for a shooting expedition with Sergeant Nkosi.

“No one was coming for me ... The contents around our discussion was that these were weapons that I had seen, and I wanted to try them out after they had been sent to me”

Mr Mnisi was discussing the need to be ready to use automatic weapons in a competition, and the discussion with Sergeant Nkosi was about that readiness, with no specific person referred to.

“the content of this discussion was for me to try out those weapons ... I need to be able to use weapons in whatever competition that I want to attend in the near future”

Mr Mnisi confirms his security was removed in December 2024 by Officers Nkomo and Mabunda of the TNPD and he did not make any additional security arrangements after that except asking Sergeant Nkosi to accompany him as a driver.

“your security was removed in December 2024 ... I did not make any additional security arrangements ... I would ask Sergeant Nkosi to accompany me ... I requested him for services of a driver”

Mr Mnisi explains that he engaged a driver named Bonkosi through Sergeant Nkosi from December for about a month, and this engagement was adhoc and not permanent. Bonkosi drove him sporadically, sometimes for a few days or a month, with breaks in between where Mr Mnisi drove himself.

“I was driving myself ... It was not a permanent arrangement ... I would utilize him in some instances for three to four days in a month ... So, it was not a permanent arrangement ... I would pay Bonkosi from myself”

Mr Mnisi states that Sergeant Nkosi put him in touch with Bonkosi and that Bonkosi was just a driver, not security, and did not assist with anything else.

“Sergeant Nkosi put you in touch with Bonkosi ... he was just a driver, not security ... he did not assist me with anything else”

Mr Mnisi recounts a WhatsApp chat message to Sergeant Nkosi that 'Something is off with Bonkosi today' because Bonkosi was 30 minutes late picking him up and missed an off-ramp from the airport, implying Bonkosi's unreliability and potential risk to Mr Mnisi's safety.

“Something is off with Bonkosi today ... He is 30 minutes late when he picks me up ... He misses an off-ramp from the airport ... He was off ... how do you miss an off-ramp that you travel so often?”

Mr Mnisi says Bonkosi stopped formally engaging as his driver around September but still drives him occasionally when needed after a break period of about two months he drove himself.

“roughly, at this point it stopped until about September-ish ... He stopped in September, I drove myself for about two months on my own, and I started requesting him to drive me again ... so, there was a break”

Releasing Bonkosi to go home does not mean he was fired; it was a temporary arrangement so the speaker could manage their own duties for the day.

“releasing him to go home . He is not fired . Releasing him does not mean he has been fired . For the rest of the day , I will drive myself moving forward . So , he can go home .”

Mr Mnisi requested Bonkosi as a driver, not as a bodyguard, and viewed this request strictly as securing driving service, not protection.

“I have asked for a driver , he was my driver . ... For me , these are driving services .”

Sergeant Nkosi regarded Bonkosi as a bodyguard and suggested misleading enemies about the duration of the bodyguard's assignment.

“Sergeant Nkosi regards Bonkosi as a bodyguard , does he not ? That is what he says , yes . ... Let us confuse your enemies for two or three days . It is your call , Mfowethu .”

Mr Mnisi did not understand Sergeant Nkosi's reference to enemies and bodyguards and found it to be an incorrect characterization.

“When he refers to enemies and bodyguards , he is just got it wrong .”

Mr Mnisi provided a sworn statement that he was given a driver by Sergeant Nkosi but did not see the bodyguards mentioned by the counsel.

“As per my sworn statement, Chair, is that he provided me with a driver and I do state that in my sworn outfit of it and I further go on to disclose to the Commission that there are some instances as well where Sergeant Nkosi himself would go with me, but not the people. The people are something completely different because I pay those from my own pocket, where he himself comes. I view that as a possibility of being viewed as a benefit. However, I am clarifying that there was no financial exchanges so there is no benefit that he obtains, number 1. Two, he is a friend.”

Mr Mnisi felt unsafe or vulnerable at times and was accompanied by Sergeant Nkosi to meetings as a friend for physical presence, not as security.

“On a few occasions , Sergeant Nkosi accompanied me to meetings and / or gatherings because I felt unsafe or vulnerable , purely as a friend . He has got a physical presence . So , if I go with a friend with a physical presence , I feel a bit safer .”

There was a private meeting in Durban on 11 January that Mr Mnisi attended for a personal matter, which was described by Sergeant Nkosi in messages as crossing fingers for a 'massive business deal' that had significance beyond personal.

“You message him: 'Off on an urgent meeting in Durban, we will be back later today, just in and out. Morning, my brother, go well...' He responds. You say: 'Cross your fingers, Mfowethu, going for a massive business deal that side.' Yes, it is a personal matter that I had to go to.”

Mr Mnisi and Sergeant Nkosi had a very close relationship, described by Sergeant Nkosi as brothers and friends in their messages.

“And we have already established that you had a very close relationship with Sergeant Nkosi. Very close, yes. He described you in his New Year's message, I think we may have been there, as he says: 'Compliments my brother indeed, in you I found a true brother.' Yes, we are friends.”

Mr Mnisi admitted misleading Sergeant Nkosi regarding the appointment of Ngaphesheya and Elshadai, despite presenting themselves as brothers forever.

“...you are willing to create the false impression that you were going along with his requests to appoint Ngaphesheya and Elshadai, despite the fact that you had no intention of doing that whatsoever. Spot on. So, you were misleading him in relation to your texts to him on Ngaphesheya and Elshadai on your version. In the same way as I presumed that he was misleading me, yes.”

Mr Mnisi admitted that he created a false impression to Sergeant Nkosi that he was complying with checks although he had no intention to do so, as a response to receiving persistent reminders.

“I did huff and puff. I did create a false impression that I would check for compliance, as he would constantly request me to. However, due to the persistence, I indicated it. It was clear to me, even though he is not saying it verbatim, that I need to assist in checking for compliance, in my mind it rang a bell that this looks like it is more than that. I took a decision in my mind that he is also misleading me in some way or not. I am going to play the same game.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledged that Sergeant Nkosi was no longer just asking for compliance but was giving him a list of bidders in priority for a business matter.

“But it was not to check for compliance. By the time that you were huffing and puffing, it was quite clear that he was giving you a list of bidders in priority, and our list. So, he was no longer misleading you. If he, at the beginning, was asking for compliance, if that is what he was doing, by this stage it was clear that he was asking for something more.”

Mr Mnisi admits to 'huffing and puffing' intentionally in response to a vehicle list discussion related to Sergeant Nkosi's directive.

“177 is the last instance of trigger. This is where I start huffing and puffing intentionally as well ... I clearly indicate to him that, Sergeant Nkosi, there is nothing I can do for you.”

Mr Mnisi acknowledges misleading Sergeant Nkosi only after being misled himself about checking compliance vs rigging the tender.

“Yes, in the same way, he misled me by persistently saying, check for compliance...”

Mr Mnisi strategically took ownership and managed the situation with Sergeant Nkosi and denies having any complaint about being misled.

“There is no complaint. I strategically took a decision to take ownership and manage the situation. There is no complaint from me.”

Mr Mnisi denies knowledge of the request to cancel the award of tender TMPD3 and says he was not forwarded that message at all.

“Which is something I know nothing about. I do not know the gentleman who sent him that request. Secondly, he does not even forward me that message at all.”

Mr Mnisi confirms his understanding that Sergeant Nkosi wanted him to rig the tender in favour of Ngaphesheya and Elshadai, although it was framed as checking for compliance.

“That is exactly what I am saying ... He wanted me to prioritise that, yes ...”

Mr Mnisi explains the probity report was a critical part of the procurement process and was always considered with the bid adjudication committee resolution and could not be read in isolation.

“The probity report...must be brought on board when we are making conclusions...You cannot read the BAC resolution in isolation of the probity report.”

Mr Mnisi disputes any bias or impairment of objectivity in handling tender TMPD1 or TMPD3 and vouches for the rigorous procurement process and probity report validity.

“There was no bias or any impairment of my objectivity in terms of handling both tenders...with a conclusive probity report from an external party validating that.”

Adv S Haskalson suggests and implies Mr Mnisi's relationship with Sergeant Nkosi was close and that Mr Mnisi tainted both tender processes he presided over involving Ngaphesheya and Elshadai.

“It looks very much like your very close relationship with Sergeant Nkosi tainted both of these tender processes that you presided over.”

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

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

B E C - B A C report considered cancellation in conjunction with the full probity report referenced as GM20, which includes the issue of blank spaces versus numerical figures in the specifications.

“the B E C - B A C report that considered this cancellation was read out in conjunction with the probity report, and it was referred to GM20, the entire probity report”

The issue of blank spaces versus numerical insertions is raised within the probity report and is not an additional issue.

“It is an issue raised in the probity report, the issue of blank spaces versus not blank spaces, numerical insertions versus deletions. That is mentioned in the probity report.”

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

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

The pictures were sent without prior context, and discussions about preferences occurred only afterward.

“I think we discussed it afterwards because afterwards in 275 you can see their responses and then we discussed this matter afterwards in terms of, I think this one is nice because of these reasons, not beforehand.”

MR MNISI received pictures of two SUVs sent to him for advice on which vehicle is nicer, presumably related to a contemplated purchase.

“Well, these are pictures of cars. He was asking me for advice in terms of which is a nice car... He sent me a picture for cars to give him my comment and my views in terms of which car do I think is nice.”

MR MNISI received a PIN at 3:28 message time on 30th April related to a meeting he had to attend with Mr Joe Sibanyoni.

“... he then obviously either does not understand me when he calls me on the next message. I clarify that for him, SC... your exchange ends on page 275 and then on page 276 the following day he sends you a pin which is at page, well at 3:28 on message time, 05:28 on the 30th of April...”

MR MNISI's associate was going to see Mr Joe Sibanyoni and sent a message indicating the meeting due to inability to meet MR MNISI.

“He was going, there you go, he was going to see Mr Joe Sibanyoni... We probably had to meet, so he was unable to meet me if I recall correctly... That is the only reason, there is no other reason he would send me that.”

MR MNISI was interested in the meeting with Mr Joe Sibanyoni only as a notification to reschedule their engagement and to resume activities afterwards.

“I was not interested per se, I mean you just cancelled our engagement that we should have went to, so just let me know how it goes, so we can go and meet. Let me know when you are done, so that we can resume the activities that we needed to do.”

MR MNISI received a TikTok video previously sent of Mr Joe Sibanyoni, which was trending and related to the launch of the Joe Sibanyoni Foundation.

“I think previously he had sent me a TikTok video of some sort of Mr Sibanyoni... He was just sending me a TikTok video, that was trending... A trending message about the launch of the Joe Sibanyoni Foundation.”

MR MNISI declared no personal interest in the Joe Sibanyoni Foundation and had never met Mr Joe Sibanyoni, only exchanged information via messages.

“I was not interested in the Joe Sibanyoni Foundation, I had no interest in matters of that nature, never met Mr Joe Sibanyoni, he was just sending me this in a similar way, I would send him articles.”

MR MNISI refers to Joe Sibanyoni as 'number one' in relation to a taxi association and taxi fraternity leadership.

“He is the president of one of the taxi associations, he is number one within the taxi fraternity as far I was concerned.”

MR MNISI was aware that Sergeant Nkosi had a relationship with Mr Joe Sibanyoni.

“And you must have known then that Sergeant Nkosi had a relationship with him?”

There were discussions involving Mr Mnisi, Sergeant Nkosi, and Joe Sibanyoni concerning meetings and communications, including references to a TikTok video and specific timing of calls on public holidays that raised concerns about urgency.

“he had had a discussion, he had sent me this, he told me he knew him”

Mr Mnisi initially could not recall discussions about Mr Sibanyoni until prompted, indicating that mentioning Joe Sibanyoni refreshed his memory about relevant matters including a TikTok video.

“But now when I point out to the fact that you do refer to Joe Sibanyoni, suddenly your memory is refreshed.”

There were three instances of communication about meetings involving Mr Sibanyoni with a TikTok video and pins indicating timing around 29 or 30 April.

“Chair, as we have seen now, there are three instances. We saw the TikTok video, we saw him sending me a pin that he is going there on the 29th or the 30th of April”

Mr Mnisi clarifies that references to 'we' in discussions do not include him personally but represent a collective or group speech pattern, and questioned the urgency of a 06:30 call on a public holiday.

“Again, firstly, the ‘we’ is not me. And this is what I was trying to refer to the Commission that this was our way of speaking ... it is a public holiday, someone wants you at 06:30 in the morning...”

Mr Mnisi said he was concerned about a call from Mr Joe Sibanyoni at 06:30 on a public holiday, questioning the urgency of such a call at that time.

“Yes, because he tells me that Mr Joe Sibanyoni calls me at 06:30 on page 86 at the foot ... So why would someone call so early?”

Mr Mnisi did not recall the feedback given by Sergeant Nkosi after receiving a concern about the call at 06:30.

“I do not recall. No, I do not recall. I do not even think he gave me feedback.”

Mr Mnisi expressed 100% certainty that the call from Mr Sibanyoni at 06:30 on a public holiday was a cause for concern, not just a normal call.

“One hundred percent.”

Mr Mnisi stated that if he had been told details about the meeting at 06:30, he would have listened and probably given input, but he was not informed and considered it none of his business.

“Had he told me about it, I would have listened and probably given an input, Chair, but it was none of my business.”

Mr Mnisi explained that he uses initials 'J S' for Joe Sibanyoni in informal communications because it is shorter and easier.

“It is short and it is long to write Joe Sibanyoni, it is informal communications, Chair. So, J S would have been easier for me.”

Mr Mnisi clarified that when he referred to 'number one' for Joe Sibanyoni, it was a personal understanding and not related to the Taxi Association presidency.

“No, we do not refer him to that, that is how I knew.”

Sergeant Nkosi overheard a telephone conversation between Mr. Mnisi and Mr. Calvin Mahlangu where complaints were made about the City owing considerable outstanding payments and legal action being contemplated if unresolved.

“Sergeant Nkosi overheard a telephone conversation between me and Mr Calvin Mahlangu, during which he complained about the City owing his company a significant amount in outstanding payments. He indicated that legal action against the City was being contemplated, should the matter remain unresolved.”

Sergeant Nkosi overheard the call between Mr Mnisi and Mr Mahlangu in early March before the 5th, and also called Deputy Chief Dhlamini on the same day, assisting the Deputy Chief with the matter.

“Sergeant Nkosi, as I discovered subsequently, took it upon himself to assist as he knew Deputy Chief, Mr Umashi Dhlamini of the TMPD.”

Mr Mnisi discovered Sergeant Nkosi had called Deputy Chief Dhlamini and handed him the phone during a drive, where Mr Mnisi communicated the concerns.

“So I was driving, he went on a call, he called Deputy Chief Dhlamini, and he gave me the phone. That is when I identified that he had given him a call already.”

Sergeant Nkosi made a call to Deputy Chief Dhlamini on the same day during the call Mr Mnisi had with Mr Mahlangu, not a subsequent day as initially stated by Mr Mnisi.

“While I was wrapping up my call with Mr Calvin Mahlangu, Sergeant Nkosi calls Deputy Chief Dhlamini on the same day.”

Mr Mnisi used Sergeant Nkosi as a convenient intermediary to communicate with Deputy Chief Dhlamini but admits in hindsight he should have obtained the Deputy Chief's contact directly and dealt with him personally.

“At this point, after the call had been made, Sergeant Nkosi was already involved. From my perspective, it was convenient for him, taking into account that I was busy with other strategic matters as well. So one operational matter off my table would be easier for me to focus on the strategic nature of my job. In hindsight, I did admit that at this point, I should have requested for the contact details of Deputy Chief Dhlamini.”

Mr Mnisi stated he spoke to General Deputy Chief Dhlamini about the concerns from the call with Mr Mahlangu, expressing that the Deputy Chief said he was not aware of the matter but would look into it.

“I spoke to the Deputy Chief Dhlamini. I expressed to him the concerns on the call that I just received. He said he was not aware of this matter, however, he will look into it accordingly.”

Mr Mnisi coordinated communication between himself and Deputy Chief Dhlamini through Sergeant Nkosi; Sergeant Nkosi was not officially delegated any authority by Mr Mnisi to handle matters.

“I was not necessarily using him as an official representative... I was not delegating anything to Sergeant Nkosi. He is not an official of the City. He can in no way have any delegations to deal with any matters.”

Mr Mnisi admits that while speaking to Mr Mahlangu, Sergeant Nkosi called Deputy Chief Dhlamini and handed the phone to Mr Mnisi so he could speak directly to the Deputy Chief.

“While we were driving, just as I was about to conclude my discussion with Mr Calvin Mahlangu, Sergeant Nkosi was already phoning the Deputy Chief. At that point, he gave me his phone and I spoke to the Deputy Chief.”

Deputy Chief Dhlamini was actively dealing with the matter, while Mr Mnisi was not actively involved and only sent messages on behalf, without knowing details.

“He was sending, Deputy Chief Dhlamini was dealing with them actively. The individual that was actively dealing with the matter, resolving, analysing documentation is the Deputy Chief Dhlamini. Nkosi was not actively dealing with the matter. Nkosi was the individual who was sending the message on my behalf. He was not actively dealing with this. He did not even have the details of what was going on in this.”

Mr Mnisi admits that ideally he should have contacted Deputy Chief Dhlamini directly instead of using Sergeant Nkosi as intermediary due to convenience but acknowledges this was not ideal.

“In hindsight, I accept that. ... Like I said, ideally I should have got the contact details of the Deputy Chief. I did not have his details at this point in time. ... I do agree that I should have got this numbers directly and had communications with him initially from the matter, when that matter was raised, Chair. ... I should have asked for them, and I agree. ... I should have had that, Chair. I do agree to that. In hindsight, it is something I should have done to avoid this entire complication.”

Mr Mnisi did not have the contact details of Deputy Chief Dhlamini because he normally engages the Chief of Police and there is no central directory of senior executives with their cellphone numbers at Tshwane.

“I did not have his contact details at this point, Chair, this is why I did not deal with him directly. ... No. Normally I engage the Chief of Police. ... That give cell phone numbers, no.”

Mr Mnisi confirms the existence of a Whatsapp conversation between Sergeant Nkosi and General Dhlamini, with delays in conveying messages causing inefficiencies.

“...you see that that, there is a screenshot then that Sergeant Nkosi sends to the General of your conversation. ... He then comes back to you at 9:48 saying he confirmed it will be sorted now. ... at 9:55, you tell Sergeant Nkosi: "Okay, it is not yet in my system." And he sends you an image of fingers crossed. ... We are seeing in this example is how the allegedly convenient mechanism that you are using to address this situation actually results in delay...”

Mr Mnisi acknowledges he should have asked his personal assistant to handle communication with General Dhlamini instead of using Sergeant Nkosi, but at the time it did not cross his mind.

“At this point in time, it did not cross my mind, Chair. ... I should have.”

Cain Mpofu is an official in Tshwane's Procurement department; Vusi is also an official in Procurement; Tommy is in charge of payments within Treasury under Mr Mnisi.

“Now, Cain, we have learnt, is Cain Mpofu, who is in the Procurement Department of Tshwane. Vusi, who is Vusi? ... He is an official of the City within Procurement as well. ... Tommy, I think you mentioned, was in charge of payments. ... In your department? ... In Treasury. ... Yes. ... Still within Group Financial Services. ... He is under me, yes, Chair.”

Budget increases for the TMPD require a motivation and approval by Divisional Heads within Supply Chain Management and Procurement, specifically Cain Mpofu and Vusi.

“It is a delegated function that is delegated to the Divisional Head within Supply Chain Management and the Procurement, so it would have been Cain as well as Vusi.”

Sergeant Nkosi communicates messages from General Dhlamini to Mr Mnisi with delays, and Mr Mnisi confirms their communication mechanism is inconvenient causing delays.

“The General communicates this at 20 past 12, you only learn about it from Sergeant Nkosi half an hour after that, at 12:52. ... You are nodding your head. ... Yes, I am agreeing to that.”

Budget increases mean making funds available up to the end of the month without increasing the overall annual budget threshold; it involves adjusting commitments within the approved allocation to TMPD.

“So sorry, SC. We are going to make monies available up until the end of the month. The budget is approved, we are not increasing the thresholds of the budget, we are not making any additional funds available, it is just increasing what could be committed at this stage on the funds that are already allocated and assigned to TMPD for the full financial year.”

Mr Mnisi confirms that the General is winning and this is communicated by Sergeant Nkosi after some delay with details about creating requisitions and purchase orders for payment processing.

“the General saying : “ Yes , we have won , busy with creating requisitions and at the same time releasing the minor order for buyers to create purchase orders .”

Mr Mnisi admits he used Sergeant Nkosi for communication because it was convenient and to ensure the matter was being dealt with.

“Your version is that you used Sergeant Nkosi because it is convenient ... It was easy for me, Chair, and I needed to ensure that the matter is being dealt with , and it was being dealt with .”

Mr Mnisi admits that he should have requested the Deputy Chief's contact details at the point Sergeant Nkosi involved himself, and concedes this was a flaw on his part.

“What I should have done, which I have conceded, was that I should have, at the point where he involved himself and called the Deputy Chief , requested for those contact details , which was a flaw on my side on that matter .”

Over 24 hours, through Sergeant Nkosi's intervention, Mr Mnisi managed to have a conversation with the General that resulted in invoices being processed and paid.

“So over these 24 hours, through Sergeant Nkosi's intervention, you have managed to have a conversation with the General that has resulted in the invoices being paid .”

Mr Mnisi did not ask Sergeant Nkosi to phone Deputy Chief Dhlamini in the car; Sergeant Nkosi took it upon himself to make the call, after which Mr Mnisi interacted with Deputy Chief Dhlamini.

“I did not ask him to phone Deputy Chief Dhlamini when we were in the car . He took it upon himself to call him . Once he had made that call , of course I had a discussion or interaction with the Deputy Chief Dhlamini in terms of the matter that we are facing .”

Mr Mnisi explains the call made by Sergeant Nkosi to General Dhlamini was made in Mr Mnisi's presence while they were together in a vehicle.

“He called General Dhlamini and had a conversation with him in your presence ? Is that all you are referring to ? ... That was a starting point and also his commitment that he will give feedback .”

The General sent a message to Sergeant Nkosi seeking confirmation if Mr Mnisi had spoken to Cain regarding processing at GUBIS, but Mr Mnisi never received this message and cannot comment on it.

“The General messages Sergeant Nkosi saying : “ Good day, Captain. Please check with Mfowethu if he has spoken to Cain about Gubis for processing . He just called me to say Mfowethu has given a go-ahead .” This message was never forwarded to myself . I have never received it . I cannot comment on that .”

Mr Mnisi might have called the General to explain and try to put the matter to rest.

“I think I might have given him a call to explain this matter and to try and put the matter to rest .”

Mr Mnisi clarifies that he never authorized payment of the previous financial year’s invoice as it is beyond his powers.

“I had not done that . It is beyond my powers .”

Mr Mnisi needed to clarify with the Deputy Chief that he had not given any go-ahead for approving ex post facto invoices.

“I need to clarify that, that I have not given any go-ahead . Necessary processes in terms of approving ex post facto invoices must be followed . So I needed to explain this to the Deputy Chief directly .”

Mr Mnisi confirms the screenshots and call images are from Chairman Obonzo, identified as Mr Modise, and he recalls the content of these communications.

“That is Mr Modise , yes , I confirm . Yes , I do recall .”

Mr M N I S I clarifies that the Deputy Executive Mayor wanted him to accompany him to a political party related event, but he was uncomfortable attending as it was not an official government function.

“the Deputy Executive Mayor wanted me to accompany him to, I will say, a political event where they needed to give feedback on the engagement and the status of Gauteng Municipalities... I clarified to the Deputy Executive Mayor, look, this is not an official provincial government matter... It looks like it is more political party related. I am uncomfortable to attend such.”

Mr M N I S I states he was extremely uncomfortable attending the political party related function due to his impartiality, and only vented to Sergeant Nkosi without expecting any action.

“Due to my impartiality, I was extremely uncomfortable. So why I send him this, I was just venting and raving and just needed a friend to talk to. I did not expect him to do anything for me on that.”

Mr M N I S I denies any connection between the discussed event and the 23/24 invoice issue.

“So it has nothing to do with the 23/24 invoice.”

Mr M N I S I explains that the Deputy Mayor's call to Sergeant Nkosi was related to convincing him to attend political party related engagements, which Mr M N I S I was uncomfortable with.

“The Deputy Mayor knew that Sergeant Nkosi was an associate of mine... I presumably think he wanted him to convince me that I need to attend matters of this nature as well... I had expressed that to the Deputy Mayor previously.”

Mr M N I S I told Sergeant Nkosi he could not get hold of him (Mr M N I S I) and that the Deputy Mayor should call Sergeant Nkosi personally if he wanted him to attend the meeting.

“I told him I cannot get hold of you. So if he needs you to come to this meeting where I must be convinced to sort of engage in the political party related engagements, he must call you himself.”

Mr M N I S I describes his role in overseeing an outstanding payment process, playing oversight to ensure the matter is completed properly but not being able to force payment.

“Presumably for me to have oversight on the payment process... I need to play oversight to ensure the payment is included in line with the necessary payment file uploading process... I read this as a form of me playing oversight in the payment process... I have got a cash flow management function... I can even confirm the payment was done by the 14th of March... playing oversight so that this does not fall through the cracks.”