Ramahlapi Johannes Mokoena and Others

IN THE REGIONAL DIVISION OF GAUTENG
HELD AT THE SPECIALISED COMMERCIAL CRIME COURT - JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: SCCC/265/2018
WHEREAS:
The Director of Public Prosecution and Head of the Investigating Directorate
established by Proclamation No. 20 of 2019 of 4 April 2019, who prosecutes for and
on behalf of the State in terms of section 24(2) of the National Prosecuting Authority
Act, Act 32 of 1998 (NPA Act), hereby informs this Honourable Court that:
1
In the matter of:
CHARGE SHEET
IN THE CASE OF THE STATE
VERSUS
RAMAHLAPI JOHANNES MOKWENA ACCUSED 2
JAMES RAMANJALUM ACCUSED 3
DELIWE DE LANGE ACCUSED 4
NOMBHURUZA LETTIE NAPO ACCUSED 5
RAVICHANDRAN PILLAY ACCUSED 6
JOHANNES KGOMOTSO PHAHLANE ACCUSED 7
THOMAS DUMASI MARIMA ACCUSED 9
MAETAPESE JOSEPH MULAIWA ACCUSED 10
JUDY ROSE ACCUSED 11
SAMANTHA ANDREWS ACCUSED 12
VIMPIE PHINEAS TLALEFANG MANTHATA ACCUSED 13
INSTRUMENTATION FOR TRAFFIC LAW ENFOCEMENT (PTY) LTD ACCUSED 14
(AS REPRESENTED BY ACCUSED 13)
BONANG CHRISTINAH MGWENYA ACCUSED 15
(Hereinafter referred to as the Accused)
Are guilty of the following charges:
2
A: GENERAL PREAMBLE TO THE CHARGES
Whereas at all times material to the charges:
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED
1. ACCUSED 2 - RAMAHLAPI JOHANNES MOKWENA
A male Lieutenant General and the Divisional Commissioner of the SAPS Supply Chain
Management, with identity number 600313 5888 087. Accused 2 was appointed
head of the SAPS Bid Adjudication Committee on 30 March.
2. ACCUSED 3 - JAMES RAMANJALUM
A male Brigadier and the Divisional Section Head: Procurement Management for
Moveable Government Properties, with identity number 651223 5115 084.
3. ACCUSED 4 - DELIWE SUSAN DE LANGE
A female Lieutenant General and the Provincial Commissioner of Gauteng SAPS
province with identity number 610524 0807 082.
4. ACCUSED 5 - NOMBHURUZA LETTIE NAPO
A female Major General and Deputy Provincial Commissioner of Gauteng SAPS: Asset
Management with identity number 630921 0443 080.
5. ACCUSED 6 - RAVICHANDRAN PILLAY
A male Major General and the National Head of SAPS Procurement residing under
the Division, Supply Chain Management, with identity number 620821 5049 084.
6. ACCUSED 7 - JOHANNES KGOMOTSO PHAHLANE
A male Major Lieutenant General and Acting National Commissioner of SAPS. As
Acting National Commission and head of department he was also the accounting
3
officer as per section 36 of the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 (“PFMA”)
for the SAPS at the relevant times, with identity number 670529 5314 080.
7. ACCUSED 9 - THOMAS DUMASI MARIMA
A male Colonel attached to the Division, Supply Chain Management, with identity
number 700410 5314 087.
8. ACCUSED 10 - MAETAPESE JOSEPH MULAIWA
A male Sergeant and a Detective in the SAPS with identity number 811013 5507 084.
9. ACCUSED 11 - JUDY ROSE
A female accounts manager employed at Instrumentation for Traffic Law
Enforcement Pty (Accused 14), with identity number 580120 0184 089.
10. ACCUSED 12 - SAMANTHA ANDREWS
11. A female administrative accountant at Instrumentation for Traffic Law Enforcement
Pty (Accused 14), with identity number 900222 0065 087.
12. ACCUSED 13 - VIMPIE PHINEAS TLALEFANG MANTHATA
13. The sole director and shareholder of Instrumentation for Traffic Law Enforcement
Pty (Accused 14) with identity number 650302 5952 083.
14. Accused 13 is charged in his personal capacity as well as in his capacity as the
representative, in terms of section 332 of Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, of
Instrumentation for Traffic Law Enforcement Pty (Ltd) with registration number:
2003/002216/07.
15. ACCUSED 14 - INSTRUMENTATION FOR TRAFFIC LAW ENFOCEMENT (PTY) LTD
A company duly incorporated in terms of the company laws of South Africa with
registration number: 2003/002216/07 and with registered address at 108 Johan
Avenue, Dennehof, Sandton.
4
The principal business is that of supplier of speed measuring equipment, warning
lights, eye witness cameras, facial, fingerprints, police bikes, vehicles and other law
enforcement equipment.
Accused 13 was appointed as a director of Accused 14 on 3 February 2003 and
remains the sole director of Accused 14.
16. ACCUSED 15 - BONANG CHRISTINAH MGWENYA
A female Lieutenant General and Divisional Commissioner for Human Resources with
identity number 640828 0430 082 who is resident at 1585 Peacehaven Road,
Rietvalleirand Extension 32, Pretoria.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO PUBLIC SERVICE PROCUREMENT
17. Section 217(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa prescribed that
when an organ of state contracts for goods or services, it must do so in accordance
with a system that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.
18. The Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No 1 of 1999) (PFMA) was enacted
to give effect to the provisions of section 217 of the Constitution. The object of the
PFMA was to secure transparency, accountability, and sound management of the
revenue, expenditure, assets and liabilities of organs of state to which the PFMA
applies.
19. Section 6(2) of the PFMA required the National Treasury to inter alia prescribe
uniform treasury norms and standards and enforce the PFMA and any prescribed
norms and standards, including any prescribed standards of generally recognised
accounting practice and uniform classification systems in national departments;
5
monitor and assess the implementation of the Act, including any prescribed norms
and standards.
20. Section 76 of the PFMA empowers National Treasury to make Regulations and/or
issue instructions applicable to departments to which the PFMA applies concerning
matters such as the determination of a framework for an appropriate procurement
and provisioning system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-
effective. Section 1 of the PFMA defined the PFMA as including any regulations and
instructions in terms of section 69, 76, 85 or 91 of that Act.
21. The South African Police Service (SAPS) was a department as defined in section 1 of
the PFMA.
22. Section 36(1) of the PFMA prescribed that every department must have an
accounting officer and in terms of section 36(2) (a) the head of a department must
be the accounting officer of the department.
23. Section 38 of the PFMA prescribed general responsibilities of accounting officers of
departments.
24. Section 40(1) of the PFMA prescribed that the accounting officer for a department,
must, inter alia –
(a) keep full and proper records of the financial affairs of the department in
accordance with any prescribed norms and standards;
(b) prepare financial statements for each financial year in accordance with generally
recognized accounting practice;
(c) submit those financial statements within two months after the end of the
financial year to-
(i) the Auditor-General for auditing; and
6
(ii) the treasury to enable that treasury to prepare consolidated financial statements
in terms of section 8;
(d) …………………………………………………………………………………………..
(e) ……………………………………………………………………………………………
(f) Is responsible for the submission by the department of all reports, returns,
notices and other information to Parliament, an executive authority, National
Treasury or the Auditor-General, as may be required by the PFMA.
25. Section 41 of the PFMA required the accounting officer to submit to National
Treasury or the Auditor-General such information, returns, documents, explanations
and motivations as may be prescribed or as National Treasury or Auditor-General
may require.
26. Section 44(1) of the PFMA authorised the accounting officer of a department to, in
writing, delegate any of the powers entrusted or delegated to the accounting officer
in terms of the PFMA.
27. Section 44(2) (b) of the PFMA provided that a delegation or instruction to an official
in terms of subsection (1) does not divest the accounting officer of the responsibility
concerning the exercise of the delegated power or the performance of the assigned
duty.
28. Section 45 of the PFMA prescribed that an official in a department-
(a) Must ensure that the system of financial management and internal control
established for that department is carried out within the area of responsibility of
that official;
(b) Is responsible for the effective , efficient, economical and transparent use of
financial and other resources within that official’s area of responsibility;
7
(c) Must take effective and appropriate steps to prevent, within that official’s area of
responsibility, any unauthorised expenditure, irregular expenditure and fruitless
and wasteful expenditure and any under collection of revenue due;
(d) Must comply with the provisions of the PFMA to the extent applicable to that
official, including any delegation or instructions in terms of section 44; and
(e) Is responsible for the management, including the safeguarding, of the assets and
the management of the liabilities within that official’s area of responsibility.”
29. Section 38(1)(h) of the PFMA provided that the accounting officer must take effective
and appropriate disciplinary steps against any official in the employ of the
department who commits any of the acts mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of
that subsection.
30. Regulation 16A.3 of the Treasury Regulations (published in GNR 345 of 9 April 2001,
and as subsequently amended) (“Treasury Regulations”) provided that the
accounting officer of a department must develop and implement an effective and
efficient supply chain management system which is fair, equitable, transparent,
competitive and cost-effective for the acquisition of goods or services or works.
31. Section 16A6.1 of the Treasury Regulations stated that procurement of goods and
services, either by way of quotation or through bidding process, must be within the
threshold values determined by the National Treasury.
32. National Treasury Practice Note No 8 of 2007/2008 dealt with supply chain
management threshold values for procurement of goods, works or services by means
of petty cash, verbal or written price quotations and competitive bids. Section 3.4.1
of the said National Treasury Practice Note required of accounting officers to invite
competitive bids for all procurement above R500 000.00.
8
33. Section 16A6.4 of the Treasury Regulations recognized that there would be instances
when it would be impractical to invite competitive bids. In that regard Treasury
Regulation 16A6.4 provided for such instances where the accounting officer was
allowed to dispense with competitive bidding processes to procure goods or services
by other means. This provision was intended for cases of emergency where
immediate action was necessary or if the goods and/or services required were
produced or available from sole service providers. The reason for such action was
required to be recorded and approved by the accounting officer.
34. National Treasury Practice Note No 6 of 2007/2008 provided that with effect from
1 April 2007, accounting officers were required to report within ten (10) working days
to the relevant Treasury and the Auditor-General, all cases where goods or services
above the value of R1 000 000.00 (VAT included) were procured in terms of Treasury
Regulation 16A6.4. The report was required to include the description of the goods
or services, the names of the suppliers, the amounts involved and the reasons for
dispensing within the prescribed competitive bidding processes.
35. Clause 3.4.3 of the National Treasury Practice Note No 8 of 2007/2008 provided that
in cases where it was impractical to invite competitive bids for a specific
procurement, e.g. in urgent or emergency cases or in a case of a sole supplier, the
accounting officer or accounting authority could procure the required goods or
services by other means, such as written price quotations or negotiations in
accordance with Treasury Regulation 16A6.4 and the reasons for deviating from
inviting competitive bids must be recorded and approved by the accounting officer
or the delegate of the accounting officer. It was also required of accounting officers
9
to, within ten working days, report to the relevant Treasury and the Auditor-General,
all cases where goods or services above the procurement threshold value of
R1 000 000.00 (VAT included) were procured in terms of National Treasury
Regulation 16A6.4. In such a case the report must include the description of the
goods or services, the name or names of the supplier or suppliers involved as well as
the reasons or reasons for dispensing with the prescribed bidding processes.
36. A National Treasury Instruction Note on enhancing compliance monitoring and
improving transparency and accountability in supply chain management dated
31 May 2011 (and subsequently updated) dealt with the management and or
expansions or variations of orders against the original contract between a supplier
or contractor and a department. Clause 3.9 of that National Treasury Instruction
Note recognized that in exceptional cases an accounting officer or an accounting
authority could deem it necessary to expand or vary orders against original contracts.
In view of the fact that the absence of prescribed thresholds values for expansions
or variations of orders against original contracts led to gross abuse of the supply
chain management system which existed before 31 May 2011, accounting officers
were directed, from the 31st of May 2011, that contracts for construction related
goods, works and/or services could be expanded or varied by not more than 20% or
R20 000 000.00 (all applicable taxes included) whereas contracts for all other goods
and/or services could be expanded or varied by 15% or R15 000 000.00 (all applicable
taxes included). The relevant Treasury could decrease these thresholds for and any
deviations in excess of the thresholds would only be allowed subject to prior written
approval of the relevant Treasury. Such deviations could be requested from the
relevant Treasury only in instances where good reasons existed.
10
37. Clause 8 of National Treasury Instruction Note 3 of 2016/2017 provided that an
accounting officer could deviate from inviting competitive bids only in cases of
emergency and sole supplier. An emergency procurement could happen (in terms of
sub-clause 8.2) only when there was a serious and unexpected situation that posed
an immediate risk to health, life, property or environment which called for urgent
action and there was insufficient time to invite competitive bids. In such a situation
the accounting officer was required to invite as many suppliers as possible and select
the preferred supplier using the competitive bid committee system. Any deviations
from the prescripts of the Treasury Instruction Note could be allowed in exceptional
cases subject to the prior approval from the relevant treasury.
38. In February 2004 National Treasury issued a Supply Chain Management Guide for
Accounting Officers /Authorities. Section 4.7.5 of the said Supply Chain Management
Guide for Accounting Officers/Authorities provided that in urgent and emergency
cases a department was allowed to dispense with the invitation of bids and could
obtain goods, works or services by means of quotations by preferably making use of
the database of prospective suppliers, or otherwise in any way to the best interest
of the state. The National Treasury Supply Chain Management Guide provided a
definition of “urgent cases” and required that the reasons for the
emergency/urgency and dispensing with the competitive bidding processes were to
be clearly recorded and approved by the accounting officer or the delegate of the
accounting officer.
11
39. In terms of section 5.2.1 of the SAPS Delegation of Powers the Bid Adjudication
Committee (BAC) of the SAPS appointed by the accounting officer of the SAPS could
approve a bid exceeding R500 000.00 per case only in cases of emergency or urgent
procurement.
40. In implementing section 217(1) of the Constitution and section 38(1)(a)(iii) of the
PFMA, SAPS adopted the SAPS Supply Chain User Manual: Directives in Respect of
Acquisition (“the SAPS SCM Policy”).
41. Clause 2.1.1.2 of the SAPS SCM Policy provided that contracts concluded by SAPS
should specify the duration of the contract, particularly where the contracts may be
contracts which met SAPS’s repetitive requirements.
42. Clause 1.3.2.1 of the SAPS SCM Policy provided that all financial matters must be
finalised before price quotations/bids are invited or at the latest before
recommendations regarding the acceptance of price quotations/bids are submitted
to the relevant delegated official/Bid Adjudication Committees.
43. Clause 2.1.3.1.1 of the SAPS SCM Policy provided that (written) contracts are
essential for the procurement of goods and services and purchases must take place
strictly in accordance with these (written) contracts. Further clause 10.1 provided
that normally non-contractual adjustment of prices is not allowed.
44. Clause 2.1.8.2 of the SAPS SCM Policy provided that although the nature of the
commodity will determine how the required quantities must be indicated, it follows
that quantities should be determined with great care and accuracy, especially since
quantities usually have a direct influence on bid prices – for this reason it is
undesirable to not specify or not to guarantee quantities and the latter should only
12
be used in exceptional circumstances in cases where quantities really cannot be
determined.
45. The SAPS SCM Policy defined urgent and emergency cases as cases where early
delivery was of critical importance and the invitation of competitive bids was either
impossible or impractical and immediate action was necessary in order to avoid a
dangerous or risky situation or misery and allowed the SAPS to dispense with the
invitation of competitive bids and to obtain the required goods, works or services by
means of written price quotations by preferably making use of the database
prospective suppliers.
46. Clause 3.1 of the SCM Policy provided that the end user (being the purchaser within
SAPS) in collaboration with the relevant Demand Management will usually initiate
the drafting of the specifications, or identify specifications that meet the
requirements of the end user. Standard and technical specifications quoted in bid
documents should promote the broadest possible competition whilst assuring that
critical elements of performance or other requirements are achieved. The quality of
goods/services required should however not be over specified to the extent that it
will be impossible for others to offer such a product.
47. The SCM Policy provides that an organ of state may only cancel a bid prior to an
award due to changed circumstances there is no need for the goods or services, funds
are no longer available, or no acceptable bids are received. Regulation 13 of the
Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act Regulations, 2017 (“PPPFA
Regulations”) provided that an organ of state may cancel a tender before its award
in the above mentioned limited circumstances and added that a cancellation can take
place also if there is a material irregularity in the tender. The aforementioned
13
regulations stipulated that the decision to cancel a tender invitation must be
published in the same manner as the original tender invitation was advertised.
48. Clause 5.17 of the SCM Policy provided that bid boxes must be opened in public as
soon as possible after the closing time by official authorised in writing to do so.
49. The SAPS SCM Policy also provided that the reasonableness of the prices charged by
a supplier where competitive bids had not been received through either conducting
a market price comparison or analysis of the profit as a factor which was to be taken
into account in order to come to a conclusion as to which supplier would be the
preferred bidder.
50. The Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act 5 of 2000 and the PPPFA
Regulations promulgated thereunder required bids to be adjudicated in accordance
with a preference points system.
MANIPULATION OF PROCUREMENT PROCESS
51. Accused 7 was appointed as the Acting National Commissioner of the SAPS on 14
October 2015 until he was suspended on 1 June 2017. As Acting National
Commissioner of the SAPS he was also the accounting officer of the SAPS.
52. On 19 October 2015, five days after assuming the position, Accused 7 withdrew a
circular, referenced 19/1/1 and dated 23 March 2010, which required that all bids
above R500 000 be processed through the office of the National Commissioner.
53. Accused 7 instead appointed the Divisional Commissioner for SCM as the chairperson
of the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) of the SAPS and empowered the BAC to
award contracts above the threshold value of R500 000. 00.
54. On 1 March 2016 Accused 7 appointed Accused 2 as Divisional Commissioner for
Division: SCM.
14
55. The panel that recommended the appointment of Accused 2 consisted of Accused 7,
Accused 15, Lieutenant General Nethlemeza, Lieutenant General Schutte and
Lieutenant General Kruser. Accused 2 was appointed notwithstanding the fact that
he scored third place behind two other candidates rated as better qualified by the
panel.
56. On 30 March 2016 Accused 7 appointed Accused 2 as chairperson of the BAC.
Decision to jettison the NT Transversal Contract
57. The SAPS contract to procure emergency equipment for SAPS vehicles had expired in
2014 and no new contract had been put in place.
58. National Treasury had in place a Transversal contract (RT4-2015/2017) for
procurement of emergency warning equipment for emergency vehicles, including
police vehicles from 2015 to 2017.
59. SAPS had attended all meetings hosted by National Treasury relating to specifications
and the bid evaluation process. National Treasury hosted a separate meeting with
SAPS in relation to Category 2 of the tender: Emergency Warning Lights (EWL). At no
stage did SAPS express any objections to the process or the suitability of the
specifications.
60. Accused 14 however did not apply and was not included on the RT4-2015/2017
panel.
61. SAPS elected not to participate in Category 2: Emergency Warning Lights (EWL) as
SAPS was of the view that the wrong sample had been used for purposes of the
tender specification even though the specifications SAPS used previously at a
15
provincial level were covered by the EWL specifications and one of the SAPS
suppliers, Hazard, was in fact included on the RT4-2015/2017 panel.
62. On 12 August 2016 Accused 7 signed a letter to the Chief Director: Transversal
Contracting concerning the RT4-2015 supply and delivery of ambulance rescue and
emergency equipment and accessories to the State for the period 1 April 2015 to 31
March 2017. Accused 7 stated that SAPS was in the final stages of finalising the
specifications for emergency equipment (blue lights) and had decided to establish its
own contract for blue lights.
63. On 19 August 2016 Accused 2 wrote a letter to National Treasury requesting National
Treasury to expand the meaning of emergency and/or urgent procurement “to
include cases of urgency”.
64. On 19 August 2016 the Chief Director: Transversal Contracting in National Treasury
responded to both Accused 2 and Accused 7 and granted SAPS permission to
establish its own contract for procurement of blue lights. Approval was based on the
reasons provided in the letters of Accused 7 and Accused 2 dated 12 August 2016
and 19 August 2016 respectively.
Two Prior failed Procurement Process
65. Prior to August 2016 SAPS had already attempted two procurement exercises that
failed.
66. In the 2016/2017 financial year the Gauteng SAPS SCM identified the need to equip
all the newly acquired motor vehicles with integrated warning lights and sirens and
allocated an amount of R10 million for this purpose.
67. The first request was issued in April 2016 and referenced 19/1/9/1/17/(2016/2017.
16
68. Four responses were received for the initial request for proposals issued. On 11 May
2016, Accused 2 intervened in the first process. He instructed that the process be
started afresh because two suppliers, Hazard, a previous supplier of emergency
equipment, and Accused 14, a service provider that had previously supplied
emergency equipment to the presidential unit, had not been invited to submit a
quotation.
69. On 23 May 2016 there was an entry in the requisition register with reference number
19/1/9/1/9/33(2016/2017). This marked the beginning of the second process.
70. Gauteng Prov. SCM found (provisionally) that all tenderers qualified, and asked that
Div. SCM approve the cheapest quote at R4.6m (from an entity called ERE).
71. However, when the matter reached the BEC it decided that only one service provider
was compliant: Accused 14.
72. Accused 13 on behalf of Accused 14 submitted quotation number 33/2016. Accused
14 had not supplied a total bid price, but the BEC calculated it as being
R120 642 660.00 (twelve times the maximum budget of the Gauteng SAPS). It
referred the matter to the BAC because Gauteng Prov. SCM only had a budget
R10 million to procure the equipment.
73. This process was not finalized but was also not formally abandoned or stopped.
Manipulation of the Specifications
74. On 8 August 2016 Lieutenant Colonel J Boonzaaier (Boonzaaier) was contacted
telephonically first by Accused 15 and then Accused 7 who both instructed him to
meet with Accused 13 to assist him in bidding for a portion and/or the complete SAPS
National Emergency Blue Lights and Siren tender.
17
75. Accused 7 requested Boonzaaier to contact Accused 2 and Accused 15 provided
Boonzaaier with a telephone number for Accused 2. Boozaier met Accused 2 at the
SAPS Academy Pretoria West on the same day (8 August 2016).
76. Boonzaaier met Accused 13, Accused 11 and Accused 12 at the offices of Accused 14
to draw up specifications (for a specific part relating to high-performance vehicles)
which would make Accused 14 the only viable supplier. This took place over a few
days. The specifications compiled were tailor-made to suit the blue lights imported
by Accused 14. None of the persons involved in the compilation of the specifications
were authorised by the PFMA to do so.
77. On 11 August 2016, an information note was addressed to Accused 7 to request
approval to accept and utilise the specifications compiled at the premises of
Accused 14 for purposes of inviting written price quotations for blue lights from
suppliers.
78. On 30 August 2016 Salomé Manamela, an employee of Accused 14, who assisted
with the compilation of the specifications, emailed Boonzaaier four batches of
electronic copies of the specifications they had designed. In the last email of the
batch Manamela states the following: "Hi Johan amended specifications best regards
Salome".
79. On 14 September 2016 Accused 7 approved the specification. The specifications
prepared by Boonzaaier, Accused 13, Accused 11 and Accused 12 on behalf of
Accused 14 and tailor made for Accused 14’s product were used by SAPS to invite
quotations.
18
The Third Procurement Process
80. On 7 October 2016, the Gauteng Provincial SCM issued its third request for
quotations in which suppliers were requested to quote based on the manipulated
specification for emergency warning equipment.
81. On 13 October 2016, Accused 13 on behalf of Accused 14 submitted quotation
number 247/2016. Accused 13 on behalf of Accused 14 had not supplied a total bid
price, but the BEC calculated it as being R191 145 267.00.
82. Over the course of October and November 2016 Accused 7, Accused 15, Accused 3
and Accused 2 were in contact with Accused 13.
83. On 9 November 2016, the BEC convened to consider the quotations received in
respect of the procurement of emergency warning equipment despite the objections
from the three suppliers. Accused 3 and 9 were members of the Bid Evaluation
Committee (BEC). In the BEC submission to the BAC, it is stated that the service
providers had quoted in respect of two items. Eight requests for quotations were
issued, five service providers responded. The BEC disqualified four of the five service
providers’ quotes. The only quote that was compliant, in the view of the BEC, was
Accused 14’s quote.
84. On 14 November 2016 the BAC, chaired by Accused 2 and attended by Accused 5 and
Accused 6, met to consider Memorandum 318. Accused 2 provided the background
to Memorandum 318: Quotation no 19/1/9/1/247(2016/2017) and suggested that
“this application be approved” despite the fact that objections had been registered
and Accused 14 had provided only costs per unit and not costs for the contract.
85. Accused 6, a member of the BAC, was aware that there were serious objections to
the process that had been followed, because he was told so in October 2016 by Capt.
19
De Beer. Accused 2 and Accused 5 also knew, because they met to discuss the
objections, and decided to proceed anyway. When the quote was approved, no
objections were raised.
86. On 14 November 2016 the BAC approved the appointment of Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 to supply and fit emergency warning equipment to newly acquired
Gauteng SAPS motor vehicles pursuant to a recommendation made by the BEC
chaired by Accused 9.
87. Approval was granted per item instead of stating the total amount for 1 550 motor
vehicles. “Item 1” was charged at R85 643.64 per unit and “item 2” was charged at
R38 931.75 per unit. A total of 1 550 motor vehicles were to be fitted with blue lights,
the BAC approved a contract for an amount of R191 145 267.00.
88. No written service level agreement was concluded with Accused 13 and/or Accused
14 by either Gauteng SAPS or the SAPS at National level. This exposed the SAPS to
actual or potential losses amounting to R191 145 267.00.
89. During March 2017 Accused 4 initiated communications relating to the procurement
of emergency warning equipment for the 2017/2018 financial year by way of sending
communication to Accused 7 who was the Acting National Commissioner of the SAPS
at the time.
90. On 29 June 2017 an order referenced AE950316 for an amount of R39 896 189.94
was issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 by Gauteng SAPS on the instructions of
Accused 4 and Accused 5. Accused 4 and Accused 5 were granted “procurement
authorisation” by Accused 2 and Accused 3 without following the prescribed
procurement processes.
20
SAPS payments to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14
91. Order number AE-950301 was issued to Accused 14 for the fitment of emergency
equipment on Gauteng provincial SAPS vehicles and was dated 14 March 2017.
92. On the 31st of March 2017 Accused 14 was paid the total amount allocated for this
purpose in the Gauteng SAPS provincial budget, i.e. R10 million.
93. Included in the R10 million were payments of R808 149.12 for services that were
never rendered, double invoices in respect of the same vehicles of R4 428 764.24.
94. During the 2017/2018 financial year Gauteng SAPS ordered goods and/or services
from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 bearing reference numbers AE950316 and
AE941395 for amounts of R39 000 000. 00 and R35 000 000.00 respectively, without
inviting written price quotations from potential suppliers.
95. On the 29th of June 2017 an order referenced AE950316 for an amount of
R39 896 189-94 was issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 by Gauteng SAPS on
the instructions of Accused 4 and Accused 5. Accused 4 and Accused 5 were granted
“procurement authorisation” by Accused 2 and Accused 3.
96. During 2 of August 2017 to 2 February 2018 Gauteng SAPS paid Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 various amount totalling R39 878 099-64.
97. On the 27th of March 2018 Gauteng SAPS issued an order referenced AE941395 for
an amount of R 35 130 929-10 to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14. Accused 4 and 5
issued the instruction that the said order be issued. Accused 2 and Accused 3 granted
“procurement authority”.
98. A total amount of R13 037 982-08 was paid to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 after
the order referenced AE941395 was issued to Accused 13 and 14 by Gauteng SAPS.
21
99. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 were the holders of First National Bank (FNB) bearing
numbers 62053068097.
100. During the period between 1 April 2017 to 31st May 2018 approximately
R65 499 765.00 was transferred to the bank account of Accused 14 for payment
related to orders for fitment of emergency equipment..
101. These payments were made as a result of “contracts” that were unlawfully awarded
to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 by the SAPS.
Gratifications
102. In the period between 9 January 2016 and 14 June 2019 on 182 occasions
R29 315 000.00 was withdrawn by means of cash cheques from the bank account of
Accused 14, including R14 840 000.00 withdrawn by Accused 10 and R7 290 000.00
withdrawn by Accused 13, among others.
103. Accused 10 is Accused 14’s cousin and a sergeant in the SAPS. Analysis of his cellular
calls handset reveals that he spent most of his days at the office of Accused 14 and
not at his SAPS place of work.
104. Accused 10 attended many meetings with Accused 7, Accused 2 and Accused 15. The
majority of the meetings took place just after cash withdrawals followed by calls
between the various parties, followed by the movement (as per cell tower) towards
a common destination.
105. Copies of the bank statements of Accused 2, Accused 3, Accused 4 and Accused 5
reveal that each of them received cash into their bank accounts the source of which
is not disclosed by them in their mandatory disclosure forms.
106. In this manner Accused 2 received R1 454 550.00. Accused 3 received R1 833 500.24,
Accused 4 received R174 193.00, Accused 5 received R126 580.00 and Accused 6
22
received R207 000.00. Accused 7 received R1 548 271.79 and Accused 10 received
R744 000 into his account. Accused 4 received payments of R411 600 towards
various items purchased from Boticelli between August and December 2017 and
Accused 5 received R520 000.
107. On 27 October 2016 Accused 7 received payment of R27 500.00 for the purchase of
clothes from Surtee Esquire (Pty) Ltd trading as Grays Clothing Store and payments
totalling R230 800.00 made to Roberto Botticelli on his behalf.
108. Accused 15 received the benefit of a courtesy vehicle for 15 months between
February 2016 and May 2017; a discount in the total amount of R284 580 from
Zambesi Auto and/or a gift and/or assistance in the form of payment of R440 000.000
made by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 towards the purchase of a BMW X5 for
R1 217 932.92.
Failure to disclose
109. Brigadier Makoma Florah Buthelezi (Buthelezi), employed in supply chain
management within Gauteng SAPS, initiated the process of reporting the irregular
expenditure incurred between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2019 as a result of the
payments made to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
110. Accused 2 acting in concert with Accused 4 and Accused 5 initiated investigations
against Buthelezi for acting in accordance with the prescripts of the law and as a
result on 20 June 2018 the SAPS appointed Major General Boitumelo Joyce Molale
to investigate Buthelezi for alleged contravention of disciplinary regulations of the
SAPS.
111. On the 31 May 2017 Accused 7 as the Acting National Commissioner of the SAPS and
its accounting officer submitted the annual financial report of the SAPS to the
23
National Treasury and the Auditor-General as prescribed by the PFMA. He failed to
disclose the irregular expenditure incurred in respect of payments to Accused 13
and/Accused 14.
112. Accused 7 failed to record the irregular expenditure incurred in respect of payments
to Accused 13 and/Accused 14 to the Auditor-General and the National Treasury
within a prescribed period of ten (10) working days calculated from the date of
appointment of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
B: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNTS 1 AND 2
113. Upon or about the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 1 Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 submitted written price quotations for the supply and fitment of
emergency warning equipment to motor vehicles procured by Gauteng SAPS as per
quotations bearing the numbers mentioned in column C of Schedule 1.
114. In view of possible allegations of favouritism in the event of a bid or part thereof
being awarded to a person or persons employed by the state or to a person or
persons connected with or related to any person or persons employed by the state,
it was required that bidders and/or authorised representatives of such bidders
declare, inter alia, whether the bidder or any person connected with the bidder or
applicant was employed by the state.
115. Accused 13 who was the sole director of Accused 14 and the beneficial owner of
Accused 14 was connected with one or more persons who were employed by the
SAPS and were involved in the evaluation and/or adjudication of the written price
quotations.
Accused 14 submitted written price quotations to Gauteng SAPS and/or Division:
24
SCM. In the said written price quotations Accused 13 and/or Accused 14
misrepresented that Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 were not aware of any
relationship (family, friend or other) with any members of the SAPS who could be
involved in the evaluation and/or adjudication of the written price quotations
submitted by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
117. In the written price quotations submitted by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 the profit
margin was misrepresented to be 15% of the cost price of the emergency warning
equipment. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 was or were not the manufacturer/s of
the emergency warning equipment but would source them from a supplier.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 13 and Accused 14 are guilty of the following offences:
COUNTS 1 AND 2 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT
NO. 51 OF 1977 IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 13 AND 14 ONLY)
FRAUD (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT NO. 105 OF 1997))
IN THAT upon or about the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 1 and at or near
Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 13 and Accused 14 did unlawfully,
falsely and with intent to defraud misrepresent to the SAPS that:
118. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or any person connected with Accused 14 did
not have any relationship (family, friend or other) with a person employed by the
State and who could be involved with the evaluation and/or adjudication of the
written price quotations mentioned in column C of Schedule 1 and/or;
119. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 truthfully answered all the questions on the
declaration of interest form (SBD4) submitted as part of the written price quotations
mentioned in column C of Schedule 1 and/or;
25
120. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 or the spouse of Accused 13 or any of Accused 14’s
director or shareholders had not conducted business with the State in the twelve
months preceding the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 1 and/or;
121. The profit margin which Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 would earn was 15% on the
amount which Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 would pay to the supplier from whom
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 would source the emergency warning equipment
which Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 intended to supply to the SAPS and/or;
122. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 had the capacity/ability to execute the contract/s for
which Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 submitted written price quotations and/or;
123. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 had the financial capacity/ability to execute the
contract/s to supply and fit emergency warning equipment to Gauteng SAPS motor
vehicles and/or;
124. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 was or were participating in a bid process which
complied with the constitutional objectives of fairness, equity, transparency,
competitiveness and cost-effectiveness;
AND did there and then and by means of the said misrepresentations induce the SAPS and to
the prejudice of and/ or potential prejudice of the SAPS and/or National Treasury and/or the
public to:
125. Accept that all the answers to the questions posed in the SBD4 form were answered
truthfully and/or;
126. Receive and process the written price quotations submitted by Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 and/or;
26
127. Accept that the profit margin which Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 would earn was
15% of the price at which Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 would acquire the
emergency warning equipment from its supplier and/or;
128. Accept that Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 had the financial means to procure the
emergency warning equipment from its supplier and to execute the contract for
which Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 submitted written price quotations;
WHEREAS when Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 misrepresented as aforesaid when they well
knew that in truth and in fact:
129. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or any person(s) connected with Accused 14 did
have some relationship (family, friend or other) with a person or persons employed
by the State or the SAPS and who could be and were involved with the evaluation
and/or adjudication of the written price quotations mentioned in column C of
Schedule 1 and/or;
130. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 did not truthfully answer all the questions on the
declaration of interest form (SBD4) submitted in support of the written price
quotations mentioned in column C of Schedule 1;
131. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 or the spouse of Accused 13 or any of Accused 14’s
director or shareholders or their spouses had conducted business with the State in
the twelve months preceding the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 1 and/or;
132. The profit margin which Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 would earn was not 15% of
the amount at which Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 would have sourced the
emergency warning equipment from its own supplier and/or;
133. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 did not have the capacity to execute the contract/s
for which they submitted written price quotations.
27
134. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 did not have the financial capacity/ability to execute
the contract/s to supply and fit emergency warning equipment to Gauteng SAPS
motor vehicles and/or;
135. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 was participating in a bid process which did not
comply with the constitutional objectives of fairness, equity, transparency,
competitiveness and cost-effectiveness.
SCHEDULE 1
A: COUNT B: DATE C: QUOTATION D: SIGNATORY E: AMOUNT
NUMBER INVOLVED
1 10-06-2016 33/2016 Accused 13 R120 642 660.00
2 13-10-2016 247/2016 Accused 13 R191 145 267.00
C: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNTS 3 TO 7
136. Division: SCM could procure goods and/or works and/or services for a maximum
amount of R500 00.00 through Requests for Quotations (RFQ) and was required to
invite competitive bids and advertise the tender in at least the Government Tender
Bulletin in all cases where the amount involved exceeded R500 000.00 (the only
exception being that provided for by Treasury Regulation 16A6.4).
137. During the 2016/2017 financial year the BEC recommended and BAC appointed
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 as a supplier of emergency warning equipment to
Gauteng SAPS by way of inviting written price quotations. The BAC “approved” the
appointment of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to supply and fit emergency warning
equipment to newly acquired Gauteng SAPS motor vehicles on 14 November 2016
pursuant to a recommendation made by the BEC chaired by Accused 9.
28
138. The value of the goods and/or services supplied to Gauteng SAPS by Accused 13
and/or Accused 14 exceeded the procurement threshold value of the SAPS at
national level prescribed by legislation in cases of appointment by way of inviting
written price quotations.
139. The appointment of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 as a supplier of emergency
warning equipment was not done in compliance with the prescripts of the laws and
guidelines which governed the processes of procurements of goods or services and
was therefore unlawful.
140. Accused 7 in his capacity as the Acting National Commissioner of the SAPS failed to
comply with the duties and/or responsibilities imposed on him by section 217 of the
Constitution and the provisions of the PFMA and other statutory provisions in that
he did not approve the appointment of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 in writing and
failed to report the said appointment to the Auditor-General and the National
Treasury as required by the law.
141. Accused 2 to Accused 6 as well as Accused 9 were aware of the responsibilities and
fiduciary duties imposed on them by the prescripts of the law and failed to comply
therewith.
142. No written service level agreement was concluded with Accused 13 and/or Accused
14 by either Gauteng SAPS or the SAPS at national level. This exposed the SAPS to
actual or potential losses amounting to R191 145 267.00.
143. During the 2017/2018 financial year Gauteng SAPS ordered goods and/or services
from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 without inviting written price quotations from
potential suppliers as per orders bearing reference numbers AE950316 and
AE941395. This constituted a flagrant disregard of section 217 of the Constitution,
29
the provisions of the PFMA and other statutory provisions which govern the
procurement of goods or services by organs of state.
144. Accused 4 and Accused 5 initiated and/or participated in and/or were aware of the
placement of the orders with reference AE950316 and AE941395. Accused 2 and
Accused 3 unlawfully and intentionally gave procurement authority for the
placement of orders with reference AE950316 and AE941395.
145. Accused 9 as the chairperson of the BEC participated in the procurement of
emergency warning equipment from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 by way of
inviting written price quotations in a case where the Constitution and the PFMA as
well as other statutory provisions prescribed procedures and required that the
procurement of goods or services be in accordance with the prescripts of the law.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 to 7 as well as Accused 9 are is guilty of the following offences:
COUNT 3 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT NO 51
OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO 7 AND ACCUSED 9 ONLY)
FRAUD (READ WITH SECTION 103 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT AND FURTHER READ
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(ACT NO. 105 OF 1997)
WHEREAS on the 14th of November 2016 the BAC of the SAPS “approved the appointment”
of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to supply and fit emergency warning equipment to newly
acquired Gauteng SAPS motor vehicles;
AND WHEREAS the “appointment” of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 by the SAPS was done
without inviting competitive bids as prescribed by section 217 of the Constitution and the
PFMA;
30
AND WHEREAS Accused 7 as the accounting officer of the South African Police Service was
required to report the “appointment” of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to the Auditor-
General and the National Treasury within a prescribed period of ten (10) working days
calculated from the date of “appointment” of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
AND WHEREAS during the period between the 14 and 30 of November 2016 at or near
Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 7, acting in concert with Accused 2 to 6
as well as Accused 9, in circumstances where there was a duty to disclose the “appointment”
of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to supply Gauteng SAPS with emergency warning
equipment, did unlawfully and with intent to defraud falsely and to the prejudice, either real
or potential, of the SAPS and/or National Treasury and/or the Auditor-General and/or the
Parliament of the Republic of South Africa and/or the public, failed or omitted to report the
deviation from prescribed procurement prescripts within the prescribed period of ten (10)
working days to the Auditor-General and/or the National Treasury in circumstances where
there was a duty to disclose or report the deviation from prescribed procurement prescripts
and did there and then and by means of the aforesaid failure and/or omission to disclose
and/or report and to the prejudice and/or potential prejudice of National Treasury and/or the
public and/or the Auditor-General induce National Treasury to not fully perform the functions
and powers assigned to it in section 6 of the PFMA and the Auditor-General and Parliament
not to perform their respective oversight functions prescribed by the Constitution;
AND WHEREAS when Accused 7 who acted in concert with Accused 2 to 6 as well as Accused
9 gave out and misrepresented as aforesaid, they well knew that in truth and in fact there
was a duty to disclose and/or report the deviation from following the prescribed procurement
prescripts to the Auditor-General and the National Treasury within the prescribed ten working
days;
31
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 to 7 and Accused 9 are guilty of the crime of FRAUD.
OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO 7 AND ACCUSED 9 ONLY)
FRAUD (READ WITH SECTION 103 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT AND FURTHER READ
(ACT 105 OF 1997)
WHEREAS on the 31st of May 2017 at or near Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng
Accused 7 as the Acting National Commissioner of the SAPS and its accounting officer
submitted the annual financial report of the SAPS to the National Treasury and the Auditor-
General as prescribed by the PFMA;
AND WHEREAS Accused 2 to 7 as well as Accused 9 had a duty or responsibility to ensure
that the contents of the annual financial report fully disclosed all the expenses incurred or
transactions performed by the SAPS during the 2016/2017 financial year and/or complied
with generally recognized accounting practice as prescribed by section 40 of the PFMA;
AND WHEREAS Accused 7 as the accounting officer of the SAPS had a duty to ensure that the
annual financial report of the SAPS included particulars of all unauthorised expenditure,
irregular expenditure and fruitless and wasteful expenditure incurred during the 2016/2017
financial year and/or disclosed all unauthorised expenditure, irregular expenditure and
fruitless and wasteful expenditure incurred by the SAPS during the 2016/2017 financial year;
AND WHERAS the annual financial report submitted by Accused 7 on the 31st of May 2017
did not disclose the fact that Gauteng SAPS had incurred an expenditure which was
unauthorized or irregular in that the amount involved exceeded the procurement threshold
value to procure goods or services by way of inviting written price quotations instead of
inviting competitive bids as prescribed by the PFMA;
32
AND WHEREAS Accused 2 to 7 and Accused 9 knew that an unauthorised and/or irregular
expenditure had been incurred by Gauteng SAPS and the PFMA and/or their fiduciary duties
required that such expenditure be reported to the National Treasury and the Auditor-General;
AND WHEREAS Accused 2 to 7 and Accused 9, acting in concert with each other did unlawfully
and with intent to defraud fail and/or omit to disclose the unauthorised or irregular
expenditure incurred by Gauteng SAPS during the 2016/2017 financial year in the said annual
financial report in circumstances where Accused 2 to 7 and Accused 9 had a duty to disclose
the unauthorised and/or irregular expenditure incurred by Gauteng SAPS and thereby
misrepresented to the National Treasury and/or the Auditor-General and/or Parliament of
the Republic of South Africa and/or the public that:
146. Gauteng SAPS had not incurred any unauthorised and/or irregular expenditure
and/or;
147. The contents of the annual financial report fully complied with generally recognised
accounting practice as required by section 40(1) of the PFMA and/or;
148. Accused 2 to 7 as well as Accused 9 did not have a duty to disclose that a contract
valued at not less than R10 000 000.00 had been concluded with a service provider
(namely Accused 13 /Accused 14) without complying with the prescripts of the law;
AND WHEREAS by means of the aforesaid misrepresentations, Accused 2 to 7 and
Accused 9 induced SAPS and/or National Treasury and/or the Auditor-General and/or
Parliament of the Republic of South Africa and/or the public and to the prejudice
and/or potential prejudice of SAPS and/or National Treasury and/or the Auditor-
General and/or Parliament of the Republic of South Africa and/or the public to:
33
149. Accept that the contents of the annual financial report submitted by Accused 7 as
the accounting officer of the South African Police Service at the time reflected all the
information which was required to be included in the report and/or;
150. Fully complied with the provisions of section 40(1) and (2) of the PFMA and/or;
151. Accused 2 to 7 as well as Accused 9 complied with all the duties and responsibilities
imposed on them by the PFMA and other prescripts of the law and/or;
152. Accept that National Treasury did not have to perform functions and/or exercise
powers outlined in section 6 of the PFMA or any other prescript of the law and/or
the Auditor-General and Parliament were not deprived of the opportunity to perform
their oversight functions by any act of omission by the Accused;
AND WHEREAS when Accused 2 to 7 as well as Accused 9 gave out and misrepresented as
aforesaid they well knew that in fact and in truth:
153. Gauteng SAPS had incurred unauthorised and/or irregular expenditure by concluding
a contract with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 in excess of the prescribed
procurement threshold value of R500 000.00 in respect of contracts concluded by
way of inviting written price quotations instead of inviting competitive bids as
prescribed by the Constitution and the PFMA and/or;
154. The contents of the annual financial report omitted the transaction concluded with
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or;
155. The annual financial report was not fully compliant with the provisions of section 40
of the PFMA and/or;
156. Accused 2 to 7 as well as Accused 9 had a duty to disclose that a contract valued at
not less than R10 000 000.00 had been concluded with Accused 13 and/or Accused
14 without complying with the prescripts of the law.
34
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 to 7 as well as Accused 9 are guilty of the crime of FRAUD.
COUNT 5 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF ACT 51 OF 1977 IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 7 ONLY)
THAT ACCUSED 7 IS GUILTY OF CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 86(1) OF THE PUBLIC FINANCE
MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999 (ACT NO 1 OF 1999) READ WITH SECTIONS 1, 36, 37, 38(1)(a)(iii),
38(1)(b), 38(1)(c)(ii), 38(1) (d), 38(1)(g) 38(1)(n), 38(2), 44(2), 51(1) and 76(4)(c) (AS
AMENDED BY THE PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 199 (ACT NO 29 OF
1999) AND FURTHER READ WITH SECTION 217(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA.
IN THAT during the period between the 14th of October 2015 and the 31st of May 2017 and at
or near Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 7 in his capacity as the
accounting officer of the SAPS, did unlawfully, wilfully and/or in a grossly negligent manner
fail to comply with a provision of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No 1 of 1999)
to wit:
157. The duty to ensure that the South African Police Service had and maintained an
appropriate procurement and provisioning system which was fair, equitable,
transparent, competitive and cost-effective as prescribed by section 38(1)(a)(iii) of
the PFMA and/or;
158. The duty to ensure that the SAPS had a system for properly evaluating all major
capital projects prior to a final decision on the project and/or as prescribed by section
38(1) (a) (iv) of the PFMA and/or;
159. The duty to ensure the effective, efficient, economical and transparent use of the
resources of the SAPS as prescribed by section (38(1)(b) of the PFMA and/or;
160. The duty to take effective and appropriate steps to prevent unauthorised, irregular
and/or fruitless and wasteful expenditure and losses resulting from criminal conduct
35
as prescribed by section 38(1)(c)(ii)) of the PFMA and/or;
161. The duty to manage contractual liabilities of the SAPS as prescribed by section 38(1)
(d) of the PFMA and/or;
162. The duty to ensure that the service provider appointed by the South African Police
Service to supply Gauteng SAPS with emergency warning equipment was tax
compliant as prescribed by section 38(1) (e) of the PFMA and/or;
163. The duty to report the irregular expenditure incurred by Gauteng SAPS as prescribed
by section 38(1) (g) of the PFMA and/or;
164. The duty to take effective and appropriate disciplinary steps against any official in
the service of the SAPS as prescribed by section 38(1)) (h) (i) – (iii) and/or;
165. The duty to comply, and to ensure compliance by the South African Police Service
with the provisions of the PFMA as prescribed by section 38(1)(n) of the PFMA
and/or;
166. The duty to keep full and proper records of the financial affairs of the South African
Police Service in accordance with any prescribed norms and standards as prescribed
by section 40 (1) (a) of the PFMA and/or;
167. The duty to prepare the financial statement for the 2016/2017 financial year in
accordance with prescribed norms and standards as prescribed by section 40(1) (b)
of the PFMA and/or;
168. The duty to promptly report his inability to comply with any of his responsibilities
determined for accounting officers in Part 1 of the Public Finance Management Act
as prescribed by section 40(5) of the PFMA and/or
169. The duty to not commit the SAPS to any liability for which money had not been
appropriated as prescribed by section 38(2) of the PFMA.
36
OF 1977 IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO 7 ONLY)
FRAUD (READ WITH SECTION 103 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT NO 52 OF
1977) AND FURTHER READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW
AMENDMENTACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
IN THAT upon or the 29th day of June 2017 and at or near Johannesburg in the Regional
Division of Gauteng Accused 2 to 7 did unlawfully and with intent to defraud misrepresent to
the SAPS and/or the Auditor-General and/or the National Treasury and/or Parliament of the
Republic of South Africa and/or the public that:
170. Prescribed procurement processes had been followed and Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 had been appointed to supply emergency warning equipment to Gauteng
SAPS for the 2017/2018 financial year and/or;
171. Accused 2 to 7 or one or some of them was or were entitled to grant Gauteng SAPS
procurement authority to order emergency warning equipment from Accused 13
and/or Accused 14 as per order number AE950316 dated 29 June 2017 and/or;
172. Procurement authority to place an order for emergency warning equipment was
obtained after following procurement processes and procedures prescribed by the
PFMA and regulations issued by National Treasury and/or;
173. Gauteng SAPS would be acting in accordance with the prescripts of the law by issuing
order number AE950316 to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or;
174. It was not necessary to follow prescribed procurement processes for the 2017/2018
financial year before placing order number AE950316 and Gauteng SAPS could rely
on Memorandum 318/1 dated 14 November 2016 and/or;
37
175. Procurement authority emanating from the approval of a written price quotation
submitted by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 on 14 November 2016 for the
2016/2017 financial year was valid for the 2017/2018 financial year and/or;
176. The placement of order number AE950316 was not unlawful and/or did not
constitute irregular expenditure;
AND did there and then and by means of the aforesaid misrepresentations induce SAPS
and/or the Auditor-General and/or the National Treasury and/or Parliament of the Republic
of South Africa and/or the public to:
177. Place order number AE950316 with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or;
178. Accept that prescribed procurement procedures and/or processes giving rise to
lawful placement of an order for goods and/or services had been followed and/or
179. Conclude a contract for the supply of emergency warning equipment during the
2017/2018 financial year with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 without following the
procedures and processes prescribed by the PFMA and/or regulations issued by
National Treasury and/or;
180. Accept that on the 14th of November 2016 the BAC of the SAPS approved the
procurement of emergency warning equipment for the 2017/2018 financial year
and/or;
181. Accept that the BAC memorandum dated 14 November 2016 (memo 318/1)
constituted procurement authority for placement of order number AE950316
and/or;
182. Accept that prescribed procedures for deviation from prescribed procurement
procedures had been followed;
38
WHEREAS when Accused 2 to 7 misrepresented as aforesaid they well knew that in truth and
in fact:
183. Prescribed procurement processes had not been followed and Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 had not been appointed to supply emergency warning equipment to
Gauteng SAPS during the 2017/2018 financial year and/or;
184. Accused 2 to 7 or one or some of them was or were not entitled to grant procurement
authority to Gauteng SAPS to order emergency warning equipment from Accused 13
and/or Accused 14 as per order number AE950316 and/or;
185. Procurement authority to place an order for emergency warning equipment was not
obtained and no procurement procedures prescribed by the PFMA had been
followed and/or;
186. Gauteng SAPS would not be acting in accordance with the prescripts of the law by
issuing order number AE950316 to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or;
187. It was necessary to follow prescribed procurement processes for the 2017/2018
financial year before placing order number AE950316 and/or;
2016/2017 financial year was not valid for the 2017/2018 financial year and/or;
189. The placement of order number AE950316 was unlawful and/or constituted irregular
expenditure and/or;
190. On the 14th of November 2016 the BAC of the SAPS did not approve the procurement
of emergency warning equipment for the 2017/2018 financial year and/or;
191. The BAC memorandum dated 14 November 2016 (memo 318/1) did not constitute
procurement authority for placement of order number AE950316 and/or;
39
192. Prescribed procedures for deviation from prescribed procurement procedures had
not been followed.
OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO ACCUSED 7 ONLY)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
IN THAT upon or the 27th day of March 2018 and at or near Johannesburg in the Regional
Division of Gauteng Accused 2 to 7 did unlawfully and with intent to defraud misrepresent to
the SAPS and/or National Treasury that:
193. Prescribed procurement processes had been followed and Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 had been appointed to supply emergency warning equipment to Gauteng
SAPS for the 2017/2018 financial year and/or;
194. Accused 2 to 7 or one or some of them was or were entitled to grant Gauteng SAPS
procurement authority to order emergency warning equipment from Accused 13
and/or Accused 14 as per order number AE941395 dated 27 March 2018 and/or;
195. Procurement authority to place an order for emergency warning equipment was
obtained after following procurement procedures prescribed by the PFMA and/or;
196. Gauteng SAPS would be acting in accordance with the prescripts of the law by issuing
order number AE941395 to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or;
197. It was not necessary to follow prescribed procurement processes for the 2017/2018
40
2016/2017 financial year was valid for the 2017/2018 financial year and/or;
199. The placement of order number AE941395 was not unlawful and/or did not
constitute irregular expenditure;
AND did there and then and by means of the aforesaid misrepresentations induce the SAPS
and/or National Treasury to:
200. Place order number AE941395 with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or;
201. Accept that prescribed procurement procedures and/or processes giving rise to
lawful placement of an order for goods and/or services had been followed and/or;
202. Conclude a contract for the supply of emergency warning equipment during the
2017/2018 financial year with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 without following the
procedures and processes prescribed by the PFMA and/or;
203. Accept that on the 14th of November 2016 the BAC of the SAPS approved the
procurement of emergency warning equipment for the 2017/2018 financial year
and/or;
204. The BAC memorandum dated 14 November 2016 (memo 318/1) constituted
been followed;
WHEREAS when Accused 2 to 7 misrepresented as aforesaid they well knew that in truth and
in fact:
41
206. Prescribed procurement processes had not been followed and Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 had not been appointed to supply emergency warning equipment to
Gauteng SAPS during the 2017/2018 financial year and/or;
207. Accused 2 to 7 or one or some of them was or were not entitled to grant Gauteng
SAPS procurement authority to order emergency warning equipment from Accused
13 and/or Accused 14 as per order number AE941395 and/or;
208. Procurement authority to place an order for emergency warning equipment was not
obtained and no procurement procedures prescribed by the PFMA had been
followed and/or;
209. Gauteng SAPS would not be acting in accordance with the prescripts of the law by
issuing order number AE941395 to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or;
210. It was necessary to follow prescribed procurement processes for the 2017/2018
2016/2017 financial year was not valid for the 2017/2018 financial year and/or;
212. The placement of order number AE941395 was unlawful and/or constituted irregular
expenditure.
213. On the 14th of November 2016 the BAC of the SAPS did not approve the procurement
of emergency warning equipment for the 2017/2018 financial year and/or;
214. The BAC memorandum dated 14 November 2016 (memo 318/1) did not constitute
not been followed.
42
D: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNTS 8 AND 9
WHEREAS at all times material to counts number 8 and 9:
216. Upon or about the 29th day of March 2017 invoices bearing numbers mentioned in
column C of Schedule 2 for the net amounts mentioned in column D of Schedule 2
were issued to Gauteng SAPS by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 as well as Accused
11 and/or Accused 12.
217. At the time when the invoices mentioned in column C of Schedule 2 for the amounts
mentioned column D of Schedule 2 were issued, the services for which the invoices
were issued had not yet been rendered. There were no items delivered for the
amount of R38 931.75 which was approved by the BAC as per memorandum
referenced 318/1 dated 14 November 2016 and the amount of R101 018.64 was not
one of the two amounts approved by the BAC.
218. The amounts mentioned in column D of Schedule 2 were paid to Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 whereas the services for which the payments were made had not been
rendered at the time of making the payments and the said amounts were not
approved by the BAC. Out of the 159 motor vehicles which were to be fitted with
emergency warning equipment as per order number AE950301 only 105 were fitted
with emergency warning equipment and 53 motor vehicles were not fitted with
emergency warning equipment as ordered by Gauteng SAPS.
219. Gauteng SAPS suffered actual and/or potential prejudice as a result of the submission
of the invoices for services which had not been rendered at the time of submission
of the invoices mentioned in column C of Schedule 2. The invoice amounts exceeded
the amounts mentioned in the written price quotation referenced 19/19/1/247
(2016/2027) submitted by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
43
220. There was one instance where double payment was made for a motor vehicle with
registration number BTZ393B. The said payment was made pursuant to invoices
bearing numbers 103473 and 103474.
221. As a result of the double invoicing above Gauteng SAPS made payments of amounts
of R101 018.64 twice to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and thereby suffered actual
and/or potential prejudice.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 to 6 and Accused 11 and 12 as well as Accused 13 and Accused
14 are guilty of the following offences:
OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO ACCUSED 6 AND ACCUSED 11 AND 12 AS WELL
AS ACCUSED 13 AND ACCUSED 14 ONLY)
IN THAT upon or about the 29th day of March 2017 at or near Johannesburg in the Regional
Division of Gauteng Accused 2 to 6 as well Accused 11 and 12, Accused 13 and Accused 14,
acting in concert with each other, did unlawfully, falsely and with intent to defraud
misrepresent to Gauteng SAPS that:
222. Accused 11 and/or Accused 12 was/were entitled to issue invoices bearing numbers
mentioned in column C of Schedule 2 to Gauteng SAPS in the amounts mentioned in
column D of Schedule 2;
223. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 had rendered services to Gauteng SAPS by installing
emergency warning equipment to the motor vehicles mentioned in column E of
Schedule 2 and/or;
44
224. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 acting through the instrumentality of Accused 11 and
Accused 12 was or were entitled to issue invoices in the amounts mentioned in
column D of Schedule 2 and/or
225. An order for services priced at the amounts mentioned in column D of Schedule 2
had been issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or;
226. Payments of the amounts mentioned in column D of Schedule 2 to Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 were for services that had already been rendered at the time of making
the payments;
AND did there and then and by means of the said misrepresentations induce Gauteng SAPS
and to the prejudice and/or potential prejudice of Gauteng SAPS and/or National Treasury
and/or the public to:
227. Receive and process the invoices mentioned in column C of Schedule 2 issued to
Gauteng SAPS and/or;
228. Pay the amounts mentioned in column D of Schedule 2 to Accused 13 and/or Accused
14 and/or;
229. Expose Gauteng SAPS to the risk of suffering losses in the amounts mentioned in
column D of Schedule 2;
WHEREAS when the said Accused persons misrepresented as aforesaid they well knew that
in truth and in fact:
230. Accused 11 and/or 12 and/or Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 was/were not entitled
to issue invoices bearing numbers mentioned in column C of Schedule 2 to Gauteng
SAPS and/or;
231. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 had not rendered services to Gauteng SAPS (by
installing emergency warning equipment to the motor vehicles mentioned in column
45
E of Schedule 2) at the time when the invoices mentioned in column C of Schedule 2
were issued and/or
232. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 who acted through the instrumentality of Accused 11
and/or Accused 12 was or were not entitled to issue invoices in the amounts
mentioned in column D of Schedule 2 and/or;
233. No order for services priced at the amounts mentioned in column D of Schedule 2
had been issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or;
234. Payments of the amounts mentioned in column D of Schedule 2 to Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 were for services which had not been rendered and/or;
235. The payments that were expected to be made or made to Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 exceeded the amounts as per order referenced AE950301.
SCHEDULE 2
A: ITEM NO B: INV DATE C: INV NO D: AMOUNT E: VEH REG F: ISSUER
1 29-03-2017 10374 R101 018-64 BTZ634B ACC 11/12
2 29-03-2017 10374 R101 018-64 BTZ635B ACC 11/12
3 29-03-2017 10374 R101 018-64 BTZ637B ACC 11/12
4 29-03-2017 10374 R101 018-64 BTZ633B ACC 11/12
5 29-03-2017 10374 R101 018-64 BTZ642B ACC 11/12
6 29-03-2017 10374 R101 018-64 BTZ639B ACC 11/12
7 29-03-2017 10374 R101 018-64 BTZ641B ACC 11/12
8 29-03-2017 10374 R101 018-64 BTW648B ACC 11/12
TOTAL AMOUNT PAID = R808 149.12
46
OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO ACCUSED 6 AND ACCUSED 11 AND ACCUSED 12
ONLY AS WELL AS 13 AND 14)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997))
Division of Gauteng Accused 2 to 6 as well Accused 11 and Accused 12 and Accused 13 and
14, acting in concert with each other, did unlawfully, falsely and with intent to defraud
misrepresent to Gauteng SAPS and/or National Treasury and/or the public that:
236. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or Accused 11 and/or Accused 12 were entitled
to issue invoices bearing numbers 103473 and 103474 to Gauteng SAPS and/or;
237. The invoices bearing numbers 103473 and 103474 were not issued in respect of
services of the same nature rendered in respect of the same motor vehicle and/or;
238. Gauteng SAPS was indebted to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 in the amounts
mentioned in both invoices and/or;
239. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 was or were entitled to payments of two amounts of
R101 018.64 each and/or;
and to the prejudice and/or potential prejudice of Gauteng SAPS and/or National Treasury to:
240. Receive and process the two invoices submitted by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14
through the instrumentality of Accused 11 and/or Accused 12 and/or;
241. Pay a total amount of R202 037.28 to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 for the fitment
of emergency warning equipment to a motor vehicle bearing registration numbers
BTZ393B and/or;
47
242. Make two payments for the same services rendered in respect of the same motor
vehicle;
243. Accused 13 and/or 14 and/or Accused 11 and/or Accused 12 was/were not entitled
to issue both invoices bearing numbers 103473 and 103474 to Gauteng SAPS;
244. The invoices bearing numbers 103473 and 103474 were issued in respect of similar
services rendered in respect of the same motor vehicle and/or;
245. Gauteng SAPS was indebted to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 for the amount
mentioned in only one of the two invoices and/or;
246. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 was or were not entitled to payments of two amounts
of R101 018.64 each.
COUNT 10 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT NO
51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 11 TO ACCUSED 14 ONLY)
AMENDMENT ACT (ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
Division of Gauteng Accused 11 and Accused 12 and Accused 13 and 14, acting in concert with
each other, did unlawfully, falsely and with intent to defraud misrepresent to Gauteng SAPS
and/or National Treasury that:
247. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or Accused 11 and/or Accused 12 were entitled
to issue invoices for a total amount of R10 000 000.00 to Gauteng SAPS;
48
248. All the 159 motor vehicles in respect of which Gauteng SAPS issued order number
AE950301 had been fitted with emergency warning equipment and/or;
249. The invoices issued to Gauteng SAPS by Accused 11 to 14 were in accordance with
what was ordered by Gauteng SAPS as per order number AE950301 and/or;
250. Gauteng SAPS owed Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 a total amount of R10 000 000.00
and/or;
251. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 was or were entitled to payments of amounts of
R101 018-64 for some of the motor vehicles and/or
252. Gauteng SAPS had placed an order for services priced at the amount of R101 018-64
pursuant to the award of a contract to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 resulting from
the written price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2016) submitted by
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or;
253. Receive and process all the invoices submitted by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14
through the instrumentality of Accused 11 and/or Accused 12 and/or;
254. Pay a total amount of R10 000 000.00 to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 for the
fitment of emergency warning equipment to only 105 motor vehicles instead of 159
motor vehicles and/or;
255. Make payments of amounts of R101 018-64 whereas the said amounts were not part
of the amounts approved by the BAC of the SAPS on the 14 th of November 2016;
49
256. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or Accused 11 and/or Accused 12 were not
entitled to issue invoices for a total amount of R10 000 000.00 to Gauteng SAPS
and/or;
257. Only 105 motor vehicles out of the 159 motor vehicles in respect of which Gauteng
SAPS issued order number AE950301 had been fitted with emergency warning
equipment and/or;
258. Gauteng SAPS did not owe Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 a total amount of R10 000
000.00 and/or
259. There was no contract involving an amount of R101 018-64 per motor vehicle and/or;
260. Some or all the invoices issued to Gauteng SAPS by Accused 11 to 14 were not in
accordance with what was ordered by Gauteng SAPS as per order number AE950301
and/or;
261. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 was or were entitled to payments of amounts of
R101 018-64 for some of the motor vehicles and Gauteng SAPS had placed an order
for services priced at that amount as per written price quotation submitted by
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 .
E: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNTS 11 TO 61
WHEREAS at all times relevant to counts 11 to 61:
262. Upon or about the 12th day of June 2017 Gauteng SAPS issued an order for the supply
and fitment of emergency warning equipment as per order bearing numbers
AE950316.
263. The procurement authorisation allocated to the order was misrepresented to be
19/1/9/1/247 which was for the 2016/2017 financial year (Memo 318/1 dated 14
November 2016).
50
264. The said order was issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and the amount involved
was R39 896 189-94.
265. Accused 5 acting in concert with Accused 4 and Accused 2 and Accused 3 had issued
an instruction that order number AE-950316 be issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused
14.
266. Prescribed procurement procedures and processes were not followed in that open
tenders were not invited and there were no written price quotations from any of the
suppliers who were in the database of the SAPS. The accounting officer of the SAPS
had not given written approval for deviation from any prescribed procurement
processes. No application for authorization of deviation from the prescribed
procurement procedures and/or processes was made or submitted to National
Treasury as prescribed by the PFMA.
267. Accused 2 acting in concert with Accused 3 gave procurement authority and financial
authorisation bearing numbers 040015270 was unlawfully granted.
268. Motor vehicles were delivered to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and invoices were
issued to Gauteng SAPS.
269. Upon or about the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 3 invoices mentioned
in column C of Schedule 3 as per job cards mentioned in column F of Schedule 3 in
the amounts mentioned in column E of Schedule 3 were issued to Gauteng SAPS by
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14. The invoices related to the motor vehicles mentioned
in column D of Schedule 3. Two invoices and two job cards were issued in respect of
each of the motor vehicles mentioned in column D of Schedule 3.
51
270. As a result of the double-invoicing Gauteng SAPS paid a total amount of
R4 368 900.65 to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 for services not rendered and
thereby suffered actual and/or potential prejudice.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 to 6 as well as Accused 13 and 14 are guilty of the following
offences:
COUNTS 11 TO 52 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT
NO 51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO 6 AND ACCUSED 13 AND 14 ONLY)
IN THAT upon or about the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 3 at or near
Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 2 to 6 and Accused 13 and 14,
acting in concert with each other, did unlawfully, falsely and with intent to defraud
misrepresent to Gauteng SAPS and/or National Treasury that:
271. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 had not issued invoices for the fitment of emergency
warning equipment in respect of the same motor vehicles to Gauteng SAPS before
the dates of the invoices mentioned in column C of Schedule were issued and/or;
272. Gauteng SAPS was indebted to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 for services rendered
in the amounts mentioned in column E of Schedule 3 and/or;
273. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 was or were not issuing invoices for fitment of
emergency warning equipment to motor vehicles which had already been fitted with
emergency warning equipment and/or;
274. Gauteng SAPS was not being double-invoiced for the same services in respect of
which Gauteng SAPS had already been invoiced;
52
210 Receive and process the invoices mentioned in column C of Schedule 3 and/or;
211. Pay the amounts mentioned in column E of Schedule 3 to Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14;
275. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 had issued invoices for the fitment of emergency
warning equipment to the same motor vehicles to Gauteng SAPS before the dates of
the invoices mentioned in column C of Schedule 3 and/or;
276. Gauteng SAPS was not indebted to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 for services
rendered in the amounts mentioned in column E of Schedule 3 and/or;
277. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 was/were issuing invoices for fitment of emergency
warning equipment to motor vehicles which had already been fitted with emergency
warning equipment and/or;
278. Gauteng SAPS was being double-invoiced for the same services in respect of which
Gauteng SAPS had already been invoiced.
SCHEDULE 3
A: COUNT B: DATE C: INV NO D: VEH REG E: AMOUNT F: JOB CARD
11 16-11-2017 103569 BVC481B R101 018-64 012429K
12 06-12-2017 103569 BVD093B R101 018-64 012448B
53
13 25-01-2018 103572 BVF340B R101 018-64 012456J
14 25-01-2018 103572 BVF431B R101 018-64 012456F
15 06-12-2017 103570 BVF343B R101 018-64 01244M
16 25-01-2018 103572 BVF508B R101 018-64 012452E
17 06-12-2017 103569 BVF520B R101 018-64 012444C
18 25-01-2018 103572 BVF522 R101 018-64 012456C
19 06-12-2017 103569 BVF525B R101 018-64 012444A
20 06-12-2017 103570 BVF527B R101 018-64 01244L
21 25-01-2018 103572 BVF551B R101 018-64 012454H
22 25-01-2018 103572 BVF775B R101 018-64 012452B
23 25-01-2018 103572 BVF850B R101 018-64 012456G
24 25-01-2018 103572 BVF852B R108 018-64 012456D
25 25-01-2018 103572 BVF853B R108 018-64 012454J
26 25-01-2018 103572 BVF859B R108 018-64 012455F
27 25-01-208 103572 BVF900B R108 018-64 012455A
28 25-01-2018 103572 BVF906B R108 018-64 012453F
29 25-01-2018 103572 BVF953B R108 018-64 012456I
30 25-01-2018 103572 BVF955B R108 018-64 012455B
31 25-01-2018 103572 BVF956B R108 018-64 012453J
32 25-01-2018 103572 BVF957B R108 018-64 012455J
33 25-01-2018 103572 BVF958B R108 018-64 012454I
34 25-01-2018 103572 BVF967B R108 018-64 012456A
35 25-01-2017 103572 BVF978B R108 018-64 012452A
54
36 25-01-2018 103572 BVF983B R108 018-64 012455I
37 25-01-2018 103572 BVF984B R108 018-64 012455E
38 25-01-2018 103572 BVG261B R108 018-64 012455D
39 25-01-2018 103572 BVG266B R108 018-64 012455G
40 25-01-2018 103572 BVG270B R108 018-64 012453H
41 25-01-2018 103572 BVG279B R108 018-64 012454B
42 25-01-2018 103572 BVG280B R108 018-64 012454A
43 25-01-2018 103572 BVG283B R108 018-64 012452J
44 25-01-2018 103572 BVG400B R108 018-64 012453I
45 25-01-2018 103572 BVG401B R108 018-64 01253D
46 25-01-2018 103572 BVG402B R108 018-64 012453B
47 25-01-2018 103572 BVG403B R108 018-64 012453A
48 25-01-2018 103572 BVG404B R108 018-64 012453E
49 25-02-2018 103572 BVG405B R108 018-64 012453C
50 25-01-2018 103572 BVG406B R108 018-64 012453G
51 25-01-2018 103572 BVG407B R108 018-64 012452F
52 03-05-2018 103578 BVJ306B R108 018-64 012471G
TOTAL AMOUNT PAID = R4 428 764-24
COUNT 53 TO 55 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT
NO 51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO 6 AND ACCUSED 13 AND 14 ONLY)
THEFT (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW
55
WHEREAS upon or about the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 4 at or near
Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng SAPS paid the amounts mentioned in
column C of Schedule 4 to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
AND WHEREAS the payments were made as a result of double-invoicing for services in respect
of which payments had already been processed and/or made;
AND WHEREAS the amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule 4 were unlawfully and
intentionally appropriated by Accused 2 to 6 and Accused 13 and Accused 14;
AND WHEREAS the amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule 4 were the properties of
Gauteng SAPS and/or National Treasury and/or the public;
AND WHEREAS the Accused had the intention to permanently deprive Gauteng SAPS and/or
National Treasury and/or the public of ownership of the amounts mentioned in column C of
Schedule 4;
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 to 6 and Accused 13 and 14 are guilty of the crimes of THEFT.
SCHEDULE 4
A: COUNT B: DATE C: AMOUNT D: INVOICE NUMBER
53 06-12-2017 R668 111-84 103569&103570
54 25-01-2018 R3 672 633-76 103572
55 03-05-2018 R108 018-64 103578
TOTAL AMOUNT PAID = R4 428 764-24
COUNT 56 TO 58 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT
NO 51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 13 AND ACCUSED 14 ONLY)
ACQUISITION OR POSSESSION OR USE OF PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES IN
CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 6 READ WITH SECTIONS 8 AND 1 OF THE PREVENTION OF
ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 1998 (ACT NO 121 OF 1998)
56
WHEREAS the amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule 5 were and/or formed part of the
proceeds of unlawful activities of another person or other persons,
AND WHEREAS Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 had acquired or had possession of or used the
amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule 5;
NOW THEREFORE Accused 13 and Accused 14 are guilty of the offences of contravening
Section 6 read with sections 8 and 1 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998 (Act No
121 of 1998);
Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 did
unlawfully acquire or have possession of or use the amounts mentioned in column C of
Schedule 5 knowing or having ought reasonably to have known that the amounts mentioned
in column C of Schedule 5 were and/or formed part of the proceeds of unlawful activities of
another person or other persons.
SCHEDULE 5
55 06-12-2017 R668 111-84 103569&103570
56 25-01-2018 R3 672 633-76 103572
57 03-05-2018 R108 018-64 103578
TOTAL AMOUNT = R4 428 764-24
COUNTS 58 TO 60 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT
NO 51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO 6 ONLY)
ASSISTING ANOTHER TO BENEFIT FROM PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES IN
ORGANOZED CRIME ACT, 1998 (ACT NO 121 OF 1998)
57
WHEREAS the amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule 6 were and/or formed part of
proceeds of unlawful activities;
AND WHEREAS Accused 2 to Accused 6 assisted Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to benefit
from the said amounts by causing the said amounts to be paid to Accused 13 and/or Accused
14 by causing order number AE-950316 to be issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 to Accused 6 are guilty of the offences of contravening Section
5 read with Sections 8 and 1 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998 (Act No 121 of
1998);
Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 1 to Accused 6 did unlawfully assist
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to benefit from the said amounts knowing or having ought
reasonably to have known that the aforesaid amounts of money were or formed part of the
proceeds of unlawful activities.
SCHEDULE 6
58 06-12-2017 R668 111-84 103569&103570
59 25-01-2018 R3 672 633-76 103572
60 03-05-2018 R108 018-64 103578
TOTAL AMOUNT = R4 428 764-24
F: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNT 61
WHEREAS at all times material to count 61:
279. Makoma Florah Buthelezi (BUTHELEZI) was employed by the South African Police
Service and stationed at Gauteng Provincial head office.
58
280. Buthelezi was a Brigadier and was in charge of supply chain management within
Gauteng SAPS.
281. During the period between the 1st of April 2017 and the 31st of March 2019 Gauteng
SAPS incurred irregular expenditures.
282. In terms of the PFMA Gauteng SAPS and Division SCM were required to report the
irregular expenditures to National Treasury and/or cause the irregular expenditure
to be registered in the relevant register.
283. Upon receiving the report of irregular expenditures National Treasury was enjoined
by the PFMA to act in accordance with the prescripts of the law.
284. Buthelezi initiated the process of reporting the irregular expenditures incurred by
Gauteng SAPS in accordance with the prescripts of the law.
285. Accused 2 acting in concert with Accused 4 and Accused 5 initiated investigations
against Buthelezi for acting in accordance with the prescripts of the law.
286. On the 20th of June 2018 the SAPS appointed Major General Boitumelo Joyce Molale
(MOLALE) to investigate Buthelezi for alleged contravention of disciplinary
regulations of the SAPS.
287. On the 21st of August 2018 Molale filed a report in which she recommended that
disciplinary proceedings be instituted against Buthelezi for contravening SAPS
disciplinary regulations.
288. There was or were no valid reason or reasons for the institution of investigations
aimed at instituting disciplinary proceedings against Buthelezi.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 as well as Accused 4 to 6 are guilty of the crime of OBSTRUCTING
OR DEFEATING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.
59
COUNT 61 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT 51 OF
1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 AND ACCUSED 4 TO 6 ONLY)
OBSTRUCTING OR DEFEATING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of March and the 31stof August 2018 and at or
near Johannesburg in the regional Division of Gauteng Accused 2 as well as Accused 4 to 6
committed acts, to wit withdrawing a report of irregular expenditure incurred by Gauteng
SAPS filed by Buthelezi as prescribed by the PFMA and instituting investigations with a view
of instituting disciplinary proceedings against Buthelezi and thereby set the wheels of justice
in motion against Buthelezi.
G: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNTS 62 TO 313
WHEREAS at all times relevant to counts 62 to 313:
289. Accused 10 was employed by the South African Police Service and stationed in
Gauteng.
290. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 were the holders of First National Bank (FNB) bearing
numbers 62053068097.
291. During the period between 01 April 2017 31 st May 2018 approximately
R65 499 765.00 were transferred into Accused 13 and/or Accused 14’s First National
Bank (FNB) account bearing numbers 62053068097 by Gauteng SAPS.
292. These payments were made as a result of “contracts” that were unlawfully awarded
to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 by the SAPS.
293. Unlawful activity was defined as conduct which constitutes a crime or which
contravenes any law whether such conduct occurred before or after the
commencement of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, 1998 (Act No 121 of
1998) whether such conduct occurred in the Republic or elsewhere. The payments
60
constituted proceeds of unlawful activities in that they emanated from transactions
performed in contravention of prescripts of the law.
Accused 14 drew cash cheques against Accused 13 and/or Accused 14’s First National
Bank (FNB) account bearing numbers 62053068097 and entered into an agreement
with Accused 10 to present the said cheques to FNB as a way of withdrawing cash
from First National Bank (FNB) account bearing numbers 62053068097.
295. A total amount of R14 460 000.00 was withdrawn from the account of Accused 13
and/or Accused 14 by way of cash cheques presented to FNB by Accused 10.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 13 and Accused 14 as well as Accused 10 are guilty of the following
crimes:
COUNTS 62 TO 145 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977
(ACT NO 51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 13 AND ACCUSED 14 AS WELL AS ACCUSED
10 ONLY)
MONEY LAUNDERING IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 4 READ WITH SECTIONS 1 AND 8 OF
THE PREVENTION OF ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 1998 (ACT NO 121 OF 1998)
WHEREAS the amounts of money mentioned in column C of Schedule 7 constituted or formed
part of proceeds of unlawful activities;
AND WHEREAS Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 as well as Accused 10 knew or ought
reasonably to have known that the said amounts were or formed part of the proceeds of
unlawful activities;
NOW THEREFORE Accused 13 and Accused 14 as well as Accused 10 are guilty of the crimes
of contravening Section 4 read with Sections 1 and 8 of the Prevention of Organised Crime
Act, 1998 (Act No 121 of 1998);
61
Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 13 and Accused 14 as well as
Accused 10 unlawfully entered into an agreement and/or engaged in arrangements or
transactions and/or performed acts with the amounts of money mentioned in column C of
Schedule 7 which had or were likely to have had the effect of:
296. Concealing or disguising the nature, source, location, disposition or movement of the
said amounts of money or ownership thereof or any interest which anybody might
have had or have had in respect thereof and/or;
297. Enabling or assisting any person who has committed an offence to avoid prosecution
and/or to remove or diminish the money acquired directly as a result of the
commission of the offence.
SCHEDULE 7
A: COUNT B: DATE C: AMOUNT
62 24-06-2016 R200 000.00
63 29-06-2016 R250 000.00
64 30-06-2016 R200 000.00
65 15-07-2016 R200 000.00
66 29-07-2016 R250 000.00
67 05-08-2016 R200 000.00
68 11-08-2016 R250 000.00
69 12-08-2016 R150 000.00
70 02-09-2016 R120 000.00
71 07-09-2016 R250 000.00
62
72 08-09-2016 R200 000.00
73 14-09-2016 R50 000.00
74 30-09-2016 R200 000.00
75 07-10-2016 R120 000.00
76 28-10-2016 R150 000.00
77 08-12-2016 R150 000.00
78 13-12-2016 R250 000.00
79 20-12-2016 R250 000.00
80 22-12-2016 R250 000.00
81 13-01-2017 R70 000.00
82 20-01-2017 R30 000.00
83 21-01-2017 R100 000.00
84 28-01-2017 R30 000.00
85 16-02-2017 R250 000.00
86 16-02-2016 R250 000.00
87 18-02-2018 R250 000.00
88 23-02-2017 R200 000.00
89 01-03-2017 R100 000.00
90 03-03-2017 R100 000.00
91 09-03-2017 R200 000.00
92 17-03-2017 R100 000.00
93 24-03-2017 R200 000.00
94 06-04-2017 R250 000.00
63
95 07-04-2017 R250 000.00
96 07-04-2017 R250 000.00
97 13-04-2017 R100 000.00
98 15-04-2017 R100 000.00
99 21-04-2017 R150 000.00
100 26-04-2017 R100 000.00
101 28-04-2017 R50 000.00
102 05-05-2017 R70 000.00
103 12-05-2017 R70 000.00
104 19-05-207 R120 000.00
105 26-05-2017 R150 000.00
106 01-06-2017 R50 000.00
107 07-06-2017 R50 000.00
108 09-06-2017 R100 000.00
109 23-06-2017 R80 000.00
110 30-06-2017 R150 000.00
111 07-07-2017 R100 000.00
112 22-07-2017 R150 000.00
113 24-07-2017 R150 000.00
114 18-08-2017 R150 000.00
115 04-09-2017 R150 000.00
116 06-09-2017 R200 000.00
117 14-09-2017 R250 000.00
64
118 15-09-2017 R250 000.00
119 22-09-2017 R250 000.00
120 29-09-2017 R150 000.00
121 13-10-2017 R150 000.00
122 30-10-2017 R250 000.00
123 03-11-2017 R200 000.00
124 03-11-2017 R150 000.00
125 17-11-2017 R250 000.00
126 24-11-2017 R250 000.00
127 01-12-2017 R250 000.00
128 07-12-2017 R250 000.00
129 08-12-2017 R250 000.00
130 08-12-2017 R250 000.00
131 12-12-2017 R250 000.00
132 22-12-2017 R250 000.00
133 27-12-2017 R250 000.00
134 27-12-2017 R250 000.00
135 19-01-2018 R100 000.00
136 26-01-2018 R150 000.00
137 05-02-2018 R250 000.00
138 05-02-2018 R250 000.00
139 09-02-2018 R150 000.00
140 16-02-2018 R250 000.00
65
141 02-03-2018 R150 000.00
142 09-03-2018 R150 000.00
143 31-03-2018 R100 000.00
144 04-06-2018 R250 000.00
145 04-06-2018 R250 000.00
TOTAL AMOUNT WITHDRAWN = R14 460 000.00
(ACT NO 51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 10 ONLY)
ASSISTING ANOTHER TO BENEFIT FROM PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES IN
ORGANOZED CRIME ACT, 1998 (ACT NO 121 OF 1998)
proceeds of unlawful activities;
AND WHEREAS Accused 10 assisted Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to benefit from the said
amounts by presenting cash cheques to FNB and getting cash in the amounts mentioned in
column C of Schedule 8 and making the amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule 8
available to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or any other person nominated by Accused
13 and/or Accused 14;
NOW THEREFORE Accused 10 is guilty of the offences of contravening Section 5 read with
Sections 1 and 8 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998 (Act No 121 of 1998);
Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 10 did unlawfully assist Accused
13 and/or Accused 14 to benefit from the amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule 8
66
knowing or having ought reasonably to have known that the aforesaid amounts of money
were or formed part of the proceeds of unlawful activities.
SCHEDULE 8
146 24-06-2016 R200 000.00
147 29-06-2016 R250 000.00
148 30-06-2016 R200 000.00
149 15-07-2016 R200 000.00
150 29-07-2016 R250 000.00
151 05-08-2016 R200 000.00
152 11-08-2016 R250 000.00
153 12-08-2016 R150 000.00
154 02-09-2016 R120 000.00
155 07-09-2016 R250 000.00
156 08-09-2016 R200 000.00
157 14-09-2016 R50 000.00
158 30-09-2016 R200 000.00
159 07-10-2016 R120 000.00
160 28-10-2016 R150 000.00
161 08-12-2016 R150 000.00
162 13-12-2016 R250 000.00
163 20-12-2016 R250 000.00
164 22-12-2016 R250 000.00
67
165 13-01-2017 R70 000.00
166 20-01-2017 R30 000.00
167 21-01-2017 R100 000.00
168 28-01-2017 R30 000.00
169 16-02-2017 R250 000.00
170 16-02-2016 R250 000.00
171 18-02-2018 R250 000.00
172 23-02-2017 R200 000.00
173 01-03-2017 R100 000.00
174 03-03-2017 R100 000.00
175 09-03-2017 R200 000.00
176 17-03-2017 R100 000.00
177 24-03-2017 R200 000.00
178 06-04-2017 R250 000.00
179 07-04-2017 R250 000.00
180 07-04-2017 R250 000.00
181 13-04-2017 R100 000.00
182 15-04-2017 R100 000.00
183 21-04-2017 R150 000.00
184 26-04-2017 R100 000.00
185 28-04-2017 R50 000.00
186 05-05-2017 R70 000.00
187 12-05-2017 R70 000.00
68
188 19-05-207 R120 000.00
189 26-05-2017 R150 000.00
190 01-06-2017 R50 000.00
191 07-06-2017 R50 000.00
192 09-06-2017 R100 000.00
193 23-06-2017 R80 000.00
194 30-06-2017 R150 000.00
195 07-07-2017 R100 000.00
196 22-07-2017 R150 000.00
197 24-07-2017 R150 000.00
198 18-08-2017 R150 000.00
199 04-09-2017 R150 000.00
200 06-09-2017 R200 000.00
201 14-09-2017 R250 000.00
202 15-09-2017 R250 000.00
203 22-09-2017 R250 000.00
204 29-09-2017 R150 000.00
205 13-10-2017 R150 000.00
206 30-10-2017 R250 000.00
207 03-11-2017 R200 000.00
208 03-11-2017 R150 000.00
209 17-11-2017 R250 000.00
210 24-11-2017 R250 000.00
69
211 01-12-2017 R250 000.00
212 07-12-2017 R250 000.00
213 08-12-2017 R250 000.00
214 08-12-2017 R250 000.00
215 12-12-2017 R250 000.00
216 22-12-2017 R250 000.00
217 27-12-2017 R250 000.00
218 27-12-2017 R250 000.00
219 19-01-2018 R100 000.00
220 26-01-2018 R150 000.00
221 05-02-2018 R250 000.00
222 05-02-2018 R250 000.00
223 09-02-2018 R150 000.00
224 16-02-2018 R250 000.00
225 02-03-2018 R150 000.00
226 09-03-2018 R150 000.00
227 31-03-2018 R100 000.00
228 04-06-2018 R250 000.00
229 04-06-2018 R250 000.00
(ACT NO 51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 13 AND ACCUSED 14 AS WELL AS ACCUSED
10 ONLY)
70
ACQUISITION OR POSSESSION OR USE OF PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES IN
ORGANIZED CRIME ACT, 1998 (ACT NO 121 OF 1998)
proceeds of unlawful activities of another person or other persons,
AND WHEREAS Accused 13 and Accused 14 as well as Accused 10 had acquired or had
possession of or used the amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule 5;
NOW THEREFORE Accused 13 and Accused 14 as well as Accused 10 are guilty of the offences
of contravening Section 6 read with sections 1and 8 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act,
1998 (Act No 121 of 1998);
Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 13 and Accused 14 as well as
Accused 10 did unlawfully acquire or have possession of or use the amounts mentioned in
column C of Schedule 9 knowing or having ought reasonably to have known that the amounts
mentioned in column C of Schedule 9 were and/or formed part of the proceeds of unlawful
activities of another person or other persons.
SCHEDULE 9
230 24-06-2016 R200 000.00
231 29-06-2016 R250 000.00
232 30-06-2016 R200 000.00
233 15-07-2016 R200 000.00
234 29-07-2016 R250 000.00
71
235 05-08-2016 R200 000.00
236 11-08-2016 R250 000.00
237 12-08-2016 R150 000.00
238 02-09-2016 R120 000.00
239 07-09-2016 R250 000.00
240 08-09-2016 R200 000.00
241 14-09-2016 R50 000.00
242 30-09-2016 R200 000.00
243 07-10-2016 R120 000.00
244 28-10-2016 R150 000.00
245 08-12-2016 R150 000.00
246 13-12-2016 R250 000.00
247 20-12-2016 R250 000.00
248 22-12-2016 R250 000.00
249 13-01-2017 R70 000.00
250 20-01-2017 R30 000.00
251 21-01-2017 R100 000.00
252 28-01-2017 R30 000.00
253 16-02-2017 R250 000.00
254 16-02-2016 R250 000.00
255 18-02-2018 R250 000.00
256 23-02-2017 R200 000.00
257 01-03-2017 R100 000.00
72
258 03-03-2017 R100 000.00
259 09-03-2017 R200 000.00
260 17-03-2017 R100 000.00
261 24-03-2017 R200 000.00
262 06-04-2017 R250 000.00
263 07-04-2017 R250 000.00
264 07-04-2017 R250 000.00
265 13-04-2017 R100 000.00
266 15-04-2017 R100 000.00
267 21-04-2017 R150 000.00
268 26-04-2017 R100 000.00
269 28-04-2017 R50 000.00
270 05-05-2017 R70 000.00
271 12-05-2017 R70 000.00
272 19-05-207 R120 000.00
273 26-05-2017 R150 000.00
274 01-06-2017 R50 000.00
275 07-06-2017 R50 000.00
276 09-06-2017 R100 000.00
277 23-06-2017 R80 000.00
278 30-06-2017 R150 000.00
279 07-07-2017 R100 000.00
280 22-07-2017 R150 000.00
73
281 24-07-2017 R150 000.00
282 18-08-2017 R150 000.00
283 04-09-2017 R150 000.00
284 06-09-2017 R200 000.00
285 14-09-2017 R250 000.00
286 15-09-2017 R250 000.00
287 22-09-2017 R250 000.00
288 29-09-2017 R150 000.00
289 13-10-2017 R150 000.00
290 30-10-2017 R250 000.00
291 03-11-2017 R200 000.00
292 03-11-2017 R150 000.00
293 17-11-2017 R250 000.00
294 24-11-2017 R250 000.00
295 01-12-2017 R250 000.00
296 07-12-2017 R250 000.00
297 08-12-2017 R250 000.00
298 08-12-2017 R250 000.00
299 12-12-2017 R250 000.00
300 22-12-2017 R250 000.00
301 27-12-2017 R250 000.00
302 27-12-2017 R250 000.00
303 19-01-2018 R100 000.00
74
304 26-01-2018 R150 000.00
305 05-02-2018 R250 000.00
306 05-02-2018 R250 000.00
307 09-02-2018 R150 000.00
308 16-02-2018 R250 000.00
309 02-03-2018 R150 000.00
310 09-03-2018 R150 000.00
311 31-03-2018 R100 000.00
312 04-06-2018 R250 000.00
313 04-06-2018 R250 000.00
H: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNTS 314 TO 318
WHEREAS at all times material to counts 314 to 318:
298. The procurement framework prescribed by the PFMA required each department or
institution to which the PFMA applied to have a Bid Specification Committees (BSC),
a Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) and a Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC).
299. The BSC was responsible for the compilation and/or drafting of specifications which
would form part of the invitations for competitive bids or written price quotations.
300. It was the responsibility of Accused 7 who was the accounting officer of the SAPS to
ensure that the SAPS had a BSC and that the BSC performed its functions as
prescribed by the PFMA.
301. Johan Boonzaaier was a member of the SAPS who was attached to the Diivision:
Detective Services of the SAPS. His rank was that of a Lieutenant Colonel.
75
302. During the period between the 1st of August 2016 and the 31st of December 2016
Accused 7 acting in concert with Accused 13 to 15 and other members of the SAPS
caused the transfer of Boonzaaier from the Division: Detective Services to the
Division: SCM.
303. Accused 7 instructed Boonzaaier to make contact with Accused 2 so that they could
make arrangements for Boonzaaier to visit Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 in order
to “compile specifications” for emergency warning equipment. Accused 15 provided
Boonzaaier with the contact details of Accused 2 so that Boonzaaier could meet
Accused 2 to make the arrangements.
304. Boonzaaier did as instructed by Accused 2 and 7 who were acting in concert with
each other and other members of the SAPS. He visited the offices of Accused 11 to
14 and they compiled a document which was intended to specifications which would
later be used by the SAPS to invite written price quotations or invite competitive bids
from suppliers of emergency warning equipment. The document compiled was
intended to exclude other suppliers of emergency warning lights from competing
with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14
305. Boonzaaier handed over the document compiled with Accused 11 to 14 to a member
of the SAPS.
306. Upon or about the 30th day of August 2016 Salome Manamela who was one of the
employees of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 emailed the document to Boonzaaier.
A document which served to favour Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and exclude other
suppliers was used to invite written price quotations referenced 19/1/9/1/247
(2016/2017) by Gauteng SAPS.
76
307. During September 2016 Accused 7 signed specifications for emergency warning
equipment. The specifications signed by Accused 7 were based on the specifications
compiled by Accused 11 to 14 and Boonzaaier on the instructions of Accused 7 and
the other persons with whom Accused 7 and Boonzaaier acted in concert.
308. Upon or about the 21st of September 2016 Accused 3 sent specifications which were
subsequently used by Gauteng SAPS to invite written price quotations which resulted
in the BAC awarding a contract to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 on 14 November
2016.
309. The specifications Accused 3 sent to the suppliers were almost identical to the
specifications sent to the South African Police Service by Accused 13 and/or Accused
14.
310. The specifications sent to potential suppliers prior to awarding the contract to supply
emergency warning equipment to Gauteng SAPS were manipulated to suit Accused
13 and/or Accused 14 only and to disqualify the other suppliers who were invited by
Gauteng SAPS.
311. The manipulation of the specifications was prejudicial to the SAPS, National Treasury,
the general public and the other suppliers who were invited to submit written price
quotations.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 to Accused 7 and 9 as well as Accused 11 to 15 are guilty of the
following crimes:
51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO 7 ACCUSED 9 AS WELL AS ACCUSED 11 TO
ACCUSED 15 ONLY)
77
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of August and the 31st of December 2016 at or
near Johannesburg and Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng the said Accused acting
in concert with each other and with Boonzaaier, did unlawfully, falsely and with intent to
defraud misrepresent to the SAPS and/or National Treasury and/or the public and/or the
suppliers invited as per written price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) that:
312. A BSC had been appointed to compile specifications which were utilised to invite
written price quotations from suppliers of emergency warning equipment and/or;
313. The specifications were compiled by a BSC and approved by Accused 7 who was the
accounting officer of the SAPS and/or;
314. The specifications were not designed or tailor-made to favour any invited supplier
and/or;
315. The specifications attached to the invitation for written price quotations sent to
invited suppliers in October 2016 gave all invited suppliers a fair chance of competing
for the contract to supply emergency warning equipment to Gauteng SAPS and/or;
316. None of the invited suppliers of emergency warning equipment had participated in
any way whatsoever in the compilation of the specifications used by Gauteng SAPS
to invite written price quotations;
and to the prejudice and/or potential prejudice of the SAPS and/or National Treasury and/or
the public to:
78
317. Use the specifications compiled by Boonzaaier and Accused 11 to 14 to invite written
price quotations for the supply and fitment of emergency warning equipment to
Gauteng SAPS motor vehicles and/or;
318. Be under the impression that the specifications were compiled in accordance with
the prescripts of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the PFMA and
other prescripts of the law and/or;
319. Fail to take steps to enforce compliance with the prescripts of the PFMA ; relating to
compilation of specifications used to invite the written price quotations sent to
suppliers invited to submit written price quotations for the written price quotation
referenced 19/1/9/1 /247 (2016/2017);
320. No BSC had been appointed to compile specifications which were utilised to invite
written price quotations from suppliers of emergency warning equipment
referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) and/or;
321. The specifications were not compiled by a BSC and approved by Accused 7 who was
the accounting officer of the SAPS at the time and/or;
322. The specifications were designed or tailor-made to favour Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 and did not give all invited suppliers a fair chance of competing for the
contract to supply emergency warning equipment to Gauteng SAPS and/or;
323. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 had participated in the compilation of the
specifications used by Gauteng SAPS to invite written price quotations referenced
19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017).
79
51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO ACCUSED 7 AS WELL AS ACCUSED 9 AND 15 ONLY)
FRAUD (READ WITH SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT
105 OF 1997) AND FURTHER READ WITH SECTION 103 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT,
1977 (ACT NO 51 OF 1977))
IN THAT upon or about the 14th day of November 2016 at or near Pretoria in the Regional
Division of Gauteng Accused 2 to 7 as well as Accused 9 and Accused 15 in their capacities as
members of the SAPS BEC and/or BAC and/or accounting officers and/or officials of the South
African Police Service on whom responsibilities were imposed by sections 38 and/or 39
and/or 40 and/or 44 and/or 45 of the PFMA, did unlawfully, falsely and with intent to defraud
give out and misrepresent to the SAPS and/or National Treasury and/or the public that:
324. The adjudication process in respect of the invitation for written price quotations
referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) was conducted in line with the prescripts of
the PFMA and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996)
and/or;
325. The written price quotations submitted by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to the
South African Police Service in response to the invitation for written price quotations
referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) was in compliance with Paragraph 7.2 (b) of
National Treasury Regulation No 3 of 2015/16, and/or cost-effective and/or;
326. According to the central supplier database kept by National Treasury Accused 13
and/or Accused 14 qualified to be considered to be appointed to supply the Gauteng
SAPS with emergency warning equipment and/or;
327. The appointment of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to supply Gauteng SAPS with
emergency warning equipment was done by Accused 7 in his capacity as the
80
accounting officer of the South African Police Service on the recommendations of the
BEC and the BAC as prescribed by the PFMA and/or;
warning equipment as per memorandum bearing reference numbers 318/1 dated 14
November 2016 complied with sections 195 and 217 of the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No 108 of 1996) and/or;
329. Accused 2 to 7 as well as Accused 9 and 15 did not have any undeclared interest in
any of the bids submitted by the entities or companies that responded to the
invitation for written price quotations and/or;
330. Accused 2 was not in contact with any SAPS members involved in the procurement
process prior to him chairing the meeting of the BAC that approved the appointment
of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to supply emergency warning equipment to
Gauteng SAPS;
AND did there and then and by means of the aforesaid false misrepresentations induce the
South African Police Service and/or National Treasury and/or the public to accept the
appointment of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to supply Gauteng SAPS with emergency
warning equipment and to make payments to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to the actual
prejudice and/or potential prejudice of the SAPS and/or National Treasury and/or the public;
WHEREAS when Accused 2 to Accused 7 as well as Accused 9 and 15 misrepresented as
aforesaid, they well knew that in truth and in fact:
331. The evaluation and adjudication processes in respect of the invitation for written
price quotations referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) was not conducted in
accordance with the prescripts of the PFMA and the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996) and/or;
81
332. The written price quotations submitted by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to the SAPS
in response to the invitation for submission of written price quotations referenced
19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) was neither in compliance with Paragraph 7.2 (b) of
National Treasury Regulation No 3 of 2015/16 nor cost-effective and/or;
333. According to the central supplier database Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 did not
qualify to be considered for appointment as a successful bidder to supply Gauteng
SAPS with emergency warning equipment and/or;
warning equipment as per memorandum bearing reference numbers 318/1 dated 14
November 2016 did not comply with sections 195 and 217 of the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No 108 of 1996) and/or;
335. Accused 2 to 7 as well as Accused 9 and 15 did have undeclared interest in the bid
submitted by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or;
336. Accused 2 was in contact with other members of the SAPS involved in the
procurement process prior to him chairing the meeting of the BAC that approved the
appointment of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to supply emergency warning
equipment to Gauteng SAPS and should have recused himself from the sitting of the
BAC or at least disclose that fact to the BAC.
51 OF 1977) IN RSPECT OF ACCUSED 13 AND ACCUSED 14 ONLY)
GENERAL OFFENCE OF CORRUPTION IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 3(b) READ WITH
SECTIONS 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1) (a) (ii) AND 26(3) OF PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO 12 OF 2004)
(OFFERING OR GIVING GRATIFICATIONS)
82
THAT Accused 13 and 14 are guilty of contravening the provisions of section 3(b) read with
sections 1, 2, 24, 25 and 26(1) (a) (ii) and 26 (3) Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities
Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 2004)
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of August 2016 and the 31st of December 2018
and at or near Johannesburg and Pretoria in the Regional Division of the Gauteng, Accused 13
and 14 wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally offered and/or gave Boonzaaier gratifications
in the form of cash for Accused Boonzaaier’s benefit and/or for the benefit of any other
person or persons, in order to act personally or by influencing another person so to act, in a
manner proscribed in section 3 (i) to (iv) of the Act (as described in the specific preamble to
counts 315 to 317)
TO WIT: as a reward for the role played by Boonzaaier in the compilation of the specifications
used to invite written price quotations referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017).
ALTERNATIVELY (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT
NO 51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACUSED 13 AND 14 ONLY)
CONTRAVENING SECTION 10(b) READ WITH SECTIONS 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1) (a) (ii) AND 26(3)
OF THE PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO 12 OF
2004)
(OFFERING UNAUTHORISED GRATIFICATION)
THAT Accused 13 and 14 are guilty of contravening the provision of section 10(b) read with
sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1) (a) (ii) and 26(3) of Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities
Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 2004)
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of August 2016 and the 31st of December 2018
and at or near Sandton and Pretoria, in the Regional Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14
wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally offered and/or gave Boonzaaier, Boonzaaier being
83
party to employment relationship with the SAPS and/or the state, gratifications in the form
of cash for Boonzaaier’s benefit and/or for the benefit of any other person or persons, in
order to act personally or by influencing another person so to act, in a manner proscribed in
section 3 (i) to (iv) of the Act (as described in the specific preamble to counts 315 to 318);
TO WIT: in order that Boonzaaier could collude with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or
the employees of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to compile specifications which were
designed to favour Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 for the SAPS.
COUNT 318 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AC, 1977 (ACT NO
51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO 7, ACCUSED 9 AND 11 TO 15)
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT, AIDING INDUCING, INCITING, INSTIGATING, INSTRUCTING ,
COMMANDING, COUNSELING OR PROCURING ANOTHER PERSON TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE
IN TERMS OF THE PREVENING AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT , 2004 (ACT
NO 12 OF 2004) IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 21 (b) AND/OR (c) READ WITH SECTIONS
1; 2; 24; 25 AND 26 OF THE SAID ACT (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF
THE CRIMINAL LAW AMNDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of August 2016 and the 30th of June 2018, and at
or near Pretoria, Sandton and Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng, the said
Accused, acting with common intent in furtherance of a common purpose wrongfully and
intentionally conspired, the one with the other; and/or aided, abetted, induced, incited,
instigated, instructed, commanded, counselled or procured Boonzaaier to commit a crime or
crimes of corruption in terms of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004
(Act 12 of 2004).
I: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNTS 319 TO 331
WHEREAS at all times material to counts 319 to 331
84
337. The Financial Disclosure Framework (FDF) was introduced to the Public Service in
1999.
338. Through the FDF all members of Senior Management Services (SMS) in the public
service were required to disclose all their registrable interests and do so annually to
the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). It is required that the
financial disclosures be done within a period of two months after the end of the
financial year to which the disclosures relate.
339. During the 2015/2016; 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 financial years Accused 2 to 7
were members of SMS within the SAPS.
340. Their relationships with the SAPS and/or the DPSA and/or the general public were
those of trust and each of them was required to disclose their registrable interests
to the DPSA. As SMS members the said Accused had a fiduciary duty to disclose
sources of income from outside the public service in order to comply with their
fiduciary duties emanating from their positions as senior public servants.
341. The main objectives of the FDF were to manage conflicts of interests and promote
ethical conduct, accountability and transparency in line with constitutional values
and principles. In order to achieve a public service that is envisaged in section 195 of
the Constitution, it is essential that the integrity of the public service in which
Accused 2 to 7 served be beyond question.
342. During the financial years 2015/2016; 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 Accused 2 to
Accused 7 submitted financial disclosure forms to the DPSA as required and in terms
of the FDF.
343. During the said financial years each one of Accused 2 to Accused 7 had received and
deposited cash amounts into their respective bank accounts and/or bank accounts
85
controlled by each of them and all of them failed to disclose the cash amounts which
were deposited into their respective accounts.
344. At the time when Accused 2 to 7 failed to disclose the sources of the amounts
deposited into their respective accounts, each of them had a duty to disclose the
sources of income earned outside the public service. The failure to disclose the
sources of the cash amounts which each of Accused 2 to 7 deposited into their
respective accounts misled and/or could have misled the DPSA and or the general
public and caused actual and/or potential prejudice to the SAPS and/or the DPSA
and/or the public.
345. Accused 10 was a member of the SAPS. He served as an assistant to Accused 13
and/or Accused 14. He was not authorised to be away from his official duties in order
to serve as an assistant to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or render services to
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 to 7 and Accused 10 are guilty of the crimes of fraud:
COUNT 319 TO 321 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977
FRAUD (COUNTS 319 AND 320 READ WITH SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW
THAT Accused 2 is guilty of the crimes of fraud
IN THAT during the period mentioned in column B of Schedule 10 at or near Pretoria in the
Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 2 did unlawfully, falsely and with intent to defraud,
falsely and to the prejudice, either real or potential of the South African Police Service and/or
DPSA and/or the public fail to disclose to the DPSA, in circumstances where there was a duty
to disclose, that Accused 2 had earned the amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule 10
86
from sources outside the public service during the financial years 2015/2016; 2017/2018 and
2018/2019.
SCHEDULE 10
A: COUNT B: PERIOD/DATE C: TOTAL AMOUNT DEP
319 01 April and 30 June 2017 R554 100.00
320 01 April and 30 June 2018 R1 167 400.00
321 01 April and 30 June 2019 R400 000.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DEPOSITED = R2 364 554.00
COUNT 322 TO 324 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT 105 OF 1997)
IN THAT during the periods mentioned in column B of Schedule 11 at or near Pretoria in the
the DPSA and/or the public fail to disclose to the DPSA, in circumstances where there was a
duty to disclose, that Accused 3 had earned the amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule
11 from sources outside the public service during the financial years 2015/2016 and
2017/2018 .
SCHEDULE 11
A: COUNT B: PERIOD/DATE C: TOTAL AMOUNT DEP
322 01 April and 30 June 2016 R682 200.00
87
323 01 April and 30 June 2017 R154 360.00
324 01 April and 30 June 2018 R996 960-24
TOTAL AMOUNT DEPOSITED = R1 833 500-24
COUNTS 324 and 325 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977
FRAUD
2017/2018.
SCHEDULE 12
A: COUNT B: PERIOD C: TOTAL AMOUNT DEP
325 01 April and 30 June 2017 R46 005.00
326 01 April and 30 June 2018 R88 740.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DEPOSITED = R174 193.00
COUNT 327 AND 328 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977
FRAUD
88
IN THAT during the period mentioned in column B of Schedule 13 at or near Pretoria in the
2017/2018.
SCHEDULE 13
A: COUNT B: DATE C: TOTAL AMOUNT DEP
327 01 April and 30 June 2017 R15 950.00
328 01 April and 30 June 2017 R110 630.00
COUNT 329 AND 330 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977
FRAUD
2017/2018.
SCHEDULE 14
89
A: COUNT B: PERIOD C: TOTAL AMOUNT DEP
329 01 April and 30 June 2017 R2 500.00
330 01 April and 30 June 2018 R205 300.00
51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 10 ONLY)
FRAUD
THAT Accused 10 is guilty of the crime of fraud
IN THAT during the period between 01 June 2017 and 30 June 2018 at or near Johannesburg
in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 10 did unlawfully, falsely and with intent to
defraud, falsely and to the prejudice, either real or potential of the South African Police
Service and/or the DPSA and/or the public fail to disclose to the SAPS and/or the DPSA, in
circumstances where there was a duty to disclose, that Accused 10 was not performing his
official duties as a police official but was serving as an employee of Accused 13 and/or Accused
14 whilst being fully remunerated by the state.
J: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNTS 332 TO 381
WHEREAS at all times material to counts 332 to 381
On the 14th of November 2016 the BAC of the SAPS awarded a contract to Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 to supply and install emergency warning equipment to newly acquired Gauteng
SAPS motor vehicles in the amount of R191 145 267.00 as per memorandum referenced
318/1. This happened after Gauteng SAPS was instructed to invite written price quotations by
Accused 2 to 7.
346. The award of the contract followed a recommendation made by the BEC of the SAPS
which was chaired by Accused 9. The recommendation of the BEC and the award of
90
the contract to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 were done without following the
procurement process of inviting competitive bids as prescribed by the Constitution
and the PFMA.
347. The contract which was awarded to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 was meant to be
a once off transaction which was intended to cater for need of Gauteng SAPS during
the 2016 2017 financial year. In March 2017 an order referenced AE950301 was
issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 by Gauteng SAPS. Just before the end of the
2016/2017 financial year Gauteng SAPS processed payment totalling R10 000 000.00
in favour of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
348. During March 2017 Accused 4 initiated communications relating to the procurement
of emergency warning equipment for the 2017/2018 financial year by way of sending
communication to Accused 7 who was the Acting National Commissioner of the SAPS
at the time.
349. Procurement processes prescribed by the Constitution and the PFMA were neither
initiated nor followed.
350. On the 29th of June 2017 an order referenced AE950316 for an amount of
R39 896 189-94 was issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 by Gauteng SAPS on
the instructions of Accused 4 and Accused 5. Accused 4 and Accused 5 were granted
“procurement authorisation” by Accused 2 and Accused 3. Accused 2 and Accused 3
did not have the authority to grant “procurement authority” without following the
procurement processes prescribed by the Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa and the PFMA. Section 217 of the Constitution and the PFMA laid down
procedures which an organ of state was required to follow before procuring goods
and/or services.
91
351. During the period between the 26th of July 2017 and the 25th of January 2018 Accused
13 and/or Accused 14 issued invoices to Gauteng SAPS.
352. During the period between the 2nd of August 2017 and the 2nd of February 2018
Gauteng SAPS paid Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 various amount totalling
R39 878 099-64.
353. On the 27th of March 2018 Gauteng SAPS issued an order referenced AE941395 for
an amount of R 35 130 929-10 to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14. Accused 4 and 5
issued the instruction that the said order be issued. Accused 2 and Accused 3 granted
“procurement authority”.
354. Gauteng SAPS had not followed the procurement processes prescribed by the
Constitution of the Republic and the PFMA prior to issuing order number AE941395.
Accused 2 and Accused 3 acted unlawfully by issuing the “procurement authority”
whereas Accused 4 and 5 acted unlawfully by issuing the instruction that an order be
issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
355. A total amount of R13 037 982-08 was paid to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 after
the order referenced AE941395 was issued to Accused 13 and 14 by Gauteng SAPS.
356. At the time when Accused 2 and Accused 3 purported to grant Gauteng SAPS the
“approvals” to issue the orders referenced AE950316 and AE941395 they
misrepresented that they were relying on the unlawful procurement approval
granted by the BAC of the SAPS on 14 November 2016.
357. During the period between the 9th of January 2016 and the 14th of June 2018 Accused
13 and/or Accused 14 issued cash cheques in the amount of R29 315 000 00. The
cheques were presented to First National Bank (FNB) and cash withdrawn from the
account of Accused 14.
92
358. Upon or about the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 15 Accused 4 took or
purchased various items valued at R411 600.00 from a retail shop that trades under
the name and/or style Roberto Botticelli Retail CC (ROBERTO BOTTICELLI). Accused
13 and/or Accused 14 offered to pay for the items taken or purchased by Accused 4
and R411 600.00 was debited against Accused 13 and/or Accused 14. Accused 4
accepted the gratifications from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 who had offered to
settle the debt incurred by Accused 4.
359. Upon or about the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 16 Accused 5 took or
purchased various items valued at R520 000.00 from Roberto Botticelli Retail CC.
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 offered to pay for the items taken or purchased by
Accused 5 and had the R520 000.00 debited against his account or that of Accused
14. Accused 5 accepted the gratifications offered by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14
who had offered to settle the debt incurred by Accused 5.
360. Upon or about the 3rd of May 2017 Accused 7 took or purchased various items valued
at R230 800.00 from Roberto Botticelli Retail CC. Accused 13 and/or Accused 14
offered to pay for the items taken or purchased by Accused 7 and the R230 000.00
was debited against Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and Accused 7 accepted the offer
made by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
361. During the period between the 24th of June 2016 and the 30th of June 2018 Accused
10 who was a detective and attached to Gauteng SAPS presented at least eighty-five
(85) of the cash cheques issued by Accused 13 to FNB and thereby withdrew cash in
the total amount of R14 460 000.00 from the FNB account of Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14.
93
362. During the times when Accused 10 cashed the cheques issued by Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14, Accused 2-7 and Accused 9 and 10 as well as Accused 13 and 15
communicated and met each other before or after cash cheques were presented to
FNB for cash to be withdrawn by Accused 10.
363. During the period between the 1st of January 2016 and the 14th of June 2018 Accused
2-7 and Accused 9 and 10 made cash deposits into bank accounts and cash payments
to creditors. The cash purchases and/or payments were not made after cash
withdrawals from their known bank accounts or known sources and were not
disclosed in the financial disclosures.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2-7 and Accused 9 and 10 as well as 13 and Accused 14 are guilty
of the following offences:
51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 TO 7, ACCUSED 9 AND 10 AND ACCUSED 13 AND 14)
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT, AIDING, INDUCING, INCITING, INSTIGATING, INSTRUCTING ,
COMMANDING, COUNSELING OR PROCURING ANOTHER PERSON TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE
IN TERMS OF THE PREVENING AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT , 2004 (ACT
NO 12 OF 2004) IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 21 (b) AND/OR (c) READ WITH SECTIONS
1; 2; 24; 25 AND 26 OF THE SAID ACT (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF
THE CRIMINAL LAW AMNDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of January 2016 and the 30th of June 2018, and at
or near Pretoria, Sandton and Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng, Accused 2
to 7 and 9 and 10 and 13 and 14, acting with common intent in furtherance of a common
purpose wrongfully and intentionally conspired, the one with the other; and/or aided,
abetted, induced, incited, instigated, instructed, commanded, counselled or procured each
94
other or any other person to commit a crime or crimes of corruption in terms of the
Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 (Act 12 of 2004).
GENERAL OFFENCE OF CORRUPTION IN CONRAVENTION OF SECTION 3(a) READ WITH
SECTIONS 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1) (a)(ii) AND 26(3) OF PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO 12 OF 2004) READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of April 2016 and the 30th t of June 2018 and at or
near Johannesburg and Pretoria in the Regional Division of the Gauteng, Accused 2 wrongfully
and intentionally agreed to accept and/or accepted from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14
gratifications in the total amount of approximately R1 454 550, for his benefit and/or for the
benefit of any other person in order to act personally or by influencing another person so to
act in a manner proscribed in section 3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3)
to wit: in order to ensure that a contract was awarded to Accused 13 and/or 14 and/or orders
referenced AE950301, AE950316 and AE941393 were issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused
14 by Gauteng SAPS.
COUNT 334 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT 51
OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 2 ONLY)
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO CONTRACTS IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 12(1) (a)
(i) (aa), (bb) AND (ii) READ WITH SECTIONS 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) OF THE
PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT 12 OF 2004) READ
(ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
95
WHEREAS during the period between the 1st April 2016 and the 30th of June 2018, at or near
Johannesburg and Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng, Accused 2 wrongfully and
intentionally, directly or indirectly, accepted or agreed or offered to accept gratifications from
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
AND WHEREAS the gratifications were in the form of cash amounting to R1 454 550.00;
AND WHEREAS the gratifications were for the benefit of Accused 2 and/or any other person
in order to improperly influence in any way the promotion, execution or procurement of any
contract with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 or the fixing of the price, consideration or other
moneys stipulated or otherwise provided for in any such contract; or as a reward for acting in
the manner proscribed by section 12(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3)
of the Act;
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 is guilty of the offence of corrupt activities relating to contracts.
RECEIVING OF UNAUTHORISED GRATIFICATION BY A PARTY TO AN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIP IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 10(a) OF THE PREVENTION AND
COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO 12 OF 2004) read with section
51(2) THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
WHEREAS during the period between the 1st of April 2016 and the 30th of June 2018, at or
near Johannesburg and Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng, Accused 2 was in an
employment relationship with the SAPS and/or the state;
AND WHEREAS Accused 2 wrongfully and intentionally, directly or indirectly, accepted or
agreed or offered to accept from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 unauthorised gratifications
in cash amounts totalling R1 454 550.00;
96
AND WHEREAS the cash amounts were for the benefit of Accused 2 and/or any other person
in respect of Accused 2 doing any act in relation to the exercise, the carrying out or
performance of the his powers, duties or functions within the scope of his employment
relationship with the SAPS as the Divisional Commissioner in charge of SCM ;
AND WHEREAS the manner in which Accused 2 received the gratifications falls within the
ambit of the manner variously proscribed in sections 10 (a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25,
26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) of the Act;
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 is guilty of the offence of receiving unauthorised gratifications.
CONTRAVENING SECTION 4(1)(a) AND/OR 4(1)(b) READ WITH SECTIONS 1, 2, 24, 25 AND 26
OF THE PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO. 12 OF
2004) READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT
ACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997) – CORRUPT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICERS;
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of April 2016 and 30th of June 2018 , and at or near
Johannesburg and/or Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 2, being a public
officer employed by the SAPS as a Divisional Commissioner for the Division: SCM, directly or
indirectly, accepted or offered to accept, or agreed to accept unauthorised gratifications from
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 who gave and/or agreed to give and/or offered to give
unauthorised gratifications, to wit: Cash amounts totalling R1 454 550.00, for the benefit of
Accused 2 or any other persons or persons;
AND WHEREAS the manner in which Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 gave and/or agreed to
give and/or offered to give the unauthorised gratifications was: in order for Accused 2 to act
personally or by influencing another person to act in a manner which falls within the ambit of
97
the manner variously proscribed in sections 4(1)(a) and/or 4(1)(b) read with sections 1, 2, 24,
25 and 26 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 200;
AND WHEREAS Accused 2 as a public officer employed by the SAPS and a role player in the
SCM of the SAPS, acting personally or by influencing other persons, acted in violation of
Section 217 of the Constitution, the PFMA, the Public Service Act, and the SAPS Codes Conduct
and Procurement before, during and after the bid process relating to written price quotations
invited by Gauteng SAPS;
AND WHEREAS Accused 2 acting in concert with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 disregarded
the prescripts of the Constitution and the PFMA, manipulated the specifications, bid
evaluation and bid adjudication processes in order to ultimately ensure that the written price
quotation referenced 247/2016 is awarded to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
NOW THEREFORE Accused 2 is guilty of the offence of corrupt activities relating to public
officers.
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO 12 OF 2004) READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of April 2016 and the 30th of June 2018 and at or
gratifications in the total amount of approximately R1 833 500.00, for his benefit and/or for
98
the benefit of any other person in order to act personally or by influencing another person so
to act in a manner proscribed in section 3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and
26(3) to wit: in order to ensure that a contract was awarded to Accused 13 and/or 14 and/or
orders referenced AE950301, AE950316 and AE941393 were issued to Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 by Gauteng SAPS.
(ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
AND WHEREAS the gratifications were in the form of cash amounting to R1 833 500.00;
of the Act;
99
COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO 12 OF 2004) READ WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT NO
105 OF 1997)
near Johannesburg and Pretoria in the regional division of Gauteng, Accused 3 was in an
employment relationship with the SAPS;
in cash amounts totalling R1 833 500.00;
relationship with the SAPS;
26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) of the Act
100
CONTRAVENING SECTION 4(1) (a) AND/OR 4(1)(b) READ WITH SECTIONS 1, 2, 24, 25 AND
26 OF THE PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO 12
OF 2004) READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997) – CORRUPT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC
OFFICERS
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of April 2016 and the 30th of June 2018 , and at or
near Johannesburg and/or Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 3, being a
public officer employed by the SAPS, directly or indirectly, accepted or offered to accept, or
agreed to accept unauthorised gratification from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 who gave
and/or agreed to give and/or offered to give unauthorised gratifications, to wit: Cash amounts
totalling R1 833 500- 00, for the benefit of Accused 3 or any other persons or persons;
AND WHEREAS the manner in which Accused 3 accepted or agreed or offered to accept the
unauthorised gratifications;
AND the manner in which Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 gave and/or agreed to give and/or
offered to give the unauthorised gratifications was: in order to act personally or by influencing
another person to act in a manner which falls within the ambit of the manner variously
proscribed in sections 4(1)(a) and/or 4(1)(b) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25 and 26 of the
Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 200);
AND WHEREAS Accused 3 as public officer employed by the SAPS and a role player in the SCM
of the SAPS, acting personally or by influencing other persons, acted in violation of Section
101
217 of the Constitution, the PFMA, the Public Service Act, and the SAPS Codes Conduct and
Procurement before, during and after the bid process relating to written price quotations
officers.
GENERAL OFFENCE OF CORRUPTION IN CONRAVENTION OF SECTION 3(A) READ WITH
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT 2004, (ACT NO 12 OF 2004) READ WITH SECTION 51(2) OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT 105 OF 1997)
gratifications in the total amount of approximately R174 193.00, for her benefit and/or for
102
(ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
AND WHEREAS the gratifications were in the form of cash amounting to R174 193.00;
of the Act;
103
105 OF 1997)
near Johannesburg and Pretoria in the regional division of Gauteng, Accused 4 was in
in cash amounts totalling R174 193.00;
AND WHEREAS the cash amounts were for the benefit of Accused 4 any other person in
respect of Accused 4 doing any act in relation to the exercise, the carrying out or performance
of the his powers, duties or functions within the scope of his employment relationship with
the SAPS as the Divisional Commissioner in charge of SCM ;
104
26 OF THE PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, NO. 12 OF 2004,
READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT,
1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997) – CORRUPT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICERS;
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of April 2016 and the 30th of June 2018 , and at or
totalling R174 193.00, for the benefit of Accused 4 or any other persons or persons;
Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 200;
105
officers.
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT 2004, (Act NO 12 OF 2004) READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
gratifications in the total amount of approximately R126 580.00 , for her benefit and/or for
106
(ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
of the Act;
105 OF 1997)
107
AND WHEREAS the said amounts were for the benefit of Accused5 and/or any other person
performance of the her powers, duties or functions within the scope of her employment
relationship with the SAPS as the Deputy Provincial Commissioner in charge of SCM ;
CONTRAVENING SECTION 4(1) (a) AND/OR 4(1) (b) READ WITH SECTIONS 1, 2, 24, 25 AND
READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT,
1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997) – CORRUPT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICERS;
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of April 2016 and the 30th of June 2018, and at or
108
officers.
109
gratifications in the total amount of approximately R207 800.00, for his benefit and/or for the
14 by Gauteng SAPS.
(ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
110
of the Act;
105 OF 1997)
WHEREAS during the period between the 1st of April 2016 and the 30th of June 2018, and at
or near Johannesburg and Pretoria in the regional division of Gauteng, Accused 6 was in an
AND WHEREAS the cash amounts were for the benefit of the Accused any other person in
111
of the his powers, duties or functions within the scope of his employment relationship with
the SAPS as the Deputy Divisional Commissioner in charge of SCM ;
OF THE PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, NO. 12 OF 2004, READ
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT 105 OF
1977 – CORRUPT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICERS;
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of April 2016 and 30 June 2018, and at or near
Johannesburg and/or Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 6, being a public
officer employed by the SAPS, directly or indirectly, accepted or offered to accept, or agreed
to accept unauthorised gratification from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 who gave and/or
agreed to give and/or offered to give unauthorised gratifications, to wit: Cash amounts
112
officers.
near Johannesburg and Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng, Accused 7 wrongfully
gratifications in the form of cash amounts of approximately R1 548 271.79, for his benefit
113
and/or for the benefit of any other person in order to act personally or by influencing another
person so to act in a manner proscribed in section 3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25,
26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) to wit: in order to ensure that a contract was awarded to Accused 13
and/or 14 and/or orders referenced AE950301, AE950316 and AE941393 were issued to
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 by Gauteng SAPS.
(ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
AND WHEREAS the gratifications were in the form of cash amounting to R1 548 271-79;
of the Act;
114
105 OF 1997)
near Johannesburg and Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng, Accused 7 was in an
employment relationship with the SAPS as its Acting National Commissioner;
in cash amounts totalling R1 548 271-79;
relationship with the SAPS as the Acting National Commissioner of the SAPS and its accounting
officer;
115
OF THE PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004(ACT NO. 12 OF
2004) READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT
ACT 105 OF 1977 – CORRUPT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICERS.
totalling R1 548 271-79, for the benefit of Accused 7 or any other persons or persons;
offered to give the unauthorised gratifications was in order to act personally or by influencing
proscribed in sections 4(1) (a) and/or 4(1)(b) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25 and 26 of the
116
officers.
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT 2004, (ACT NO 12 OF 2004) READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
IN THAT upon or about the 27th day of October 2016 at or near Sandton in the Regional
Division Gauteng, Accused 7 wrongfully and intentionally agreed to accept and/or accepted
from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 gratification in the form of clothes valued at R27 500.00
purchased from Surtee Esquire (Pty) Ltd trading as Grays Clothing Store and paid for by
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14, for his benefit and/or for the benefit of any other person in
order to act personally or by influencing another person so to act in a manner proscribed in
section 3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) to wit: in order to ensure
that the SAPS awarded a contract for the supply and fitment of emergency warning
equipment to Gauteng to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
1ST ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT 358 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ACT, 1977 (ACT 51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 7 ONLY)
117
(ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
WHEREAS upon or about the 27th day of October 2016, and at or near Sandton in the Regional
Division of Gauteng, Accused 7 wrongfully and intentionally, directly or indirectly, accepted
or agreed or offered to accept gratification in the form of payment for clothes purchased by
Accused 7 from Surtee Esquire (Pty) Ltd trading as Grays Clothing Store from Accused 13
and/or Accused 14;
AND WHEREAS the gratification was for the benefit of Accused 7 and/or any other person in
order to improperly influence in any way the promotion, execution or procurement of any
of the Act;
2ND ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT 358 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
105 OF 1997)
118
WHEREAS upon or about the 27th day of October 2016, and at or near Sandton in the Regional
Division of Gauteng, Accused 7 was in an employment relationship with the SAPS as its Acting
National Commissioner;
agreed or offered to accept from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 unauthorised gratification in
the form of payment or settlement of a bill incurred by Accused 7 at Surtee Esquire (Pty) Ltd
trading as Grays Clothing Store where Accused 7 purchased clothes valued at R27 500.00;
AND WHEREAS the payment or settlement of the clothing bill incurred by Accused 7 was for
the benefit of Accused 7 or any other person or persons in respect of Accused 7 doing any act
in relation to the exercise, the carrying out or performance of the his powers, duties or
functions within the scope of his employment relationship with the SAPS as the Acting
National Commissioner of the SAPS and its accounting officer;
AND WHEREAS the manner in which Accused 7 received the gratification falls within the
NOW THEREFORE Accused 7 is guilty of the offence of receiving unauthorised gratification.
3RD ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT 358 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
26 OF THE PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO. 12
OF 2004) READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW
AMENDMENT ACT 105, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997) – CORRUPT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO
PUBLIC OFFICERS.
119
IN THAT upon or about the 27th day of October 2016 , and at or near Sandton in the Regional
Division of Gauteng Accused 7, being a public officer employed by the SAPS, directly or
indirectly, accepted or offered to accept, or agreed to accept unauthorised gratification from
unauthorised gratifications, to wit: Payment for clothes purchased by Accused 7 from Surtee
Esquire (Pty) Ltd trading as Grays Clothing Store;
unauthorised gratification;
offered to give the unauthorised gratification was in order to act personally or by influencing
another person or other persons to act in a manner which falls within the ambit of the manner
variously proscribed in sections 4(1)(a) and/or 4(1)(b) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25 and 26
of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 2004);
AND WHEREAS Accused 7 as public officer employed by the SAPS and the accounting officer
of the SAPS and therefore a role player in the SCM of the SAPS, acting personally or by
influencing another person or other persons, acted in violation of Section 217 of the
Constitution, the PFMA, the Public Service Act, and the SAPS Codes of Conduct and
Procurement before, during and after the bid process relating to written price quotation
referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) invited by Gauteng SAPS;
AND WHEREAS Accused 7 acting in concert with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or other
members of the SAPS disregarded the prescripts of the Constitution and the PFMA,
manipulated the specifications, bid evaluation and bid adjudication processes in order to
120
ultimately ensure that the written price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1 /247 (2016/2017) was
awarded to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
officers.
FRAUD
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of April and the 30th of June 2017and at or near
Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 7 did unlawfully, falsely and with intent
to defraud, falsely and to the prejudice, either real or potential of the South African Police
Service and/or the DPSA and/or the public fail to disclose to the SAPS and/or the DPSA, in
circumstances where there was a duty to disclose, that Accused 7 had received a benefit from
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 in the form of payment for clothes valued at R27 500.00
purchased from Surtee Esquire (Pty) Ltd trading as Grays Clothing Store.
51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 13 AND 14 ONLY)
GENERAL OFFENCE OF CORRUPTION IN CONRAVENTION OF SECTION 3(b) READ WITH
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT 2004, (Act NO 12 OF 2004)
IN THAT upon or about the 27th day of October 2016 and at or near Sandton in the Regional
Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14 wrongfully and intentionally gave or agreed to give or
offered to give a gratification to Accused 7 for the benefit of Accused 7 or any other person
or persons nominated by Accused 7 gratification in the form of payment of an amount of
121
R27 500.00 for the purchase of clothes from Surtee Esquire (Pty) Ltd trading as Grays Clothing
Store in order to act personally or by influencing another person or other persons so to act in
a manner proscribed in section 3(b) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) to
wit: in order to ensure that the SAPS awarded a contract for the supply and fitment of
emergency warning equipment to Gauteng to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
ALTERNATIVE TO COUNT 360 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF ACT 51 OF 1977 IN RESPECT OF
ACUSSED 13 AND ACCUSED 14 ONLY)
2004)
Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 2004)
IN THAT upon or about the 27th of October 2016 and at or near Sandton, in the Regional
Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14 wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally offered and/or
gave Accused 7 gratification in the form of payment for clothes purchased by Accused 7 from
Surtee Esquire (Pty) Ltd trading as Grays Clothing Store, Accused 7 being a party to
employment relationship with the SAPS for the benefit of Accused 7 and/or any other person
or persons nominated by Accused 7 in order to act personally or by influencing another
person or other persons so to act, in a manner proscribed in section 3(a) read with sections
1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3);
TO WIT: in order to ensure that Accused 2-7 and Accused 9 and 15 disregarded the prescripts
of the Constitution and the PFMA, manipulated the specifications, bid evaluation and bid
122
adjudication processes in order to ultimately ensure that the written price quotation
referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) is awarded to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
GENERAL OFFENCE OF CORRUPTION IN CONRAVENTION OF SECTION 3(A) READ WITH
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT 2004, (Act NO 12 OF 2004) (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
near Johannesburg in the Regional Division of the Gauteng, Accused 10 wrongfully and
intentionally agreed to accept and/or accepted from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14
gratifications in the total amount of approximately R744 300.00, for his benefit and/or for the
to wit: as a reward for presenting cash cheques that were issued by Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 against the FNB account of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or serve as a
middle man in the relationships between Accused 13 and the other members of the SAPS.
COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO 12 OF 2004) (READ WITH THE
123
105 OF 1997)
relationship with the SAPS;
OF THE PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO. 12 OF
2004 (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT
ACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997) – CORRUPT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICERS;
124
agreed to accept unauthorised gratifications from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 who gave
AND WHEREAS Accused 10 as public officer employed by the SAPS and a role player in the
SAPS, acting personally or by influencing other persons, acted in violation of Section 217 of
the Constitution, the PFMA, the Public Service Act, and the SAPS Codes Conduct and
AND WHEREAS Accused 10 acting in concert with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 presented
cash cheques to FNB on behalf of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and got cash in order to
ultimately ensure that the cash is made available to other persons who were involved in the
unlawful award of a contract to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and the issuing of orders and
payments of various amounts to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
officers.
125
COUNT 364 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF ACT 51 OF 1977IN RESPECT OF ACUSSED 13 AND
ACCUSED 14 ONLY)
2004) (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT
ACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
THAT Accused13 and 14 are guilty of contravening the provision of section 10(b) read with
Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 2004)
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of April 2016 and 30th of June 2018 and at or near
Johannesburg and Pretoria, in the Regional Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14 wrongfully,
unlawfully and intentionally offered and/or gave Accused 10 the cash amounts mentioned in
counts 361 to 363, the said Accused being party to employment relationship with the SAPS,
gratifications in the form of cash in the amount mentioned in counts 361 to 363 for the benefit
of Accused 10 and/or for the benefit of any other person or persons, in order to act personally
or by influencing another person or other persons so to act, in a manner proscribed in section
3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3);
TO WIT: in order to ensure that Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 benefitted from corrupt
relationships with members of the SAPS involved in SCM processes.
COUNTS 365 TO 367 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AC, 1977
126
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT 2004, (ACT NO 12 OF 2004) (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
Sandton in the Regional Division of the Gauteng, Accused 4 wrongfully and intentionally
agreed to accept and/or accepted from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 gratifications in the
payments for goods taken by Accused 4 from Roberto Botticelli, for her benefit and/or for the
14 by Gauteng SAPS.
1ST ALTERNATIVES TO COUNTS 365 TO 367 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE ACT, 1977 (ACT 51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 4 ONLY)
PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT 12 OF 2004) (READ
(ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
WHEREAS upon or about the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 15 and at or near
Sandton in the Regional Division of Gauteng, Accused 4 wrongfully and intentionally, directly
or indirectly, accepted or agreed or offered to accept gratifications from Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14;
AND WHEREAS the gratifications were in the form of payments of the amounts mentioned in
column C of Schedule 15 to Roberto Botticelli for items taken by Accused 4;
127
or persons in order to improperly influence in any way the promotion, execution or
procurement of any contract with Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 or the fixing of the price,
consideration or other moneys stipulated or otherwise provided for in any such contract; or
as a reward for acting in the manner proscribed by section 12(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24,
25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) of the Act;
2ND ALTERNATIVES TO COUNT 365 TO 367 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL
COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT NO 12 OF 2004)
Johannesburg in the regional division of Gauteng, Accused 4 was in an employment
relationship with the SAPS as the Provincial Commissioner of the SAPS in Gauteng;
in the form of payments of the amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule 16 to Roberto
Botticcelli for items taken by Accused 4;
AND WHEREAS the payments were for the benefit of Accused 4 and/or any other person in
of the her powers, duties or functions within the scope of her employment relationship with
the SAPS as the Provincial Commissioner in Gauteng;
128
3RD ALTERNATIVES TO COUNT 365 TO 367 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL
READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT
105 OF 1977 – CORRUPT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICERS;
IN THAT upon or about the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 15, and at or near
Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 4, being a public officer employed
by the SAPS, directly or indirectly, accepted or offered to accept, or agreed to accept
unauthorised gratifications from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 who gave and/or agreed to
give and/or offered to give unauthorised gratifications, to wit: payments for items taken by
Accused 4 from Roberto Botticelli, for the benefit of Accused 4 or any other persons or
persons;
129
SCM processes of the SAPS, acting personally or by influencing other persons, acted in
violation of Section 217 of the Constitution, the PFMA, the Public Service Act, and the SAPS
Codes Conduct and Procurement before, during and after the bid process relating to written
price quotations invited by Gauteng SAPS and issuing of purchase orders to Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14;
AND WHEREAS Accused 4 and other members of the SAPS acting in concert with Accused 13
and/or Accused 14 disregarded the prescripts of the Constitution and the PFMA, manipulated
the specifications and/or caused the specifications to be manipulated, bid evaluation and bid
referenced 19/1/9/1/247(2016/2017) is awarded to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or
purchase orders are issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
officers.
SCHEDULE 15
A: COUNT B: DATE C: VALUE OF GOODS TAKEN
365 23-08-2017 R113 400.00
366 22-11-2017 R72 200.00
367 05-12-2017 R226 000.00
TOTAL AMOUNT INVOLVED=R411 600.00
130
FRAUD
IN THAT during the period the 1st of April 2017 and the 30th of June 2018 at or near Pretoria
and Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 14 did unlawfully, falsely and
with intent to defraud, falsely and to the prejudice, either real or potential of the South
African Police Service and/or the DPSA and/or the public fail to disclose to the DPSA, in
circumstances where there was a duty to disclose, that Accused 4 had received gifts in the
form of payments totalling R411 600.00 made to Roberto Botticelli by Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 for various items purchased and/or taken by Accused 4 from Roberto Botticelli.
Sandton in the Regional Division of the Gauteng, Accused 5 wrongfully and intentionally
agreed to accept and/or accepted from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 gratifications in the
payments for goods taken by Accused 5 from Roberto Botticelli, for her benefit and/or for the
131
14 by Gauteng SAPS.
1ST ALTERNATIVE TO COUNTS 369 TO 371 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL
PREVENTION AND COMBATING OF CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT, 2004 (ACT 12 OF 2004)
Sandton in the Regional Division of Gauteng, Accused 5 wrongfully and intentionally, directly
or indirectly, accepted or agreed or offered to accept gratifications from Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14;
AND WHEREAS the gratifications were in the form of payments of the amounts mentioned in
column C of Schedule 16 to Roberto Botticelli for items taken by Accused 5;
25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) of the Act;
2ND ALTERNATIVE TO COUNTS 369 TO 371 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL
132
Johannesburg in the regional division of Gauteng, Accused 5 was in an employment
relationship with the SAPS as the Provincial Commissioner of the SAPS in Gauteng;
in the form of payments of the amounts mentioned in column C of Schedule 16 to Roberto
Botticcelli for items taken by Accused 5;
AND WHEREAS the payments were for the benefit of Accused 5 and/or any other person in
the SAPS as the Deputy Provincial Commissioner in Gauteng;
3RD ALTERNATIVE TO COUNTS 369 T0 371 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL
105 OF 1977 – CORRUPT ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PUBLIC OFFICERS.
133
IN THAT upon or about the dates mentioned in column B of Schedule 16, and at or near
Johannesburg in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 5, being a public officer employed
by the SAPS, directly or indirectly, accepted or offered to accept, or agreed to accept
give and/or offered to give unauthorised gratifications, to wit: payments for items taken by
Accused 5 from Roberto Botticelli, for the benefit of Accused 4 or any other persons or
persons;
SCM processes of the SAPS, acting personally or by influencing other persons, acted in
violation of Section 217 of the Constitution, the PFMA, the Public Service Act, and the SAPS
Codes Conduct and Procurement before, during and after the bid process relating to written
price quotations invited by Gauteng SAPS and issuing of purchase orders to Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14;
134
officers.
SCHEDULE 16
A: COUNT B: DATE C: VALUE OF GOODS TAKEN
369 23-08-2017 R93 200.00
370 22-11-2017 R165 400.00
371 05-12-2017 R261 600.00
TOTAL AMOUNT INVOLVED=R520 200.00
circumstances where there was a duty to disclose, that Accused 5 had received gifts in the
form of payments totalling R520 000.00 made to Roberto Botticelli by Accused 13 and/or
135
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT 2004, (ACT NO 12 OF 2004)
IN THAT upon or about the 3rd of May 2017 and at or near Sandton in the Regional Division
of the Gauteng, Accused 7 wrongfully and intentionally agreed to accept and/or accepted
from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 gratification in the form of payment of an amount of
R230 800.00 for goods taken by Accused 7 from Roberto Botticelli, for her benefit and/or for
WHEREAS upon or about the 3rd of May 2017 and at or near Sandton in the Regional Division
of Gauteng, Accused 7 wrongfully and intentionally, directly or indirectly, accepted or agreed
or offered to accept gratification from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
AND WHEREAS the gratification was in the form of payment of the amount 0f R230 800.00 to
Roberto Botticelli for items taken by Accused 7;
136
25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) of the Act;
WHEREAS upon or about the 3rd day of May 2017 and at or near Johannesburg in the Regional
Division of Gauteng, Accused 7 was in an employment relationship with the SAPS as the
National Commissioner of the SAPS;
in the form of payment of the amount of R230 800.00 to Roberto Botticcelli for items taken
by Accused 7;
AND WHEREAS the payment was for the benefit of Accused 7 and/or any other person in
the SAPS as the Deputy Provincial Commissioner in Gauteng;
137
IN THAT upon or about the 3rd day of May 2017, and at or near Johannesburg in the Regional
Division of Gauteng Accused 7, being a public officer employed by the SAPS, directly or
indirectly, accepted or offered to accept, or agreed to accept unauthorised gratifications from
unauthorised gratifications, to wit: payment for items taken by Accused 7 from Roberto
Botticelli, for the benefit of Accused 7 or any other persons or persons;
138
AND WHEREAS Accused 7 as a public officer employed by the SAPS as the Acting National of
the SAPS and a role player in the SCM processes of the SAPS, acting personally or by
influencing other persons, acted in violation of Section 217 of the Constitution, the PFMA, the
Public Service Act, and the SAPS Codes Conduct and Procurement before, during and after
the bid process relating to written price quotations invited by Gauteng SAPS and issuing of
purchase orders to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
officers.
FRAUD
circumstances where there was a duty to disclose, that Accused 7 had received a gift in the
139
form of payment totalling R230 800.00 made to Roberto Botticelli by Accused 13 and/or
(ACT NO 51 OF 1977) IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED 13 AND 14 ONLY)
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES ACT 2004, (ACT NO 12 OF 2004) (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMEND MENT ACT, 1997 (ACT NO 105 OF 1997)
Sandton in the Regional Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14 wrongfully and intentionally
gave or agreed to give or offered to give a gratifications to Accused 4; 5 and 7 for the benefit
of Accused 4; 5 and 7 or any other person or persons nominated by Accused 4; 5 and 7
gratifications in the form of payments for the purchases made by Accused 4; 5 and 7 from
Roberto Botticelli in order to act personally or by influencing another person or other persons
so to act in a manner proscribed in section 3(b) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and
26(3) to wit: in order to ensure that the SAPS awarded a contract for the supply and fitment
of emergency warning equipment to Gauteng to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or that
purchase orders were issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
ALTERNATIVES TO COUNTS 375 TO 381 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF ACT 51 OF 1977 IN
RESPECT OF ACUSSED 13 AND ACCUSED 14 ONLY)
2004) (OFFERING UNAUTHORISED GRATIFICATION) (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
140
Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 2004)
Sandton, in the Regional Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14 wrongfully, unlawfully and
intentionally offered and/or gave Accused4; 5 and 7 gratifications in the form of payments for
items purchased or taken by Accused 4; 5 and 7 from Roberto Botticelli, Accused 4; 5 and 7
being a parties to employment relationships with the SAPS for the benefit of Accused 4; 5 and
7 and/or any other person or persons nominated by Accused 4; 5 and 7 in order to act
personally or by influencing another person or other persons so to act, in a manner
proscribed in section 3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3);
TO WIT: in order to ensure that Accused 2-7 and Accused 9 and 10 as well as Accused 15
disregarded the prescripts of the Constitution and the PFMA, manipulated the specifications,
bid evaluation and bid adjudication processes in order to ultimately ensure that the written
price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) is awarded to Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14.
SCHEDULE 18
375 03-05-2017 R230 800.00
376 23-08-2017 R113 400.00
377 23-08-2017 R93 200.00
378 21-11-2017 R165 400.00
379 21-11-2017 R73 200.00
141
380 05-12-2017 R261 600
381 05-12-2017 R226 000.00
TOTAL AMOUNT = R1 163 600.00
K: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNT 382
WHEREAS at all times material to count 357:
364. On the 2nd of November 2016 Accused 2 appointed Accused 9 as the chairperson of
the BEC for the written price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2017/2017).
365. On the 9th of November 2016 the BEC sat and evaluated the written price quotations
or bids submitted by invited suppliers.
366. On the 10th of November 2016 one Vumazonke who was the secretary of the BEC
compiled a memorandum which was submitted to the BAC.
367. Accused 3 and Accused 9 supported and recommended the of appointment Accused
13 and/or Accused 14 to supply emergency warning equipment as per the
memorandum compiled by Vumazonke at their request.
368. The submission of the BEC compiled by Vumazonke, supported and recommended
by Accused 3 and Accused 9 was not a true reflection of what happened during the
bid evaluation meeting as it indicated that Captain Muthelo attended the meeting of
the BEC whereas in fact and in truth Captain Muthelo was on sick leave on the 9th of
November 2016 and did not attend the meeting of the BEC.
369. The contents of the submission compiled by Vumazonke also omitted to mention
that 50% of the suppliers who were invited to submit written price quotations had
submitted written objections alleging that the specifications were designed to favour
one supplier.
142
370. The BAC approved the appointment of Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 as
recommended by Accused 3 and Accused 9.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 3 and 9 are guilty of the crime of fraud.
FRAUD (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 103 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT,
1977 (ACT NO 51 OF 1977) AND FURTHER READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2)
OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT 105 OF 1997)
IN THAT upon or about the 10th day of November 2016 and at or near Pretoria in the Regional
Division of Gauteng Accused 3 and Accused 9, acting in concert with each other and with other
members of BEC in furtherance of a common purpose, did unlawfully, falsely and with the
intent to defraud give out and misrepresent to the SAPS and/or the National Treasury and/or
the public that:
371. The BEC which sat and evaluated the bids submitted by invited suppliers for written
price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) was constituted in terms of
the prescripts of the PFMA and/or;
372. All the persons who were said to have been in attendance at the BEC sitting were in
fact and in truth in attendance and/or;
373. The contents of the submission compiled by Vumazonke were in all material respects
truthful and a true reflection of what happened in the sitting of the BEC and/or;
374. Captain Muthelo attended the sitting of the BEC in his capacity as a member of the
BEC and/or;
375. Captain Muthelo participated in the proceedings of the of the BEC as indicated in
the submission by Vumazonke and/or;
143
376. None of the suppliers invited to submit written price quotations objected to the
specifications and it was not necessary to request that the specifications for the
written price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) be reviewed and
emended so that fresh, more competitive bids could be invited,
AND did there and then and by means of the said false pretences induce SAPS and to the
prejudice and/or potential prejudice of the SAPS and/or the National Treasury and/or the
public to:
377. Accept that the contents of the submission were reflective of what happened in the
sitting of the BEC and/or
378. Accept that the BEC was composed of the persons mentioned in the submission
made to the BAC;
379. Accept that there was no supplier who raised any objections against the
specifications and there was no need to review or amend the specifications with a
view of inviting fresh and more competitive bids;
WHEREAS when Accused 3 and 9 and the other members of the BEC misrepresented as
aforesaid they well knew that in truth and in fact:
380. The BEC which sat and evaluated the bids submitted by invited suppliers for written
price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) was not constituted in terms
of the prescripts of the PFMA and/or;
381. Not all the persons who were said to have been in attendance at the BEC sitting were
in fact and in truth in attendance and/or;
382. The contents of the submission compiled by Vumazonke were not in all material
respects truthful nor a true reflection of what happened in the sitting of the BEC
and/or;
144
383. Captain Muthelo did not attend the sitting of the BEC because he was off duty on the
day of the sitting of the BEC and/or;
384. Captain Muthelo never participated in the proceedings of the of the BEC as indicated
in the submission by Vumazonke and/or;
385. Some of the suppliers invited to submit written price quotations objected to the
specifications and it was necessary to request that the specifications for the written
price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) be reviewed and emended so
that fresh, more competitive bids could be invited.
L: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNT 383
WHEREAS at all times material to count 383
386. Upon or about the 21st day of October 2016 Accused 3 went to the premises of an
entity named Thru Rainbow and had a meeting with Manuel Pinto and Treloka
Naidoo who were employed by or associated with Thru Rainbow.
387. Accused 3 confronted Manuel Pinto and Treloka Naidoo about a letter of objections
against the specifications for written price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247
(2016/2017) sent to Gauteng SAPS by Manuel Pinto and/or Thru Rainbow.
388. Accused 3 Accused Manuel Pinto and/or Thru Rainbow of colluding with other
entities that were invited by Gauteng SAPS to submit written price quotations to
submit letters of objections to the specifications for the said written price quotation.
389. Accused 3 made a threat to the effect that that if he were to establish that Thru
Rainbow had colluded with the other entities and took a joint decision to write letters
of objections, Thru Rainbow would never again get any contract with the SAPS and/or
the state and demanded that Thru rainbow should send communication withdrawing
the letter of objections.
145
390. The threats made by Accused 3 induced Treloka Naidoo and/or Manuel Pinto and/or
Thru Rainbow to accede to the demand of Accused 3 that communication be sent to
Gauteng SAPS withdrawing the letter of objection sent by Manuel Pinto to Gauteng
SAPS.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 3 is guilty of the crime of extortion.
EXTORTION (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW
IN THAT upon or about 21st day of October 2016 and at or near Johannesburg in the Regional
Division of Gauteng, Accused 3 did wrongfully and intentionally inspire fear in the mind of
Manuel Pinto and/or Treloka Naidoo by making a threat to the effect that Accused 3 and/or
any other person in the SCM of the SAPS would ensure that Thru Rainbow did not get any
contracts with the South African Police Service and/or would be blacklisted and/or barred
from ever getting any contract with the SAPS and/or the state if Manuel Pinto and/or Thru
Rainbow and/or Treloka Naidoo did not formally withdraw the written objections raised by
Pinto in the letter of objections sent to Gauteng SAPS by Manuel Pinto in his capacity as an
employee of Thru Rainbow against the specifications for the written price quotation
referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) and thereby Accused 3 did wrongfully and
intentionally extort and obtain from the said Manuel Pinto and/or Thru Rainbow a statement
wherein the objections were withdrawn and/or an undertaking that Manuel Pinto would
withdraw the letter of objections wherein he raised objections against the specifications for
written price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) which undertaking was
146
fulfilled in that Manuel Pinto did send communication to Gauteng SAPS withdrawing the said
objections and thus Accused 3 is guilty of the crime of EXTORTION.
M: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNTS 384 TO
391. Upon or about the 29th day of March 2017 Accused 15 approached an entity called
Mutual Austin Safes (AUSTEN SAFES) with a view of having a safe installed at her
place of residence.
392. Austen Safes sent an employee to the residence of Accused 15 to do a site inspection
in order to prepare a quote for the installation of a safe.
393. The employee of Austen Safes did as requested by Accused 15. After doing the
measurements for the installation of a safe at Accused 15’s place of residence a
quote was prepared and sent to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 who had accepted or
offered to pay for the installation of the safe. Accused 15 accepted or offered to
accept the gratification in the form of payment for the installation of the safe at her
place of residence.
394. Accused 15 was a member of the SAPS and was the Divisional Commissioner for
Human Resources.
395. Accused 15 had colluded with Accused 2; 7; 13 and 14 to have Boonzaaier transferred
to Division: SCM. Boonzaaier was later deployed to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 to
help in the compilation of specifications which were meant to favour Accused 13
and/or Accused 14 in the written price quotations referenced 19/1/9/1/247
(2016/2017).
NOW THEREFORE Accused 13 to 15 are guilty of the crime or crimes of corruption.
147
IN THAT upon or about the 29th of May 2017 and at or near Pretoria in the Regional Division
of the Gauteng, Accused 15 wrongfully and intentionally agreed to accept and/or accepted
from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 gratification in the form of payment for the installation
of a safe at her place of residence by Austen Safes for her benefit and/or for the benefit of
any other person in order to act personally or by influencing another person so to act in a
manner proscribed in section 3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) to wit:
as a reward for the role played by Accused 15 in the manipulation of the specifications for a
written price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) in order to ensure that a
contract was awarded to Accused 13 and/or 14 and/or orders referenced AE950301,
AE950316 and AE941393 were issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 by Gauteng SAPS.
WHEREAS upon or about the 29th of May 2017 and at or near Pretoria in the Regional Division
of Gauteng, Accused 15 wrongfully and intentionally, directly or indirectly, accepted or agreed
or offered to accept gratification from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
148
AND WHEREAS the gratification was in the form of payment for the installation of a safe at
her place of residence;
AND WHEREAS the gratification was for the benefit of Accused 15 and/or any other person
25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) of the Act;
WHEREAS upon or about the 29th day of March 2017 and at or near Pretoria in the Regional
Division of Gauteng, Accused 15 was in an employment relationship with the SAPS as the
Divisional Commissioner within the SAPS;
the form of payment for the installation of a safe at her place of residence;
respect of Accused 15 doing any act in relation to the exercise, the carrying out or
relationship with the SAPS as a Divisional Commissioner within the SAPS;
149
AND WHEREAS the manner in which Accused 15 offered to receive the gratification falls
within the ambit of the manner variously proscribed in sections 10 (a) read with sections 1,
2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) of the Act
IN THAT upon or about the 29th day of March 2017, and at or near Pretoria in the Regional
Division of Gauteng Accused 15, being a public officer employed by the SAPS with the rank of
Lieutenant General, directly or indirectly, accepted or offered to accept, or agreed to accept
give and/or offered to give unauthorised gratifications, to wit: payment for the installation of
a safe at her place of residence, for the benefit of Accused 15 or any other persons or persons;
offered to give the unauthorised gratifications was: in order for Accused 15 to act personally
or by influencing another person to act in a manner which falls within the ambit of the manner
of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 200;
AND WHEREAS Accused 15 as a public officer employed by the SAPS as the Deputy National
Commissioner of the SAPS and a role player in the SCM processes of the SAPS, acting
150
personally or by influencing other persons, acted in violation of Section 217 of the
Constitution, the PFMA, the Public Service Act, and the SAPS Codes Conduct and Procurement
before, during and after the bid process relating to written price quotations invited by
Gauteng SAPS and issuing of purchase orders to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
AND WHEREAS Accused 15 and other members of the SAPS acting in concert with Accused
13 and/or Accused 14 disregarded the prescripts of the Constitution and the PFMA,
manipulated the specifications and/or caused the specifications to be manipulated, bid
quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247(2016/2017) is awarded to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14
and/or purchase orders are issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
officers.
COUNTS 385 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AC, 1977 (ACT NO
IN THAT upon or about the 29th day of March 2017 and at or near Sandton or Pretoria in the
Regional Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14 wrongfully and intentionally gave or agreed to
give or offered to give a gratifications to Accused 15 for the benefit of Accused 15 or any other
person or persons nominated by Accused 15; a gratifications in the form of payment for the
installation of a safe by Austen Safes at the place of residence of Accused 15 in order for
Accused 15 to act personally or by influencing another person or other persons so to act in a
151
manner proscribed in section 3(b) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) to wit:
in order to ensure that the SAPS awarded a contract for the supply and fitment of emergency
warning equipment to Gauteng to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or that purchase orders
were issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
1ST ALTERNATIVE TO COUNTS 385 (IN TERMS OF SECTION 156 OF ACT 51 OF 1977 IN RESPECT
OF ACUSSED 13 AND ACCUSED 14 ONLY)
Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 2004)
IN THAT upon or about the 29th day of March 2017 and at or near Sandton or Pretoria, in the
Regional Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14 wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally
offered and/or gave Accused 15 gratification in the form of payment for the installation of a
safe by Austen Safes at the place of residence of Accused 15 and Accused 15 being a party to
employment relationships with the SAPS; for the benefit of Accused 15 and/or any other
person or persons nominated by Accused 15 in order to act personally or by influencing
another person or other persons so to act, in a manner proscribed in section 3(a) read with
sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3);
TO WIT: as a reward for the role played by Accused 15 in ensuring Accused 13 and/or Accused
14 was or were awarded a contract by the SAPS in a manner that disregarded the prescripts
of the Constitution and the PFMA, was characterised by the manipulation of the
152
specifications, bid evaluation and bid adjudication processes in order to ultimately ensure
that the written price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) was awarded to
N: SPECIFIC PREAMBLE TO COUNTS 385 TO
396. During the period between the 1st of June 2016 and the 31st of May 2017 Accused 13
approached an entity called Legacy Auto (Pty) Ltd (which traded under the name and
style Zambesi Auto) (Zambesi Auto) initiated negotiations for a motor vehicle to be
made available to Accused 15 a courtesy loan vehicle.
397. Zambesi Auto acceded to the request of Accused 13 and made a Carbon Black
BMW540D Sport with VIN WBKAKS620200C99865 and engine number 30598838
(BMW X5) available to Accused 15 as a courtesy loan vehicle as requested by Accused
13.
398. Zambesi Auto had acquired the BMW X5 for an amount of R1 217 932.92 from an
entity called Ad All CC and after fulfilling its contractual obligations Zambesi Auto
registered the BMW X5 under its name and put it on display at its showroom.
399. Accused 15 took possession of the BMW X5 and enjoyed the use and possession of
the BMW X5 without having to pay anything to Zambezi Auto.
400. At a later stage Accused 13 approached Zambezi Auto and initiated negotiating for
Accused 15 to purchase the BMW X5.
401. At the time Accused 15 could not pay cash for the motor vehicle. She also did not
qualify for finance to purchase the BMW X5.
153
402. Accused 13 undertook to make a payment of an amount of not less than R440 000.00
to Zambesi Auto on behalf of Accused 15 and for her benefit for the BMW X5.
403. After discussions between Accused 13 and Accused 15 and Zambezi Auto Accused 15
was granted a discount of R249 631-58 (VAT excluded) calculated as R284 580.00
(VAT included) on the price of the motor vehicle.
404. Ultimately Accused 15 acquired a loan in the amount of R255 990.00 (VAT included)
and purchased the BMWX5.
405. Accused 15 was a role player in the process of manipulating the specifications which
resulted in the award of a contract to fit emergency warning equipment to Gauteng
SAPS motor vehicles to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
NOW THEREFORE Accused 13 to 15 are guilty of the crime of the following crimes.
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of February 2016 and 51 May 2017 and at or near
Pretoria in the Regional Division of the Gauteng, Accused 15 wrongfully and intentionally
agreed to accept and/or accepted from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and Zambesi Auto
gratification in the form of a courtesy loan vehicle arranged by Accused 13 for her benefit
and/or for the benefit of any other person in order to act personally or by influencing another
person so to act in a manner proscribed in section 3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25,
26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) to wit: as a reward for the role played by Accused 15 in the manipulation
of the specifications for a written price quotation referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) in
154
order to ensure that a contract was awarded to Accused 13 and/or 14 and/or orders
14 by Gauteng SAPS.
WHEREAS during the period between the 1st of February 2016 and the 31st of May 2017 and
at or near Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng, Accused 15 wrongfully and
intentionally, directly or indirectly, accepted or agreed or offered to accept gratification from
AND WHEREAS the gratification was in the form of a courtesy loan vehicle arranged and/or
negotiated for by Accused 13 who was a supplier to the SAPS;
25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) of the Act;
155
at or near Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng, Accused 15 was in an employment
relationship with the SAPS as the Divisional Commissioner within the SAPS;
the form of a courtesy loan vehicle from Zambesi Auto, arranged and/or negotiated for by
Accused 13;
AND WHEREAS the courtesy loan vehicle was for the benefit of Accused 15 and/or any other
person in respect of Accused 15 doing any act in relation to the exercise, the carrying out or
2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) of the Act
156
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of February 2016 and the 31st of May 2017, and at
or near Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 15, being a public officer
employed by the SAPS with the rank of Lieutenant General, directly or indirectly, accepted or
offered to accept, or agreed to accept unauthorised gratifications from Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 and/or Zambesi Auto who gave and/or agreed to give and/or offered to give
unauthorised gratifications, to wit: a courtesy loan vehicle arranged and/or negotiated for by
Accused 13, for the benefit of Accused 15 or any other persons or persons;
AND WHEREAS Accused 15 as a public officer employed by the SAPS as a Divisional
Commissioner within the SAPS and a role player in the manipulation of the specifications
which resulted in the award of a contract to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14, acting personally
or by influencing other persons, acted in violation of Section 217 of the Constitution, the
PFMA, the Public Service Act, and the SAPS Codes Conduct and Procurement before, during
157
and after the bid process relating to written price quotations invited by Gauteng SAPS and
issuing of purchase orders to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
officers.
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of February 2016 and 51 May 2017 and at or near
Pretoria in the Regional Division of the Gauteng, Accused 15 wrongfully and intentionally
agreed to accept and/or accepted from Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and Zambesi Auto
gratification in the form of payment of an amount of not less than R440 000.00 by Accused
13 and/or Accused 14 for her benefit and/or for the benefit of any other person in order to
act personally or by influencing another person so to act in a manner proscribed in section
3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) to wit: as a reward for the role played
by Accused 15 in the manipulation of the specifications for a written price quotation
referenced 19/1/9/1/247 (2016/2017) in order to ensure that a contract was awarded to
158
Accused 13 and/or 14 and/or orders referenced AE950301, AE950316 and AE941393 were
issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 by Gauteng SAPS.
at or near Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng, Accused 15 wrongfully and
intentionally, directly or indirectly, accepted or agreed or offered to accept gratification from
AND WHEREAS the gratification was in the form of payment of an amount of not less than
R440 000.00 as assistance or a gift towards the purchase of the BMW X5 described above by
Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 who was a supplier to the SAPS;
25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) of the Act;
159
at or near Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng, Accused 15 was in an employment
relationship with the SAPS as the Divisional Commissioner within the SAPS;
the form of payment of an amount of not less than R440 000.00 by Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 as assistance or and/or a gift towards the purchase of the BMW X5 described
above;
respect of Accused 15 doing any act in relation to the exercise, the carrying out or
2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) of the Act
160
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of February 2016 and the 31st of May 2017, and at
or near Pretoria in the Regional Division of Gauteng Accused 15, being a public officer
employed by the SAPS with the rank of Lieutenant General, directly or indirectly, accepted or
offered to accept, or agreed to accept unauthorised gratifications from Accused 13 and/or
Accused 14 and/or Zambesi Auto who gave and/or agreed to give and/or offered to give
unauthorised gratifications, to wit: a payment of an amount of not less than R440 000.00 as
assistance and/or a gift towards the purchase of the BMW X5 described above, for the benefit
of Accused 15 or any other persons or persons;
AND WHEREAS Accused 15 as a public officer employed by the SAPS as a Divisional
Commissioner within the SAPS and a role player in the manipulation of the specifications
which resulted in the award of a contract to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14, acting personally
or by influencing other persons, acted in violation of Section 217 of the Constitution, the
161
PFMA, the Public Service Act, and the SAPS Codes Conduct and Procurement before, during
and after the bid process relating to written price quotations invited by Gauteng SAPS and
issuing of purchase orders to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14;
officers.
FRAUD (READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 103 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT,
1977 (ACT NO 51 OF 1977) AND FURTHER READ WITH SECTION 51(2) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 (ACT 105 OF 1997)
IN THAT during the period the 1st of April 30th day of June 2018 at or near Pretoria in the
duty to disclose, that Accused 15 had received a discount in the total amount of R284 580
from Zambesi Auto and/or a gift and/or assistance in the form of payment of R440 000.000
made by Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 towards the purchase of a BMW X5.
162
IN THAT between the period between the 1st of February 2016 and the 31st of May 2017 and
at or near Pretoria in the Regional Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14 wrongfully and
intentionally gave or agreed to give or offered to give a gratifications to Accused 15 for the
benefit of Accused 15 or any other person or persons nominated by Accused 15; a
gratifications in the form of a courtesy loan vehicle from Zambesi Auto (arranged by Accused
13) in order for Accused 15 to act personally or by influencing another person or other persons
so to act in a manner proscribed in section 3(b) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and
26(3) to wit: as a reward for the role played by Accused 15 and/or any other person
nominated by Accused 15 in the award of a contract to install emergency warning equipment
to Gauteng to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or that purchase orders were issued to
163
Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 2004)
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of February 2016 and the 31st of May 2017 and at
or near Pretoria, in the Regional Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14 wrongfully, unlawfully
and intentionally offered and/or gave Accused 15 gratification in the form of a courtesy loan
motor vehicle from Zambesi Auto and Accused 15 being a party to employment relationships
with the SAPS; for the benefit of Accused 15 and/or any other person or persons nominated
by Accused 15 in order to act personally or by influencing another person or other persons
so to act, in a manner proscribed in section 3(a) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and
26(3);
164
IN THAT between the period between the 1st of February 2016 and the 31st of May 2017 and
at or near Pretoria in the Regional Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14 wrongfully and
intentionally gave or agreed to give or offered to give a gratifications to Accused 15 for the
benefit of Accused 15 or any other person or persons nominated by Accused 15; a
gratifications in the form of a payment of an amount of not less than R440 000.00 to Zambesi
Auto arranged by Accused 13and/or Accused 14 in order for Accused 15 to act personally or
by influencing another person or other persons so to act in a manner proscribed in section
3(b) read with sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3) to wit: as a reward for the role played
by Accused 15 and/or any other person nominated by Accused 15 in the award of a contract
to install emergency warning equipment to Gauteng to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14 and/or
that purchase orders were issued to Accused 13 and/or Accused 14.
Act, 2004 (Act No 12 of 2004)
IN THAT during the period between the 1st of February 2016 and the 31st of May 2017 and at
or near Pretoria, in the Regional Division Gauteng, Accused 13 and 14 wrongfully, unlawfully
and intentionally offered and/or gave Accused 15 gratification in the form of a payment of an
amount of not less than R440 000.00 to Zambesi Auto and Accused 15 being a party to
165
employment relationships with the SAPS; for the benefit of Accused 15 and/or any other
person or persons nominated by Accused 15 in order to act personally or by influencing
another person or other persons so to act, in a manner proscribed in section 3(a) read with
sections 1, 2, 24, 25, 26(1)(a)(ii) and 26(3);
ADV. H CRONJE
Director of Public Prosecutions,
INVESTIGATING DIRECTORATE.
166

Ramahlapi Johannes Mokoena and Others

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ramahlapi Johannes Mokoena and Others

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE REGIONAL DIVISION OF GAUTENG

HELD AT THE SPECIALISED COMMERCIAL CRIME COURT - JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: SCCC/265/2018

The Director of Public Prosecution and Head of the Investigating Directorate

IN THE CASE OF THE STATE

RAMAHLAPI JOHANNES MOKWENA ACCUSED 2

JAMES RAMANJALUM ACCUSED 3

DELIWE DE LANGE ACCUSED 4

NOMBHURUZA LETTIE NAPO ACCUSED 5

RAVICHANDRAN PILLAY ACCUSED 6

JOHANNES KGOMOTSO PHAHLANE ACCUSED 7

THOMAS DUMASI MARIMA ACCUSED 9

MAETAPESE JOSEPH MULAIWA ACCUSED 10

JUDY ROSE ACCUSED 11

SAMANTHA ANDREWS ACCUSED 12

VIMPIE PHINEAS TLALEFANG MANTHATA ACCUSED 13

INSTRUMENTATION FOR TRAFFIC LAW ENFOCEMENT (PTY) LTD ACCUSED 14

(AS REPRESENTED BY ACCUSED 13)

BONANG CHRISTINAH MGWENYA ACCUSED 15

(Hereinafter referred to as the Accused)

Are guilty of the following charges:

Whereas at all times material to the charges:

DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED

1. ACCUSED 2 - RAMAHLAPI JOHANNES MOKWENA

head of the SAPS Bid Adjudication Committee on 30 March.

2. ACCUSED 3 - JAMES RAMANJALUM

Moveable Government Properties, with identity number 651223 5115 084.

3. ACCUSED 4 - DELIWE SUSAN DE LANGE

A female Lieutenant General and the Provincial Commissioner of Gauteng SAPS

province with identity number 610524 0807 082.

4. ACCUSED 5 - NOMBHURUZA LETTIE NAPO

Management with identity number 630921 0443 080.

5. ACCUSED 6 - RAVICHANDRAN PILLAY

6. ACCUSED 7 - JOHANNES KGOMOTSO PHAHLANE

A male Major Lieutenant General and Acting National Commissioner of SAPS. As

7. ACCUSED 9 - THOMAS DUMASI MARIMA

number 700410 5314 087.

8. ACCUSED 10 - MAETAPESE JOSEPH MULAIWA

9. ACCUSED 11 - JUDY ROSE

A female accounts manager employed at Instrumentation for Traffic Law

10. ACCUSED 12 - SAMANTHA ANDREWS

11. A female administrative accountant at Instrumentation for Traffic Law Enforcement

Pty (Accused 14), with identity number 900222 0065 087.

12. ACCUSED 13 - VIMPIE PHINEAS TLALEFANG MANTHATA

Pty (Accused 14) with identity number 650302 5952 083.

representative, in terms of section 332 of Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, of

15. ACCUSED 14 - INSTRUMENTATION FOR TRAFFIC LAW ENFOCEMENT (PTY) LTD

registration number: 2003/002216/07 and with registered address at 108 Johan

Avenue, Dennehof, Sandton.

Accused 13 was appointed as a director of Accused 14 on 3 February 2003 and

remains the sole director of Accused 14.

16. ACCUSED 15 - BONANG CHRISTINAH MGWENYA

Rietvalleirand Extension 32, Pretoria.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLICABLE TO PUBLIC SERVICE PROCUREMENT

when an organ of state contracts for goods or services, it must do so in accordance

with a system that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.

PFMA was to secure transparency, accountability, and sound management of the

norms and standards, including any prescribed standards of generally recognised

accounting practice and uniform classification systems in national departments;

issue instructions applicable to departments to which the PFMA applies concerning

matters such as the determination of a framework for an appropriate procurement

instructions in terms of section 69, 76, 85 or 91 of that Act.

be the accounting officer of the department.