State witness reveals shocking details in Zandile Gumede's R320 million fraud trial

In an emotional testimony, a State witness told the Durban High Court on Wednesday that in December 2017, she was forced to issue letters of award to service providers to collect waste without allowing the 14-day cooling-off period.

She was testifying in the R320 million Durban Solid Waste (DSW) tender fraud trial involving the former mayor of eThekwini, Zandile Gumede.

Gumede and her 21 co-accused are facing numerous charges, including money laundering, racketeering, fraud, corruption, and contravention of the Municipal Finance Management Act and the Municipal Systems Act relating to the tender.

The State witness served as a senior official in the tenders and contracts unit around December 2017, which is a period during which the State is alleging that the offences were committed by the accused. 

She said she was forced to break internal controls by issuing letters of appointment to companies that had been recommended to collect waste without the signature of former city manager Sipho Nzuza. The witness, who cried while testifying in virtual court, said this was a breach of protocol. 

However, things took a sharp turn when advocate Jay Naidoo SC, counsel for Gumede, put the witness in a corner about why the December reports from the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) did not reach the advisory committee led by former city manager Sipho Nzuza on December 21, 2017.

The witness was part of the Executive Acquisitions Committee (EAC), an advisory committee, formed by Nzuza. She was on this committee in her capacity as a financial officer.

As a secretariat at the BAC, she crafted and prepared the agenda of all the committees, including the EAC. 

She told the court that the reason the BAC's December reports did not make it to the EAC was that one report that was tabled at BAC on December 14, 2017, was the same as the one tabled on BAC on November 27, 2017. 

In November, the Solid Waste Unit sought authority from the BAC to advertise the tender contracts for waste collection. 

Upon realising that they had received a lot of tender applications, the unit went to the BAC on December 14 to seek authority to invite experienced service providers to collect waste.

This was approved on December 19, and the unit had come back to the BAC with all the particulars of the experienced services.

The court has heard that only compliance checks were not done. 

When Naidoo asked her if, at the BAC meeting on December 14, the Solid Waste Unit stated why it came to the committee for the same thing, she said the December report was addressed to Nzuza, not the committee. 

“It is not my fault that the line department came to BAC with the same thing,” she said. 

However, after a while, she agreed with Naidoo that the report tabled on December 14 included illegal dumping and it was different from the November one. 

“It is slightly different,” she said. 

She further changed her answer to say that the reason why the decisions made by the BAC on December 14 and 19 did not reach the EAC meeting on December 21, 2017, because compliance checks were not conducted.. 

She said in the next meeting of the EAC, which was on January 29, 2018, the December reports made it to the meeting.

The witness, who also drafted the decision circular of the BAC, admitted to the court that she made a mistake while drafting her decision circular of the December 19 BAC meeting. 

She said in the decision circular, she wrote that the BAC approved the quotations of the service providers, when in fact it said approved subject to compliance checks being done. 

The trial continues. 

nomonde.zondi@inl.co.za