The ongoing R320 million Durban Solid Waste (DSW) tender corruption trial, which involves former eThekwini Mayor Zandile Gumede, former city manager Sipho Nzuza, and 20 others, commenced in the Durban High Court on Monday.

The accused are charged with multiple counts of fraud, racketeering, corruption, money laundering, contravention of the Municipal Finance Management Act and the Municipal Systems Act, relating to a R320 million Durban Solid Waste (DSW) tender contract. 

Currently, a State witness is on the stand and she is under cross-examination by advocate Jay Naidoo, who is representing Alan Robbert Abbu. 

Abbu is the fourth accused in the matter and was the deputy head of the DSW unit at eThekwini Municipality. In November 2017, the DSW unit advertised a tender for waste collection, and the closing date was December 13, 2017.

The State is alleging that Abbu approached his preferred waste collection companies instead of going through the tender evaluation process. Those companies are also charged in this matter.

According to the State, Abbu requested quotes from four businesses — Ilanga la Mahlase PTY (LTD), Uzuzinekele Trading 31 CC, and Omphile Thabang Projects — to appoint them to collect waste in eThekwini after the evaluation process was abandoned.

The State alleges that Abbu did not follow procurement processes, and he excluded other service providers by approaching these four companies. 

On Monday, the court was informed by a State witness, who cannot be named, that the November 2017 waste collection tender had a large number of responses (tender bids). The closing date for bids was on December 13, 2017.

She said that because of this, she sent emails to other units, including Supply Chain Management (SCM), to request additional staff so that the process of assessing the tender bids could start. 

“I requested help from SCM to try and speed up evaluation. I got the assistance of six staff members,” she added. 

According to her testimony, she had requested that Abbu approve overtime before December 16 to finish these evaluation procedures, but he had declined. The weekend of December 16 was the date of the overtime.

“Abbu told me he had a plan,” she stated. She further clarified that the evaluation process was advanced, and the bid capture procedure was complete.

In the previous sessions, the court had learnt that the sheer volume of bids would have made it difficult to quickly assess each single bid and select service providers to collect waste.

Instead, Section 36 of the SCM policy was implemented to allow deviation from normal tender processes.

Because there was no time and service providers needed to be appointed before December 31, four companies were invited to send their quotations. 

On Wednesday, during cross-examination, the witness contradicted herself when advocate Naidoo asked her when she made her request for overtime to Abbu.

She began by stating that she was unable to recall the precise date and requested that Naidoo refer to her affidavit. The affidavit said on December 14; however, the witness said there was a farewell party on December 15, and that is when she asked for overtime. 

She verbally requested overtime while claiming to be at the party with Abbu. Naidoo cornered her while she was constantly moving between these dates.

“It is my instruction that Abbu never spoke to you at the party. He says you never spoke to him about overtime,” Naidoo said. 

The witness said she would not dispute this. “The request was made in a social gathering, and I did not write an email,” she told Naidoo.

Judge Sharmaine Balton interjected, and the witness insisted on December 15. However, on Thursday, she said she requested overtime on December 14. 

Additionally, Naidoo referred the witness to emails that were sent by another manager who was also involved in the November tender process. One of the emails was addressed to the staff, alerting them that they have been selected to work overtime so they could finish the evaluation process.

The email stated that overtime would be paid, and Abbu was copied on this email. 

Another email sent by the same manager instructed that the tender documents be moved from one office to another, as the capturing process had been completed.

Naidoo read this email after the witness insisted that, after Abbu refused overtime, she told her staff to stop the evaluation process.

“Are you in a position to say why the manager would continue with the process?” Naidoo asked.

The witness said she had no explanation.

However, she maintained that the process was stopped on December 14. But the email regarding the relocation of the documents was sent on December 15. 

The trial continues on Monday. 

nomonde.zondi@inl.co.za

Source link