Defence counsel for one of the 22 accused in the R300 million Durban Solid Waste (DSW) tender fraud trial involving Zandile Gumede, a former mayor of eThekwini Municipality, told a State witness that she failed to do her job, was disingenuous, and a liar.
This was put by advocate Jimmy Howse to the State witness who is a contract administrator in the city during cross-examination at Durban High Court on Thursday.
As per a court order, the identity of this witness would not be revealed.
Howse is counsel for the fifth accused Sandile Ngcobo, who was the chairperson of the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) at the alleged time of the offence in 2017.
The accused face numerous counts which include money laundering, racketeering, fraud, corruption, and contravention of the Municipal Finance Management Act and the Municipal Systems Act relating to the DSW tender.
The Durban High Court has heard from State witnesses that in December 2017, the DSW unit went to the BAC to seek authority to invite quotations of experienced service providers to collect waste in Durban.
The unit claimed that because it was the holiday season, various departments had closed and that it did not have enough time to search for new bidders for waste collection. The service providers who were collecting waste at the time sought to extend their contracts because they were about to expire at the end of December.
Additionally, the unit claimed this was an emergency.
This witness testified that the BAC supported the unit's request and instructed them to return with quotations from service providers by December 19 for approval. Those service providers are also accused in this matter.
This witness also admitted that Ngcobo said the compliance checks needed to be done for the four companies. Compliance checks must be done in order for the company to be awarded a tender.
Advocate Howse had been grilling this witness about why she did not take necessary documents to the compliance monitoring unit for compliance checks. He accused the witness of evading his questions.
The witness also said when she left the BAC on December 19, it had approved the item without the compliance checks. Before going to the BAC, she went to a manager from compliance to ask for a signature, and the manager understood that she had to get to BAC but put a condition that compliance was not done. She also admitted that this was an issue at BAC.
“It was the obligation of the BAC and its secretary to make sure compliance was done. When BAC approved the quotations, it disempowered me to do anything,” the witness said.
However, Howse read out the job description of the witness where it stated it was her duty to see to outstanding documents.
He also read out a witness statement of a BAC secretary who said the item was approved by BAC and subject to compliance checks.
“Two of the BAC members have testified to this court and said the item was approved subject to compliance. The secretary corroborates their evidence. What do you say?” Howse asked.
The witness said she heard him but they relied on a decision circular which said the item was approved.
Howse asked her to check if that circular was signed. She said no.
He asked her why she relied on something that was not signed.
He then put it to her that she gave various explanations that were disingenuous and that she was lying to the court.
“I was explaining to you processes and what transpired. If you see me as a liar and everything else, I am not surprised,” the State witness said.
The trial continues.
nomonde.zondi@inl.co.za
