Meet Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, the well-connected military contractor and prosecution witness who was primed to nail a big fish: Parliamentary Speaker and former defence minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula.
Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu is the star witness in the case that was meant to solidify the reputation of both the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) and its boss, Andrea Johnson.
However, an amaBhungane investigation suggests that IDAC’s careless handling of Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s explosive evidence:
- threatens to blow up a few reputations at the National Prosecuting Authority;
- may compromise the criminal case against Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula; and
- risks letting off the hook what appears to be a wider network of corruption in the South African National Defence Force (SANDF).
Readers may recall that on 3 March 2024 the Sunday Times broke the story that Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula (then still Speaker) was being investigated for receiving millions of rands in bribes.
The newspaper drew liberally from a leaked copy of an affidavit by controversial defence industry icon Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, the wife of a general in the SANDF’s military health service, in which she explained how Mapisa-Nqakula solicited and was paid more than R2-million in cash.
Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu was and is controversial because, up until just two days before the Sunday Times bombshell, she was herself on trial in the Serious Commercial Crime Court (SCCC) for corruption and fraud.
For the full story of her rise and fall, please read our gripping backgrounder. In the meantime, in order to understand the chaos she’s sown at the NPA it is vital to hold onto the fact that she was involved in two cases: in the first as prime suspect and in the second as star witness.
The first case was pursued by the SANDF’s own military police and then referred to the NPA’s Specialised Commercial Crime Unit (SCCU) in Pretoria. In October 2020 Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu was arrested for fraud and corruption relating to the manner in which military transport contracts were awarded to her company Umkhombe Marine in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
The SCCU is one of the special directorates that resides under the National Prosecution Service, which is led by deputy national director Rodney de Kock. The IDAC is an attempt to reboot the Scorpions. It has both investigative and prosecutorial capacity and reports directly to National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Shamila Batohi.
The second case, this time against Mapisa-Nqakula, was initiated by IDAC after Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s lawyers approached the directorate in April 2023 for her to report the alleged corruption of the ex-Defence Minister. The lawyers sought and obtained IDAC approval for her to become an accomplice witness against the former minister.
Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act allows for a so-called “S204 witness” to be indemnified by a court for relevant specified offences, provided that the court is satisfied that their testimony is “frank and honest”.
Importantly, when Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu opted to spill the beans she was already in the Specialised Commercial Crime Court and had already had a first round of representations to drop the prosecution rejected by the head of the Pretoria SCCU.
Despite this, IDAC and Johnson opted to keep Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s approach and their investigation secret, even from their SCCU colleagues who were trying to prosecute her and even after the SCCU found out and tried to establish how this might affect their case.
As we shall see, these are arguably two parts of the same case and it appears that in their rush to claim a major scalp, the NPA, IDAC and Johnson in particular may have acted recklessly.
By misleading her colleagues Johnson has seemingly not only undermined the SCCU’s parallel prosecution of Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu but has also risked undermining the evidence of her own key witness against Mapisa-Nqakula.
One reason for this is that the sworn S204 statement, which is meant to give a “frank and honest” account of Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s own role, is in some significant respects contradicted by the charges and facts alleged by the SCCU in its case against her.
While this could have been avoided if IDAC had consulted with their SCCU colleagues before finalising Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s S204 affidavit, they chose not to.
Instead, they have tried to get around the problem by arguing in court that there is “no link between the IDAC case and the SCCU case”.
Our investigation suggests that this argument will not bear serious scrutiny.
The upshot is that both cases could be compromised.
To understand how the two cases are interconnected and how they impinge on one another, we have to unpack the evidence in some detail, as well as the consequences of action and inaction on the part of various players.
Four tenders and three contracts
Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s success was built around the award of four tenders to her company Umkhombe, three of which resulted in contracts together worth more than R215-million.
The core business of Umkhombe was to provide logistics services to the SANDF to support its foreign peacekeeping missions.
The first three tenders, in 2014, 2015 and 2016, were the focus of the SCCU case that began in 2020. The case claimed that the tenders were obtained on the basis of a criminal scheme.
These same first three tenders – and a later one for R105-million awarded in 2018 – also form the factual backdrop of Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s evidence against Mapisa-Nqakula in the IDAC case, with the 2015/2016 tenders in particular forming a core overlap in the summary of substantial facts put forward in both cases.
The IDAC case only became public knowledge in March 2024, just two days after the SCCU case was stuck from the roll and, as we will see, in questionable circumstances.
The SCCU, for their part, were seemingly unaware of the allegations against Mapisa-Nqakula until rumours of the IDAC investigation filtered through to them in the latter half of 2023.
It may be useful to trace the sequence of events that shifted Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu from accused in one case to witness in another and the problems this raises for the NPA.
Bear in mind that the contradictions between the two cases boil down to the following: in Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s version she won each SANDF logistics tender on merit, but then became a victim of extortion by then defence minister Mapisa-Nqakula, initially via the late secretary of defence Sam Gulube and later directly.
Meanwhile, the SCCU version paints a very different picture, claiming to have enough evidence for a winnable case that Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu obtained her initial tenders via fraud and corruption.
Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu is constrained in what she can say given her status as a witness and she remains a potential accused.
She told amaBhungane that as a state witness she could not discuss the case and that it was sub judice.
Arrest and a series of representations
When Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu was arrested in October 2020, she quickly pursued a dual strategy in fighting the charges.
On one track, her lawyers launched a series of representations calling on ever more senior managers in the NPA to review and throw out the case the SCCU brought against her.
Accused persons have a limited right to make an argument to higher levels in the NPA that the decision to prosecute them is wrong.
In this case Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu submitted representations to, first, the regional head of the SCCU, then the director of public prosecutions (DPP) in North Gauteng (Pretoria) and finally to the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP).
On the other track, her lawyers also sought to secure recognition for Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu as a whistleblower as she hawked around her allegations against Mapisa-Nqakula, which was not disclosed to the SCCU.
This started in around early 2021 when she confided in General Bantu Holomisa about the payments she said she had made to the defence minister. Holomisa subsequently sent a letter to the Joint Standing Committee of Defence making the allegations public, although not disclosing Ntsondwa-Ndlovu’s identity.
In submissions to the standing committee in July and August 2021 her lawyers said they had been assured their unnamed client would be treated as a whistleblower. They characterised her as a “victim of extortion” who did not gain anything from the payments as neither Mapisa-Nqakula nor Gulube “promised the client any tender… accordingly, there was no quid pro quo relationship”.
The parliamentary legal advisors wanted to meet with Ntsondwa-Ndlovu, but she declined, saying later in her S204 statement that “I feared for my life and that of my children.”
Mapisa-Nqakula was shifted to become Speaker and the Parliamentary inquiry fizzled out.
In February 2023, after her first round of NPA representations had been rejected, Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu personally approached Afriforum, but was told to work through her lawyers.
Then, in around April 2023, her lawyers approached IDAC with her juicy evidence against the Speaker and began negotiating her status as a S204 witness.
Meanwhile Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s trial in Pretoria was repeatedly postponed while her representations to other parts of the NPA were being processed.
Cat out of the bag
Concrete evidence of IDAC’s involvement in Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s case first emerged in August 2023.
It is understood that in or around March 2023, AfriForum’s private prosecution team contacted military police investigating official Warrant Officer Jacobus Zwarts to enquire whether he was aware that Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu had approached AfriForum to blow the whistle on how she had allegedly paid off Mapisa-Nqakula.
Then, in mid-August, IDAC’s chief investigator Dylan Perumal approached Zwarts about Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s call records.
He was enquiring about calls she had made to Mapisa-Nqakula.
At the time Zwarts was apparently unaware that some of the numbers contained in the cellphone records he had subpoenaed were linked to Mapisa-Nqakula. Although Perumal was cagey it emerged that the IDAC was in possession of the SCCU docket and that there might be a parallel investigation going on.
In early September 2023 Pretoria DPP Sibongile Mzinyathi asked Adv. Johnson whether IDAC was dealing with the matter. He was told it was not.
This was almost certainly untrue, because only days later, on 11 September, Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu signed her S204 affidavit, which had, according to later evidence, been subject to a careful process where drafts went back and forth between the IDAC investigating team and her counsel.
SCCU case struck off
The Pretoria DPP ultimately rejected Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s representations on 27 September 2023.
On 29 September, her lawyers asked the SCCC to postpone her matter one more time until 1 March 2024 so that they could escalate representations to the NDPP, Shamila Batohi.
Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s court records show that her lawyers submitted her third set of representations in December 2023 to Batohi’s delegated deputy, Advocate Rodney de Kock, requesting that her prosecution be stopped, but by 1 March 2024 nothing had been done.
The SCCU court records show that prosecutor Willem van Zyl had to inform the court that he had attempted to contact de Kock’s office to find out the status of the representations.
The response was that De Kock’s office were still awaiting a copy of the docket and had not even appointed a prosecutor to review the decision.
Van Zyl was left with no choice but to ask for a postponement.
Predictably the magistrate was not impressed and struck the case from the roll until the NPA could get its act together.
Another Johnson evasion
Understandably, the fact that the case against Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu was permitted to collapse, at least temporarily, attracted attention, especially because it was swiftly followed by the news of the IDAC investigation and her status as a S204 witness against Mapisa-Nqakula.
In mid-April 2024, News24 legal journalist Karyn Maughan sent questions to NPA spokesperson Mthunzi Mhaga. She pointed out that the NDPP had failed to respond to the representations for more than five months, leading to the SCCU case being struck off.
She asked pertinently, “Please can you explain why the NDPP has taken so long… Was the fact that Ms Ndhlovu stands accused fraud, forgery and corruption considered in the decision to grant her 204 status? Is her status as a 204 witness being considered by the NDPP in her decision on representations? Is there a link between these two cases?”
In an effort to answer these questions, Mhaga circulated the query, including Johnson.
She replied to Mhaga, stating that “this matter was not dealt with by the ID at all – it is a matter at the SCCU: PTA. This office is unable to assist.”
Reckless?
AmaBhungane put it to the NPA that more than a year has now elapsed since representations were directed to the NDPP and that the fact that she (or her agent, de Kock) still has not delivered a decision demonstrates why the cases are inextricably linked and why Johnson’s decision to keep her colleagues in the dark was reckless.
We noted that “this is particularly so given that there are blatant contradictions between the evidence in the SCCU case and the affidavit Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu deposed on 11 September 2023 for the purpose of securing her S204 status…
“This has placed the NDPP in an irreconcilable conflict of interest, whereby if she does not accept the representations and stop the SCCU prosecution, the credibility of the key witness against Mapisa-Nqakula will almost inevitably be compromised.”
The obvious inference, we pointed out, was that foot-dragging on the representations had cleared the way for the high profile arrest of Mapisa-Nqakula and that the NDPP’s office was aware that, even now, a rejection of these representations would upset the tacit deal that had been reached, formally or informally, between IDAC and Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu.
The NPA declined to respond to specific questions, arguing that this would compromise the prosecutions and not be in the interests of justice: “Your line of questions seeks to portray a divided NPA, which we reject. While the SCCU and IDAC are handling different aspects of the case, they do so in pursuit of the NPA’s constitutional obligation to prosecute cases on their merits and without fear, favour or prejudice.”
Batohi
The controversy around the two cases add to question-marks about the leadership of the NPA, which was the subject of amaBhungane’s documentary, Tell no lies, claim no easy victories.
During interviews with Batohi we asked her about the decision to make Ntsondwa-Ndlhovu a S204 witness although she was already on trial for corruption.
She said, “I think what’s important to understand is when you are dealing with high level corruption cases, you will almost always… if you want to get to the top, you have to deal with people whose hands are not clean.”
Batohi denied being involved in that decision, saying it was the IDAC’s.
AmaBhungane: “Okay, so that’s to Andrea Johnson. I mean, our understanding is that she misled colleagues about the fact that she was engaging in the witness and essentially torpedoed [the other case].
Batohi: “I don’t want to [respond to] gossip stories.”
A question of credibility
Another unanswered proposition we put to the NPA was that in around October or November 2024 a meeting was held between IDAC and the SCCU at which IDAC chief investigator Perumal offered to share affidavits Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu had deposed to IDAC to see whether these would have any potential impact on plans for re-enrolling the SCCU case.
We were told that Adv. Johnson came into the meeting and put a stop to this.
The NPA would not confirm or deny whether this happened, but amaBhungane has now obtained sight of the S204 affidavits and we can understand Adv. Johnson’s alleged reluctance.
While the evidence against Mapisa-Nqakula is damning (see our summary here) Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s efforts to whitewash her own role (and that of other SANDF officers and officials) means that some of her version, sworn by Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu to be a full and frank disclosure of the truth, is directly at odds with the allegations made against her by the SCCU as well as with other more circumstantial evidence uncovered by amaBhungane.
Those contradictions, detailed below, are inevitably going to be used to challenge her motives and credibility in the case against the Speaker.
The 2014 tender – SANDF transport between SA and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): R30-million
Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s version.
In her September 2023 S204 affidavit, Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu states: “During the year 2014, the SANDF again awarded Umkhombe another contract after following its normal tender processes. The tender was officially described as BID UB/G/479/2014 to the original value of R24 762 014, 67 and later increased to R 29 712 014-67 due to certain additional costs.” The SCCU version
The SCCU case is that this was not a ’normal tender process‘ at all. Rather, it was essentially a ‘fake’ tender set up to unfairly benefit Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu and her company with the necessary connivance of senior figures in the defence establishment.
The evidence for this – contained in the charge sheet and other material available to IDAC – is inter alia that: it was a closed tender process (only certain service providers were invited to tender); the deadline was ridiculously short, being issued on 18 November 2014 with a closure date of 24 November 2014; out of 7 alleged invitees, only Umkhombe submitted a bid; one invitee – Gwenzi Transport – was a business that owned only one taxi; another – Mabilo Logistics – only distributed stationary.
The SCCU alleged that this tender process was manipulated in that Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu was provided, before the time, with information that allowed her to gain an unfair advantage over other competitors, and that Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu also provided false information for the bid.
The cancelled 2015 tender – SANDF transport between SA and Sudan: R104-million
This tender, which was cancelled, is particularly important because it forms the backdrop for Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s first reaching out for help to then minister Mapisa-Nqakula, although she claims the minister did nothing.
It also formed the basis of what the SCCU said was a fraudulent claim against the SANDF for expenses incurred because of the cancellation, as well as the justification for awarding Umkhombe the subsequent 2016 contract without a tender process, supposedly as compensation for the cancelled 2015 tender.
Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s version.
Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu states under oath: “In February 2016, the SANDF again awarded another contract to Umkhombe after following its normal procurement processes… See the appointment letter dated 11 February 2016.”
She claims in her S204 affidavit that after the receipt of the appointment letter she immediately contacted subcontractors, including AZTEC Shipping and Y&P Logistics. The latter, in turn, allegedly subcontracted Soviet Air Charter.
On Monday 15″‘ February 2016, (three days after Umkhombe had been appointed) she was informed by a Captain Mike Bologo – then head of the SANDF central procurement service centre (CPSC) – that president Jacob Zuma had cancelled the Sudan peace-keeping operation and the tender had been put on hold.
She states that she had already made financial commitments.
“In an effort to obtain to seek clarity about the suspension of the tender I met with the late Lieutenant General Mdutyana who was the then Chief of Joint Operations.”
This meeting did not have the desired result and Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu explains in her affidavit that “as a result of such pressure from the sub-contractors” her then attorney Eric Breyer wrote to the SANDF, putting them on terms and stating that she had “already incurred expenses in excess of 30 million rands”.
In addition, Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, through a prominent businesswoman, made contact with Minister Mapisa-Nqakula.
Her affidavit states: “I explained to her about Umkhombe’s appointment in respect of the 2016 tender and the subsequent suspension thereof. After having explained my concerns and frustrations to the Minister, she undertook to look into the matter and revert. She unfortunately never reverted to me.”
Nevertheless, Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu was by 31 March 2016 able to secure a meeting with General Morris Moadira, who was the then Head of Logistics at SANDF. Moadira was much more sympathetic than Mdutyana and, according to a follow up letter from her lawyer, told Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu that the DoD wished to settle the matter amicably and was looking at alternative work equivalent to the amount of R104-million.
The SCCU version
By contrast, the SCCU maintains in the charge sheet that when Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu claimed payment for the expenses already incurred, “these claims turned out to be false as she did not incur any expenses. No payments had been made to Soviet Air Charter and Aztec Shipping as the accused claimed”.
“To avoid unnecessary legal battles the SANDF, and in the belief that the claim for R30 000 000.00 was genuine, took a decision in May 2016 that all future cargo transportation for the external mission areas must be solely awarded to Umkhombe until the demanded amount was exhausted; This decision had the effect that any other service providers would be excluded from having a fair opportunity to submit a bid for future contracts of this nature.”
A further bid request, dated 16 May 2016, was issued, this time only to Umkhombe, for “Rendering of transportation of prime mission equipment… from DRC to RSA”. The bid was awarded to Umkhombe for an amount of R109-million, which included the amount of R30-million for claimed expenses and R79-million for the backloading.
The SCCU says that this opportunity was obtained by fraud as the R30-million claim was not genuine.
Additional issues raised by amaBhungane
The Sudan tender award of 11 February 2016 gives indications of being manufactured as well. Notably, the bidders again included Gwenzi Transport and Mabilo Logistics, which the SCCU alleges were ‘fake’.
According to a July 2019 City Press report the initial complainant in the Military Police (SCCU) case filed an affidavit suggesting that the Sudan tender had been earmarked for Umkhombe from the start.
AmaBhungane has seen a leaked copy of the procurement order purportedly issued by Moadira in May 2016 directing work to Umkhombe and it appears manifestly irregular, but it also suggests that the instruction came from the Chief of the SANDF and the Secretary of Defence.
It states: “To avoid unnecessary legal battle between the service provider and the DoD, which may result in fruitless and wasteful expenditure, instruction was issued by CSANDF and Sec Def to C Log [Chief of Logistics] that an amicable solution must be devised to ensure that the issue is resolved outside the legal process. To ensure the instruction is carried out, C Log made a ruling that all future cargo transportation for the external mission areas must be solely awarded to Umkhombe Marine until the demanded amount is exhausted.”
Moadira declined to respond to amaBhungane in detail, saying that he had provided the military police with information in 2023.
Asked why he had met Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, and if it was on Shoke and Gulube’s instruction, he said: “These were the questions that I answered.”
Although Umkhombe submitted a bid for R109-million (which included the supposed wasted costs of R30-million from the cancelled Sudan tender) the company was eventually only paid out the R79-million for the 2016 replacement contract for SANDF transport between SA and the DRC.
This is because there was considerable pushback from the Departmental Commercial Procurement Board (DCPB) – which had to sign off on the tender – and from members of Joint Operational Headquarters (J Ops), which was the client within the SANDF.
The efforts to override objections by the procurement board and the payments that followed after the ‘substitute’ contract was pushed through raise more questions about the credibility of Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu and of other witnesses relied on by IDAC.
Adv. Simphiwe Damane-Mkhosana
In her S204 affidavit Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu introduces Damane-Mkhosana as her “friend”. At the time of these events, Damane-Mkhosana was the legal advisor to then Secretary of Defence Gulube.
Damane-Mkhosana is on the IDAC witness list, presumably because it was she who accompanied Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu to a 20 September 2018 meeting at Minister Mapisa-Nqakula’s chalet at Waterkloof Airbase.There, Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu allegedly handed over R150 000 worth of US dollars, purportedly without disclosing to Damane-Mkhosana (who waited in the reception area) the purpose of her meeting with the minister.
However, Damane-Mkhosana also played a role in trying to “resolve” the dispute with Umkhombe after the Sudan tender was cancelled in 2016.
AmaBhungane has had sight of a draft affidavit that Damane-Mkhosana has corrected but not signed in which she discloses the following: “On or about the 20th of April 2016 the Secretary for Defence approached me and request me to advise him on the matter as… Umkhombe Marine wanted to sue the Department of Defence for loss of income…”
She says she met with members of J Ops and informed them that she was instructed by the Secretary for Defence “to assist to resolve the matter internally”.
“I was then advised by them that there were irregularities on the tender, as the tender was inflated. They also mentioned that they wanted this tender to be investigated. I then told them that if they have knowledge of such information, they have a duty to report these allegations to the Secretary of Defence.”
She said she then reported back on what had transpired to the Secretary of Defence and had no further involvement in the matter.
AmaBhungane has established that Damane-Mkhosana’s draft affidavit, drawn up for the military police (SCCU) investigation around 15 May 2019, was in her friend Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s possession by 19 May 2019.
The Gulubes
In her S204 affidavit Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu professes that she was “shocked” when, in December 2016, after the R79-million ‘substitute’ contract had been pushed through, she was summoned to the Secretary of Defence’s home and asked for R300 000 for the minister.
She states: “I had known Dr Gulube long before he contacted me. I knew him through his wife Lillian Gulube. My husband and I used to visit the Gulube’s home and vice versa. We spent the 2015 December holidays together in Mauritius We found the Gulubes already in Mauritius in 2015 December and left them there at the end of our holidays. I have no knowledge of how their Mauritius holiday was funded.”
A source with knowledge of the relationship alleged to amaBhungane that Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu paid for the Gulube’s holiday: “While in Mauritius Sam asked for R700,000. He had a sudden expense. It was covered.”
Both Sam and Lillian Gulube have passed away and amaBhungane was not able to confirm these claims.
However, there is a reference in the answers Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s lawyers gave to 27 questions posed by the Parliamentary probe mentioned above that suggests Ntsondwa-Ndlovu paid money to Gulube independent of what he allegedly received on behalf of Mapisa-Nqakula.
We do not have the questions, but under the heading “23. Dr Sam Gulube”, Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s lawyers state, “This amount [presumably referred to in the question] was given to Dr Gulube as a loan.”
There is additional evidence suggesting that, by the time of Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s December 2016 meeting with Gulube, the relationship was already ‘complicated’.
Minutes seen by amaBhungane show that for the whole of June 2016 the Procurement Board resisted awarding the substitute tender, reasoning that there was no proof of the claimed R30-million expenses and that no court action had materialised and requiring that a legal opinion be sought before a decision was taken.
Then, on 20 July 2016 (according to Government Central Supplier Database records), Gulube’s wife Lillian registered her business partnership with Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu.
On 2 August 2016 the procurement board compromised, agreeing to award the R79-million DRC logistics tender to Umkhombe, but without paying the additional R30-million.
In their answers to Parliament Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s lawyers also referenced this partnership, stating, “Dr Gulube coerced our client to work with his wife. Our client was uncomfortable with that. Again, she did not have a choice and feared the consequences of defying Dr. Gulube. Our client paid Dr Gulube’s wife R 200 000, 00 for some services rendered. However, our client felt that she was overcharged and was unhappy.”
Lt-Gen. Derrick Mgwebi
Mgwebi, who retired in 2018 as one of the SANDF’s most lauded generals, is introduced in Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s S204 affidavit for IDAC as someone she confided in about Gulube’s requests for money after she had paid the initial R300 000 and he had later asked for another R400 000 – all purportedly on behalf of Mapisa-Nqakula.
Mgwebi is listed as a State witness in the IDAC case against Mapisa-Nqakula.
Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s version
She notes, “As a result of the second request for money, I decided to approach Lieutenant General Derrick Mgwebi during December 2016, whom I got to know when I was doing work for the SANDF. I confided in him about the two requests for cash by Dr. Gulube purportedly on behalf of the Minister. I asked him to connect me with the Minister so that I could verify with her if the requests for cash were indeed originating from her. About a week later, Mgwebi phoned and advised me that I must expect a phone call from the Minister’s office, which will be confirming the time and venue for my meeting with her.”
Once again, the SCCU case has a very different take on Mgwebi, which IDAC would have been aware of, but which the S204 statement does not address.
The SCCU version
The SCCU charge sheet against Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu alleges that she had a corrupt relationship with Mgwebi, which it says was manifest by at latest October 2016, after the payments for the R79-million contract started flowing.
The SCCU notes, “The appointed Chief of Joint Operations was Lieutenant General DM Mgwebi was also the budget holder of this division.”
Mgwebi served as Chief of J Ops from 1 October 2011 to 31 January 2016, after which he was appointed commander of the United Nations peacekeeping force in the DRC, MONUSCO.
In its charge sheet the SCCU alleges: “Lieutenant General Mgwebi attempted to influence the awarding of the contract to Umkhombe by suggesting that it be appointed, before the procurement process was finalized. He also signed the financial authority in respect of the bid/tender.”
It accused Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu of making corrupt payments via a business named Perfume De Lux, which belonged to Mgwebi’s wife.
The SCCU alleged, “The following payments were made by the accused to Perfume De Lux, that caused an indirect benefit for Lieutenant General Mgwebi: R150 000.00 on 28 October 2016; R200 000.00 on 2 December 2016; R200 000.00 on 3 January 2017; R200 000.00 on 7 February 2017; R200 000.00 on 24 March 2017; R200 000.00 on 6 May 2017; R200 000.00 on 7 August 2017.”
Mgwebi told amaBhungane, “I have been reading about this [bribery allegations] in the media. But since then it is just that no one has ever asked me from the side of the authorities.
It is understood that the SCCU regarded Mgwebi as a suspect who might be separately charged depending on the outcome of their case against Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu.
Mgwebi insisted that there had never been any recommendations from his side that Umkhombe be awarded SANDF contracts.
On why Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu made payments into Perfume De Lux’s bank account, Mgwebi said that was a matter for his wife: “It would be unbecoming for me to talk on behalf of an independent person or business entity. I’m not even a shareholder in the company you’re referring to.”
He said he could comment on Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s S204 version because the matter was sub judice.
His wife did not respond to questions.
The import for the NPA
AmaBhungane put it to the NPA that, at least in respect of the overlapping factual matrix, the versions presented by Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu and the SCCU are irreconcilable and IDAC’s seeming failure to have proper regard to this was reckless.
We suggested that the potential for sequencing prosecutions by obtaining a conviction (or a plea and sentence agreement) in the SCCU case and then using Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu as a witness against other implicated persons, including Mapisa-Nqakula, had been destroyed.
We suggested that both cases risked failure – unless there was an intervention by the NDPP.
In its response, the NPA said, “We understand the public interest in the matter. However, I am sure you are aware that these are complex and sensitive matters. The NPA is focused on prosecuting these matters and cannot comment publicly about those processes at this stage…We would therefore like to appeal to you to give the NPA the space to proceed with the discharging of its mandate.”
A network of sharks?
Amabhungane raised concerns with the NPA about the undisclosed tradeoffs involved in obtaining the evidence of witnesses against Mapisa-Nqakula.
The concern is that to hook one big fish, IDAC may have had to forego not a few minnows, but other predators who swim in a much wider shoal of corrupt defence officials.
The evidence suggests that this was certainly true of the late Secretary of Defence, Gulube, who appears to have been a corruption whale.
There were also, however, clearly others, and many are still in place. These individuals at best collaborated with Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu or at worst used her as a front for their own private interests.
For example, if the SCCU is correct then the 2014 tender was manufactured and could not have been awarded without the connivance of Central Procurement Service Centre (CPSC).
In an email Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu sent on 18 July 2016, a copy of which was seen by amaBhungane, she revealed that she had a “silent partner” within the SANDF advising her on how to secure contracts.
It is notable that a few years later, when probing Covid-19 contracts, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) found evidence of fraud and corruption at the CPSC, implicating a broad swathe of officers including many of those involved in setting up and approving the Umkhombe bids.
Finally, further evidence suggestive of a broader SANDF conspiracy to direct work to Umkhombe Marine and cover up irregularities emerges from the award and challenge of the fourth tender.
The 2018 tender: the transportation of equipment between SA and DRC – R105-million
The fourth tender was not investigated by the SCCU, but the drama around it is set out in our backgrounder and it was queried by the Auditor General (AG) and flagged as irregular expenditure.
The detailed audit finding of the AG, dated 11 August 2019, is contained in documents from the SANDF Board of Inquiry prompted by the AG’s findings.
Minutes of the CPSC evaluations committee dated 23 July 2018 indicate that 11 bidders were evaluated on the mandatory requirements and 10 bidders were disqualified, leaving only Umkhombe.
The AG pointed out the following irregularities:
The mandatory evaluation criteria required prospective tenderers to subcontract a minimum of 30% to one or more of the following: a small business which was “at least 51% owned by black people who are youth; and/or at least 51% owned by black people who are military veterans”.
The AG noted, “Umkhombe proposed subcontracting 25% to AB Logistics, which is part of Armscor and does not qualify and therefore Umkhombe should have been disqualified.”
In addition, six bidders were disqualified due to minor omissions in the way their bid was filled in, but the AG pointed out that Umkhombe was guilty of similar minor omissions and should therefore have been also disqualified.
The AG flagged that the award was made to Umkhombe while it was under criminal investigation and without obtaining Defence Intelligence input on the acceptability of the bidder, as required.
The AG also noted that the Military Police had alerted the CPSC of the fraud and corruption investigation into Umkhombe as early as 4 October 2017 and that a letter detailing the investigation of Umkhombe was sent by the Military Police on 13 August 2018 recommending that Umkhombe not be considered for bids until the investigation was finalised.
Despite this, on the 16 August 2018 the procurement board approved the award.
AmaBhungane also established that while on the Government Central Supplier Database (GCSD) Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu stated that she was a military veteran. Lebogang Mothapa, Military Veterans Department spokesperson told us, however, that she “is not on the Department’s military veterans database”.
The defence department never provided a management response to the AG audit findings, but instead conducted an internal process that amounted to little more than a whitewash.
On 27 August 2021, the SANDF convened a Board of Inquiry (BoI) to investigate the AG’s findings, but the BoI appears to have been a box-ticking exercise rather than an investigation.
The inquiry found that the officials had “interpreted and executed the pre-qualification criteria wrongly” by assuming that there was no need to assess whether the company met the subcontracting requirements as Umkhombe was a black woman-owned company .
But the BoI dismissed the AG’s other objections without any detailed interrogation and gave the officials involved a mere slap on the wrist, recommending extra training.
It appears that the AG was never confronted with the SANDF’s alternative reality.
Spokesperson Khutsafalo Mnisi told amaBhungane that in July, on conclusion of their 2023-2024 DoD audit, the AG was informed “the investigation [into the AG’s findings on the 2018 tender] had “not been finalised”.
Fallout
While the NPA does not want to engage with the contradictions raised by the evidence in the two cases (the IDAC one and the SCCU one), Mapisa-Nqakula’s lawyers certainly will.
A source close to the trial said, “They will attack [Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s] credibility by asking about her [SCCU] case and her relationship with Mapisa-Nqakula.
“If the prosecutor objects based on lack of relevance they will get crucified because the history is relevant. You don’t simply wake up one morning and decide to pay money to the defence minister. There must be a history which becomes relevant.
“Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu will then have a problem as she is not protected in her case by Section 204 of the CPA as her [SCCU] charges were not identified for indemnification.
“The moment she refuses to answer questions emanating from her [SCCU] case the judge will know why… And that is when her credibility is dented. You just need one major dent in Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s credibility to jeopardise the successful prosecution of Mapisa-Nqakula.”
What is also clear is that IDAC’s conduct has exacerbated tensions within the NPA leadership.
“It is a full on war,” said an NPA executive with knowledge of the fallout.
“No one wants Mapisa-Nqakula to get off the hook but the fear is this infighting will lead to that.”
And the only hope now of holding Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu to account may lie with the SIU.
Internal SANDF documents show that on 24 April 2024 the SIU wrote to the defence force demanding that documents relating to all tenders awarded to Umkhombe Marine be handed over for an investigation it is conducting.
SIU spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago confirmed their request but declined to comment further.
AmaBhungane understands that four months after the 3 May 2024 deadline the SANDF had still not provided the documents to the SIU.
The post NPA in crisis: Andrea Johnson’s unguided missile appeared first on amaBhungane.
amaBhungane