Suspended Tshwane Metro Police Department Major Lebogang Phiri faces conflict of interest allegations over his alleged improper financial ties to service providers.
Image: Oupa Mokoena/Independent Newspapers
Suspended Tshwane Metro Police Department (TMPD) officer Major Lebogang Phiri has been accused of conflict of interest stemming from an alleged “improper” financial ties with service providers.
This followed Phiri's testimony at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, which revealed instances where he exchanged funds with security companies doing business with the City of Tshwane.
Phiri testified that he oversaw the controversial TMPD ad hoc security services tender, which has been scrutinised for alleged irregularities.
He faced questions regarding a R150,000 payment from his friend William Mashupye, who had a business relationship with Gubis 85 Solutions, one of the security companies doing business with the city.
According to previous testimony, Gubis appeared to be favoured over other service providers.
The company was assigned more infrastructure sites to guard across the city, despite site allocation being based on company origin.
Evidence before the commission showed the company received R59 million from the city and was allocated 37 infrastructure sites, exceeding other service providers in both payments and site allocations.
On Thursday Phiri testified that his superior, Director of Assets Protection Tshukudu Malatji, delegated the authority to manage and deploy ad hoc security services to him.
That was his response to accusations that he allocated security sites for critical municipal infrastructure to security firms without authorisation.
It was also alleged that his conduct bypassed the city's procurement processes.
Regarding the R150,000 payment, Phiri told the commission it was a loan from his friend Mashupye.
However, evidence shown by the commission indicated the amount was paid by Kgabotje Logistics, which is under Mashupye's directorship and that Mashupye is also employed by Gubis 85 Solutions.
Phiri dismissed the suggestion that Gubis had given him any incentives.
He testified that he realised Mashupye was employed by Gubis when the company started work in 2022.
Evidence leader Advocate Teboho Mosikili pointed out that Calvin Mahlangu, a director of Gubis made payments between February 23, 2025, and October, but not to Phiri; instead, he paid money to Kgabotje Logistics.
Mosikili pointed out that information before the commission demonstrated payments from a Gubis director to Kgabotje, which ultimately reached Phiri's bank account.
The commission also scrutinised another loan consisting of three separate R35,000 payments deposited into Phiri's account. One of the payments came from Papador PTY (Ltd), a company under Mashupye.
One person who paid R35,000 to Phiri had previously received R10.8m from Gubis. A second individual received R3.9m from Gubis, while Papador has also been paid R5.9m by the company.
Phiri said: "We can spend the whole day opining about this matter but I am not a forensic investigator. I am not. I wouldn't know why Papi (a friend to Mashupye) is mentioned in those papers but I will know that I asked Papi."
He told the commission that he was not aware that the people who made payments had financial links with Gubis and that he paid back the money in cash.
The commission questioned him about a payment of R300,000 he received from Aluwani Makhuvha, an employee of a service provider Ramalepe Security and Cleaning Services.
Phiri testified that Makhuvha and his associates borrowed R1.3m from him because their businesses were financially struggling.
The loan agreement was not a written contract, but Makhuvha subsequently made loan repayments.
The commission said his interactions with people or companies linked to Gubis were inappropriate. Mosikili stressed that Phiri's exchange of funds with people linked to companies doing business with the city was inappropriate in itself.
Mosikili said that having any financial links with individuals connected to service providers worsens the position of a person like Phiri, who can control the distribution of work to those providers.
“It is an apparent conflict of interest for someone in your position who can influence the flow or non-flow of work to these service providers to be having any financial transaction (with them),” he said.
Phiri responded: “That is incorrect, but it needs to be tested.”
rapula.moatshe@inl.co.za