Nyanda slammed over R68m transport tender

This article was posted by on Mar 18th, 2010 and filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry using RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Siphiwe Nyanda

A company partly owned by communications minister Siphiwe Nyanda was allegedly unlawfully awarded a R67,8m tender by the Gauteng roads and transport department, the DA said on Thursday.

DA Gauteng corruption spokesman Jack Bloom said GNS Risk Advisory Services, in which Nyanda had 50% share, had benefited from a tender which was not publicly advertised.

“This is outrageous. Treasury regulation 16A6.4 allows for procurement of required goods or services by means other than competitive bids only if this is impractical, but how could there have been anything impractical in this case?” Bloom asked in a statement.

The services provided by GNS, he said, could have been provided by other companies. “This contract also appears to have grown in value, and was not reviewed to see if another company could do it more cost effectively.”

He said in awarding the tender, the department did not follow proper tender processes. “It seems highly irregular that minister Nyanda continues to benefit handsomely from GNS’s contract with a Gauteng government department that should have been reviewed long ago,” said Bloom.

Department spokesman Philemon Motshwaedi was yet to comment on the matter.

Transnet on Wednesday dismissed two senior managers for manipulating a tender process involving GNS.

A disciplinary hearing found the two guilty of dishonesty and misconduct that led to the awarding of a tender for security services at Transnet Freight Rail.

The two managers were suspended in November last year. Transnet spokesman John Dludlu confirmed to Sapa that the dismissals were related to a contract awarded to GNS Security Company.

And last month, the Congress of the People said it intended asking the Public Protector to investigate Nyanda’s business interests.

The party alleged his business interests were in conflict with section 96 of the constitution and section 2 of the Executive Members’ Ethics Act.

This meant he could not undertake any other paid work, expose himself to a conflict of private and official interests, use his position to enrich himself, or act in a way that could compromise the credibility of government.  — Sapa



Comments are closed

Advertisement

Recent Comments

  • Greg Mahlknecht: Are you sure you aren’t replacing 25W downlighters with those Ellies?  I got some to check...
  • Brian: Weslite sent me their catalog and price list this morning.  The pricing seemed very reasonable and they are in...
  • Theunis De Klerk: I have started replacing my downlights with LED ones. Started with the Osram ones, but at R200, too...
  • Greg Mahlknecht: Great, thanks – Makro’s a bit far away from me, but I see ACDC is just a few mins away,...
  • Wayne Gemmell: I bought a simple LED globe to replace a globe in my lounge. The thing was so dim that I eventually...

Advertisement
Advertisement

TechCentral is proudly hosted by:




Log in / (c) 2009 - 2012 NewsCentral Media