/ 18 March 2010

DA slams ‘outrageous’ Nyanda company tender

Da Slams 'outrageous' Nyanda Company Tender

A company partly owned by Communications Minister Siphiwe Nyanda was allegedly unlawfully awarded a R67,8-million tender by the Gauteng roads and transport department, the Democratic Alliance (DA) said on Thursday.

  • The minister of luxury
  • Nyanda’s ‘caviar lifestyle’ an insult
  • DA Gauteng corruption spokesperson Jack Bloom said GNS Risk Advisory Services, in which Nyanda had a 50% share, had benefited from a tender that 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 spokesperson Philemon Motshwaedi was yet to comment on the matter.

    Meanwhile, 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 spokesperson John Dludlu confirmed to the South African Press Association 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