What Happened?
The Special Court looked at a R25.8 million contract that the Ngaka Modiri Molema District Municipality gave to a company called Rensh CC. The work was supposed to fix wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations in Ditsobotla. The court said the contract was illegal and unconstitutional.
Why Did the Court Get Involved?
The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) asked the court to cancel the municipality’s decision. The SIU is a government body that investigates corruption, bad management, and shady spending—especially related to COVID‑19 funds.
The Investigation’s Starting Point
The SIU began its probe after a presidential proclamation allowed investigations into COVID‑19‑related spending. They focused on the rehabilitation of four pumping stations and a wastewater plant in Ditsobotla, a town that already had sewage problems.
How the Municipality Handled the Procurement
Before the pandemic, in November 2019, the municipality had already started a formal tender process for emergency repairs on faulty pumping stations. Several companies submitted bids, and an engineering firm, Themak Consulting, prepared a bill of quantities worth about R36.9 million.
What Went Wrong?
Despite having an active tender and multiple bidders, municipal officials later turned to Rensh CC—a company that had **not** submitted a bid or taken part in the advertised tender. In March 2020, a senior official called Rensh’s director, Rashida Cader, and asked for a quote. Rensh replied with an offer of roughly R25.8 million.
Using the “Emergency” Rule
After South Africa declared a national state of disaster later that month, the municipality cited Regulation 36 of the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations, which allows emergency procurement without competitive bidding. A variance memo was prepared and approved, letting Rensh get the contract outright.
The Court’s Reasoning
Judge Billy Mashile found that the municipality’s reliance on the COVID‑19 pandemic as an emergency excuse was not valid. The sewage and infrastructure problems existed **before** the pandemic, and the municipality had already begun a proper tender process months earlier.
Key Points the Judge Highlighted
- Officials never explained why Rensh was chosen over the companies that had actually bid.
- The municipality abandoned a legitimate process without justification.
- The contract was awarded to a firm that never participated in the tender.
- The procurement was not fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, or cost‑effective—as required by Section 217 of the Constitution.
Supporting Evidence from Other Watchdogs
The Auditor‑General of South Africa (AGSA) and Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) also looked into the matter.
Auditor‑General’s Findings
- The municipality incorrectly used COVID‑19 emergency rules to bypass normal procurement.
- Project specs were changed without proper approval—especially for diesel generators, which ended up larger and far more expensive than originally planned.
- Some payment‑certificate items could not be verified on site.
- More than R4.3 million in contingency costs were claimed with no proof of extra work.
SCOPA’s Observations
During 2020 inspections, SCOPA saw little evidence of real infrastructure improvements, even though reports said around R93 million had been set aside for water and sanitation during the pandemic.
Rensh CC’s Defence and the Court’s Response
Rensh argued that its appointment was lawful under the emergency provisions and that the work was completed successfully. The court rejected this, stating that the municipality failed to meet constitutional procurement requirements.
Timing of the Legal Challenge
The SIU filed its review several years after the contract was awarded. The court accepted the delay, explaining that the SIU faced administrative and judicial challenges during and after the pandemic, and ruled that granting the review was in the interests of justice.
Conclusion
The judge’s ruling sends a clear message: municipalities cannot invent emergencies to sidestep fair and transparent buying processes, especially when the problems existed long before any crisis. By invalidating the R25.8 million contract, the court upholds the rule of law, protects public money, and reinforces that procurement must be fair, open, and competitive—no matter the circumstances.
