Story audio is generated using AI
A whistleblower who accused Gauteng government officials, consultants and contractors of allegedly siphoning R16.9m from a school construction project says he warned the department more than a year ago — but his allegations were never properly investigated despite officials promising to involve their risk management unit.
Nhlanhla Mkhize, the owner of Mkhize Gcwabe Properties (MGP), made the allegations in an affidavit lodged with the South African Police Service in connection with the R116m Semphato Secondary School project in Soshanguve.
His complaint centres on four alleged instances of theft totalling R16.9m, which he says were facilitated through payment certificates for work that did not exist.
The allegations include forgery, corruption, theft by false pretence and conspiracy to commit crimes.
The affidavit says the alleged theft involved payments for preliminaries, roof sheeting and trusses, paving, roads and parking, and masonry.
Mkhize says he first became suspicious after MGP was brought into the project in January 2024 to assist the original contractor, Yaweh 1 Construction and Projects, shortly before its termination.
The company resumed work on January 17 2024.
At the first technical meeting, Mkhize says the project was presented as 55% complete, with expenditure of R48.4m. But his company’s assessment placed actual progress at 23.48%, with expenditure of R31.4m. The difference, according to the affidavit, was R16.9m.
“The claimed progress figure was vastly different from our own audit at feasibility stage.”
Mkhize says the discrepancy only became clearer as MGP examined the project’s payment certificates and physical progress.
He alleges that the department had paid for work that did not exist, including more than R6.1m for paving, roads and parking.
The affidavit says 71% of the budget for paving roads and parking had been paid between September 2021 and the end of 2022.
But when MGP arrived in 2024, Mkhize says there was no paving on site.
What was being measured and approved for quality when there was no single paving brick on site?
— Nhlanhla Mkhize, owner of Mkhize Gcwabe Properties
The allegation is particularly significant because Mkhize says payment certificates were supposed to pass through several layers of scrutiny before money was released, including consultants, the construction project manager, the department’s project management team, management and finance.
He questions how the alleged payments could have been approved if the work was not physically present.
“What was being measured and approved for quality when there was no single paving brick on site?”
The affidavit further alleges that more than R4.1m was paid for roof sheeting and trusses despite the buildings allegedly not being ready to receive the roofs.
Mkhize says photographs taken in December 2023 showed about 90% of the buildings were still far from being ready for roofing.
He alleges that his company later had to spend more than R3.5m installing roofs itself.
But it was the alleged response from the department after he raised his concerns that has now become a central part of the story.
Mkhize says that after spending months examining the project and confronting consultants, he formally reported the allegations to the department on March 12 2025.
He says he had by then verified what he believed to be the facts behind the alleged irregular payments.
“By the 12th March 2025 I decided to officially report the matter with the department as I had verified all facts.”
According to Mkhize, attempts to contact the department’s DDG responsible for projects on the same day were unsuccessful. He says he later learnt that the DDG had left work and was going on three weeks’ leave.
The affidavit alleges that some of the people named in his complaint subsequently took lengthy periods of leave.
When the DDG returned, Mkhize says an online meeting was held on April 4 2025, attended by consultants and members of the department’s project team assigned to Semphato. The allegations were discussed, and those named were asked to respond.
Mkhize says he was also told that the department’s risk management unit would be brought into a follow-up meeting because of the criminal allegations.
But Mkhize alleges that meeting never happened.
He claims that only three people eventually responded to his allegations and that no follow-up meeting took place during the next year.
He further alleges that the DDG instructed some, or all, of those who received his report to delete it from their computers because he was allegedly concerned that the Auditor-General could investigate.
Those allegations have not been tested in court.
“Needless to say, there was no follow up meeting in the last 12 months, instead efforts to get me off the project intensified.”
The affidavit names several people whom Mkhize identifies as accused in what he describes as a “syndicate” involved in the alleged theft.
The affidavit does not establish that any of those named committed a crime. They are allegations made by Mkhize and remain to be tested through an investigation or court process.
Mkhize’s complaint, however, raises questions about the department’s oversight mechanisms and whether the alleged irregularities could have occurred despite the multiple levels of certification he says are required before a payment is made.
The affidavit says the department’s project management team is expected to scrutinise quantities and quality before government signs off on payment, while consultants are responsible for measuring and certifying work.
“The department’s own project team conducts an internal scrutiny process which is further supported by their QS division confirming the installation and the square metres of each installation.”
Mkhize now alleges that the department’s failure to act after his report allowed attempts to conceal the alleged irregularities to continue.
He points to paving as an example.
According to the affidavit, paving only began being installed in 2026 — years after certificates allegedly reflected payments for the work.
“In 2026 they started installing paving and to date, they are not even 50% done.”
Mkhize argues that installing the paving years later would not erase an alleged earlier fraudulent payment.
“What that person is returning is a stolen car and that does not take away the fact that theft occurred.”
The affidavit also alleges that the project had undergone more than 50 changes to its bill of quantities without the corresponding compensation events, Bid Adjudication Committee decisions or approval from the head of department.
Mkhize says these changes meant the government was potentially paying for something different from what it had originally contracted to deliver to the Soshanguve community.
The Gauteng department of infrastructure development has been asked whether it investigated the allegations, whether risk management became involved, whether any officials or consultants were disciplined or suspended, and whether the matter was referred to law enforcement or the Auditor-General.
The department of education has also been asked whether it was aware of the allegations and whether learners and the Soshanguve community have been affected by the project’s troubled history. Both departments had not responded to questions at the time of publication.
The Semphato project was valued at R116m, with R61.2m certified by March 5 2025, according to the affidavit.
Mduduzi Nonyane
www.timeslive.co.za
