Transport department orders forensic probe into tender allegations

The department of transport has instituted an independent forensic investigation into allegations of irregular livestreaming and media contracts as the whistle-blower in the matter lobbies the Labour Court.

At the heart of the case are allegations by the department’s director of research and content development, Esethu Hasane, that the department irregularly paid millions of rands without an open tender.

Bowmans appointed to investigate allegations

The department’s acting director-general, Mathabatha Mokonyama, has now ordered that law firm Bowmans investigate allegations the senior official submitted in a protected disclosure report to various entities, including the portfolio committee on transport and auditor-general Tsakani Maluleke.

“We request that the public and [Hasane] give the department time to investigate and take remedial action if the investigation indicates breach of the regulatory environment,” the department said.

The whistle-blower has since approached the Labour Court to have his allegations of occupational detriment after making protected disclosures heard on their merits.

Labour Court challenge over alleged retaliation

Hasane is challenging a bargaining council ruling that he says effectively prevented that from happening after the council upheld that a lawsuit was pending elsewhere.

He argues that the various processes involving the bargaining council, the Public Service Commission, the public protector and the courts have instead created a procedural deadlock in which no forum has determined whether he was victimised or suffered adverse employment consequences after raising concerns about the department’s procurement.

His case seeks to establish whether the alleged retaliation, including the stripping of his functions and changes to his reporting arrangements, amounted to occupational detriment prohibited by the Protected Disclosures Act.

“Section 9 of the Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 protects a general disclosure, including to the media, where it is made in good faith, is not made for purposes of personal gain, at least one of four statutory conditions is present, and it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make it,” Hasane stated in court papers.

Procurement contracts under scrutiny

At the centre of the procurement controversy is the use of repeated requests for quotations instead of a single competitive bidding process for livestreaming and media services.

The auditor-general subsequently identified seven quotations that were structured below the R1 million threshold for open competitive bidding.

The winning quotations amounted to R6.795 million, while expenditure reflected in the department’s ledger to the same suppliers over two financial years amounted to R13.275 million.

Hasane stated that following receipt of his disclosure, the unit of the department of public service and administration responsible for fraud and corruption matters referred the matter to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks).

“I deposed and submitted a comprehensive sworn affidavit on 4 June, 2026, dealing with the procurement arrangements, the rotational quotation structure among the three entities and the retaliatory conduct that followed my objections,” Hasane stated.

Department rejects whistle-blower claims

According to the department, Hasane’s allegations of victimisation due to blowing the whistle on financial irregularities are not true.

“These allegations of harassment were dismissed with costs by the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court following his court application for a protection order.

“These allegations were also dismissed with costs by the Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council. His request to both the public protector and the Public Service Commission to investigate allegations of harassment was also unsuccessful,” the department said.

But Hasane disputed this, saying no forum has heard the merits of his case and that the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court directed him to the Labour Court.

“That order is under appeal in the high court and the appeal suspends it,” he said.