Question NW1171 to the Minister of Transport

Share this page:

30 May 2018 - NW1171

Profile picture: Dreyer, Ms AM

Dreyer, Ms AM to ask the Minister of Transport

With reference to the electronic national administration traffic information system in the past three financial years, (a)(i) where have prescribed procurement processes not been followed and (ii) what were the reasons for this in each case, (b) what were the costs involved and what was the irregular expenditure in each case, (c)(i) what investigations have been launched and (ii) on what date did the specified investigations commence and on what date will they conclude, (d) who was charged in each case, (e) what court cases have taken place and what were the judgements in each case, (f) what wasteful and fruitless expenditure has been identified and what has been done in this regard and (g)(i) what disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and (ii) what were the outcomes in each case?

Reply:

2017/18 Financial year

a) (i) The Department of Transport did not breach procurement processes related to the eNaTIS contract in 2017/18.

(ii) Not applicable

b) No irregular expenditure was incurred in 2017/18 by the Department of Transport related to the eNaTIS contract. However, the cumulative irregular expenditure was R1,256,559,982.63 related to the irregular extension of the contract for five years with effect from 1 May 2010. The cumulative irregular expenditure was R43,458,536.73 related to Change Note 47 that was signed in February 2010 to replace eNaTIS equipment across the country.

c)  (i) and (ii) Not applicable

d) Not applicable

e) Court cases and Judgements in each case,

Court cases

Judgements

(i) RTMC vs Tasima – Tuchten

- Tasima order to handover the NaTIS to RTMC with immediate effect

- Tasima to evacuate or be evicted from the NaTIS premises immediately

(ii) RTMC vs Tasima – Supreme Court of Appeal

- Tasima application dismissed

(iii) Tasima vs DoT and Others – Supreme Court of Appeal (Potteril)

- DoT appeal dismissed

- DoT appeal order to Constitutional Court

(iv) RTMC vs Tasima – Section 17(2)(f) application Supreme Court of Appeal

- Tasima application dismissed

- Tasima appeal to Constitutional Court

(v) Tasima vs RTMC – Steenkamp (Labor Court)

- Court order Section 197 to be applicable and Tasima staff to transfer to RTMC

- RTMC to pay salaries of effected staff pending finalisation of matter

- RTMC appeal order to Labor Appeals Court

(vi) Tasima vs RTMC – Solejee (Labor Court)

- RTMC ordered to pay salaries of Tasima staff

- RTMC appeal order to Labor Appeals court

(vii) Tasima vs RTMC – Rabkin Naicker (Labour Court)

- RTMC ordered to pay Tasima for expenses incurred by Tasima for salaries of Tasima staff pre Steenkamp order.

- RTMC appeal order to Labour Appeals Court

(viii) Tasima vs DoT and Others – Constitutional Court (Potteril Order)

  • 8 March 2018
  • Judgement reserved

(ix) Tasima vs DoT – Constitutional Court (Tuchten Order)

  • 8 March 2018
  • Judgement reserved

(f) Not applicable

(g) (i) and (ii) Not applicable

2016/17 Financial Years

(a) (i) The Department of Transport did not breach procurement processes related to the eNaTIS contract in 2017/18.

(ii) Not applicable

b) In 2016/17, the Department of Transport incurred irregular expenditure of R92,139,498.45 relating to the irregular extension of the eNaTIS contract in 2010.

c) (i) and (ii) Not applicable

d) On 23 December 2016, the Deputy Director – General: Civil Aviation (who was the former Deputy Director – General: Transport Regulation, Accident and Incident Investigation) was charged.

e) Court cases and Judgements in each case,

Court cases

Judgements

(i) Tasima vs DoT and Others – Basson 2

Order by Settlement DoT, pending finalisation of main matter in Constitutional Court must –

  • Pay Tasima for services rendered;
  • Approve PRQ’s
  • Give access to Tasima to Data Recovery Centre
  • Give Tasima unhindered access and use of Waterfall Park building and LAN Desk Agreement Agreements entered into by RTMC and respective service providers)

(ii) Tasima vs DoT and Others – Tuchten

- DoT officials found in contempt,

- DoT ordered to pay amount as per application and approve PRQ,s

(iii) Tasima vs DoT and Others –Pretorius

- DoT officials found in contempt,

- DoT ordered to pay amount as per application and approve PRQ,s

(iv) Tasima vs DoT and Others – Van Der Westhuizen

- Order by Settlement

- DoT officials found in contempt,

- DoT ordered to pay amount as per application and approve PRQ,s

(v) Tasima vs DoT and Others – Constitutional Court

- Appeal upheld

- DoT Tasima extended Agreement declared unlawful with no legal effect from 23 June 2015 (Hughes Order date)

  • Certain Officials of DoT and RTMC found in contempt for actions taken pre April 2015
  • Tasima ordered to handover NaTIS to RTMC within 30 days of Order

(vi) Tasima vs DoT and Others – Constitutional Court

  • Tasima application for clarification alternatively amendment of Constitutional Court Order of 9 November 2016
  • Application dismissed on basis that it has no probability of success.

(vii) Tasima vs DoT and Ohters – Potteril

  • DoT ordered to pay amount as per application and approve PRQ,s
  • DoT appeal the order

 

f) Not applicable

g)  Disciplinary hearings were held up to December 2016; and

(ii) The Deputy Director-General: Civil Aviation Transport was dismissed.

2015/16 Financial Year

a) (i) The Department of Transport did not breach procurement processes related to the eNaTIS contract in 2015/16.

(ii) Not Applicable

b) In 2015/16, the Department of Transport incurred irregular expenditure of R121,429,316.98 relating to the irregular extension of the eNaTIS contract in 2010.

c) (i) and (ii) Not applicable

d) Not applicable

e) what court cases have taken place and what were the judgements in each case,

Court cases

Judgements

(i) Tasima vs Department of Transport (“DoT”) and Others – Hughes Order

  • Tasima DoT Agreement declared unlawful, Tasima to handover NaTIS to RTMC in 30 days
  • Tasima appeal Hughes Order

(ii) Tasima vs RTMC – Mavundla Order

- Application struck of the Role

(iii) DoT and others vs Tasima – Section 18(3) Application Hughes

- Relief for enforcement of Hughes Order granted

(iv) Tasima vs DoT and Others – Section 18(4) Appeal Fabricius

- Judgement reserved sine dies pending Supreme Court of Appeal

(v) Tasima vs Dot and Others – Supreme Court of Appeal

- Appeal upheld, DoT to receive transfer of NaTIS as per transfer provisions in the DoT Tasima agreement, officials of DoT and RTMC found in contempt of court for actions taken to effect transfer of NaTIS pre April 2015.

- DoT and RTMC appeal order to the Constitutional Court

(vi) Tasima vs DoT and Others – Basson 1

  • DoT officials found in contempt,
  • DoT ordered to pay amount as per application and approve PRQ,s
  • DoT to provide Tasima access to Data Recovery Centre

(vii) Tasima vs DoT and Ohters – Potteril

  • DoT ordered to pay amount as per application and approve PRQ,s
  • DoT appeal the order

f) Not applicable

g) (i) and (ii) Not applicable

Source file