Hearing record
Day 93
Evidence led by Adv. Matthew Chaskalson SC
Gareth Mnisi was grilled over WhatsApp exchanges with Sergeant Fannie Nkosi, explaining an assurance that he was 'on top of it' as mere play-acting to end a barrage of messages. He denied any link between the tender and Julius Malema, and the chairperson pressed him on an apparent conflict of interest.
The day in brief
What you need to know
- Evidence leader Matthew Chaskalson took Mnisi line by line through WhatsApp messages between him and Sergeant Fannie Nkosi.
- Shown a message saying he was on top of it, Mnisi said he was only 'playing along' and 'huffing and puffing' because of the sheer volume of messages.
- Chaskalson pointed to four instances, dated 11 March 2025, where Nkosi allegedly sent Mnisi lists of prospective bidders, naming Ngaphesheya Construction, Elshaddai Security Services and Gupis85 Solutions.
- Mnisi denied receiving any bidder list from Julius Malema, rejecting the inference drawn from messages referencing 'Juju'.
- Justice Madlanga challenged him on adjudicating a process involving an entity he had assisted while denying any conflict of interest.
- A separate strand concerned a contested 'JS' identity, on which Mnisi's account differed from Nkosi's.
- The allegations are untested; Mnisi denies wrongdoing and is presumed innocent.
Full coverage
The day, in depth
The WhatsApp trail
Chaskalson presented exchanges in which Mnisi appeared to reassure Nkosi, including a message that he was on top of it. Mnisi countered that he was merely huffing and puffing and playing along to manage a flood of messages rather than acting on anything. The evidence leader highlighted four occasions on 11 March 2025 when Nkosi allegedly forwarded prospective-bidder lists involving Ngaphesheya Construction, Elshaddai Security Services and Gupis85 Solutions. The explanation drew visible scepticism from the chairperson.
The Malema denial and the conflict question
Asked about messages referencing 'Juju', a common nickname for EFF leader Julius Malema, Mnisi denied ever receiving a bidder list from Malema and suggested the assumption was mistaken. Madlanga put to him that he was effectively adjudicating a process in which an entity he had assisted was a participant, while maintaining there was no conflict of interest. Mnisi held to his denials. The Commission has made no findings, and Malema is not an accused before it on this point.
In their words
Key moments from the record
“You are effectively adjudicating a process in which an entity you assisted is a participant, yet you say there is no conflict of interest.”
Our analysis
The bottom line
Day 93 shifted from character to paper. WhatsApp threads are hard to wave away, so Mnisi's defence became an argument about meaning rather than existence: yes, the messages are real, but they were social noise, not instructions. That is a legitimate line, and anyone who has ignored a persistent chat will recognise the 'playing along' instinct. The question is whether that reading survives when the messages sit next to real bidder lists and real dates.
The chairperson's conflict-of-interest point is the sharper one, because it does not depend on tone at all. If an official helps an entity and then sits in judgement over a process that entity enters, the problem exists regardless of what any message meant. On the Malema strand, caution is essential: a nickname in someone else's phone is not proof of involvement, Mnisi denied any list from Malema, and no adverse finding has been made against anyone. Everything here remains allegation, and the presumption of innocence stands.
Analysis is the archive’s own comment on the public proceedings, grounded in the record above. It weighs the evidence and the process; questions of individual guilt are for the courts and the commission to decide. Everyone named is presumed innocent.
In the room & on the record
Counsel, the panel and sources
Evidence led by
- Adv. Matthew Chaskalson SC
On the panel
- Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga (chairperson)