Hearing record
Day 98
Evidence led by Advocate Matthew Chaskalson
Day 98, 28 April 2026. Suspended Tshwane Metro Police Department deputy chief Umashi Dhlamini continued his testimony, facing questions about whether he had passed non-public tender information to an alleged middleman and about lists of favoured security companies said to originate with political parties. Evidence leader Matthew Chaskalson pressed him on the gap between a publicly available bids register and the document he had actually sent to suspended sergeant Fannie Nkosi.
The day in brief
What you need to know
- Dhlamini, the suspended deputy TMPD chief, returned to the stand for a further day of cross-examination centred on how ad hoc security contracts were steered.
- Evidence leader Matthew Chaskalson challenged Dhlamini's claim that a document he sent to suspended sergeant Fannie Nkosi was merely a publicly available bids list, pointing out that the two documents were not the same.
- According to The Citizen, Dhlamini conceded that the document he sent to Nkosi had not been published on any website and was therefore not publicly accessible at the time.
- The commission heard allegations that Dhlamini received lists of favoured security companies from political parties, including the EFF, though these remain untested allegations that he disputes.
- Suspended sergeant Fannie Nkosi was cast as a middleman between various individuals, framing the tender dispute as a possible network rather than the act of a single official.
- Dhlamini denied wrongdoing throughout and faces no criminal charge arising from this testimony; the commission is an inquiry that makes findings and recommendations, not a court that convicts.
Full coverage
The day, in depth
The document at the centre of the exchange
Much of the day turned on a single question - was the document Dhlamini sent to Sergeant Fannie Nkosi the same as the public bids register, or something not available to ordinary bidders? Chaskalson put it to Dhlamini that the documents differed and that what reached Nkosi was not the register accessible on the web. The Citizen reported that Dhlamini accepted the document had not been published online. He nonetheless denied that sharing it amounted to leaking confidential information.
Political lists and the EFF allegation
The testimony revived allegations that Dhlamini had obtained lists of preferred security companies traced to political parties, with the EFF named among them. Those claims position the TMPD tender dispute within a broader account of alleged political interference in procurement. The allegations were being tested, not proven, and Dhlamini contested the characterisation of his conduct.
How the day fits the inquiry
Day 98 extended the commission's focus on how policing and metro-police procurement can be bent by outside pressure. eNCA carried the proceedings live as Dhlamini continued under questioning. The exchange set up the return of the suspended TMPD director in the following sittings, keeping the Tshwane security-contract thread running across consecutive days.
Our analysis
The bottom line
On the record so far, the commission's line of questioning is narrow but pointed - it is less interested in whether Dhlamini can name a public bids list than in whether the specific document he forwarded matched it. His concession that the material was not published online is significant for the inquiry's purposes because it undercuts the innocent explanation he offered, without in itself establishing any corrupt intent. That distinction matters, and it is one the commission itself will have to weigh rather than assume.
The EFF-linked lists are the more serious thread, but they are also the least tested. Naming a political party as the source of favoured-supplier lists is a grave allegation that, on the current evidence, rests on assertion rather than proof, and Dhlamini disputes it. A fair reading of Day 98 is that the commission surfaced a plausible line of inquiry into political steering of metro-police contracts - not that it demonstrated it. Dhlamini is not charged, is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the appropriate posture is to follow where the documents lead.
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
- Advocate Matthew Chaskalson
On the panel
- Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga (chairperson)