Transport department orders forensic probe after whistle‑blower alleges irregular media tenders

The Gauteng department of transport has launched an independent forensic investigation after a senior official alleged irregular payments and procurement processes for livestreaming and media contracts.

What prompted the probe

The probe follows allegations made in a protected disclosure by Esethu Hasane, the department’s director of research and content development, that the department paid millions of rand without following an open tender process. The department’s acting director‑general, Mathabatha Mokonyama, has appointed law firm Bowmans to investigate those claims.

Allegations and related actions

Hasane told several bodies, including the portfolio committee on transport and Auditor‑General Tsakani Maluleke, that the department used repeated requests for quotations instead of a single competitive bidding process for livestreaming and media services.

The auditor‑general identified seven quotations that were structured below the R1 million threshold for open competitive bidding. The winning quotations amounted to R6.795 million, while ledger expenditure to the same suppliers over two financial years amounted to R13.275 million.

Hasane said that after he made his disclosure, the unit in the department of public service and administration responsible for fraud and corruption referred the matter to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks). He also stated that he submitted a comprehensive sworn affidavit on 4 June, 2026 describing the procurement arrangements and alleged retaliatory conduct.

Whistle‑blower’s labour challenge

The whistle‑blower has approached the Labour Court seeking to have his allegations of occupational detriment after making protected disclosures heard on their merits. Hasane is challenging a bargaining council ruling that he says prevented a merits hearing because it found a lawsuit was pending elsewhere.

In court papers, Hasane quoted the Protected Disclosures Act, saying:

“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.”

Department response

The department rejected Hasane’s claims that he was victimised for blowing the whistle. It said allegations of harassment were dismissed with costs by the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court following his application for a protection order, and that the Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council also dismissed the harassment claims with costs. The department added that Hasane’s requests to both the public protector and the Public Service Commission to investigate allegations of harassment were unsuccessful.

What the investigation will look at

The Bowmans inquiry has been ordered to investigate the allegations set out in Hasane’s protected disclosure and to recommend remedial action if the investigation indicates breach of the regulatory environment, the department said. The department asked the public and Hasane to give it time to complete that process.