The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

President Jacob Zuma received, on the 2nd and 10th August 2010 respectively, two Reports from the Public Protector on investigations into alleged breach of the Executive Members Ethics Act, 1998 (the Act) and the Executive Ethics Code (the Code) by the Minister of Communications, General Siphiwe Nyanda.

The Public Protector, Advocate Thulisile Madonsela, conducted two investigations in terms of section 3 of the Executive Member Ethics Act , 1998 (the Act) read with sections 6 and 7 of the Public Protector Act 1994.

The first investigation was conducted on the request of the Congress of the People Member of Parliament, Ms JD Killian. The second investigation was conducted on the request of Democratic Alliance Member of Parliament, Mr Athol Trollip.

Ms JD Killian requested the Public Protector to investigate whether or not General Nyanda, had contravened the provisions of the Code or any other legislation.

The complaint by Ms Killian emanates from reports that a company in which General Nyanda is alleged to have a 45% shareholding, Abalozi Security Risk Services had been awarded a R55 Million contract by Transnet Freight Rail. In her complaint to the Public Protector, Ms Killian alleges that General Nyanda benefited improperly from the contract allegedly awarded to Abalozi.

The allegations on the second investigation were based on media reports in which it was alleged that Abalozi Security Risk Advisory Services (Abalozi), previously known as General Nyanda Security Risk Advisory Services and GNS Risk Advisory Services, a company in which the Minister of Communications and his family have a 45% shareholding, had been irregularly awarded a contract, for the provision of risk management, advisory and security services, by the Gauteng Department of Public Transport, Roads and Works (GDTRW) on 25 October 2007.

After investigating the two complaints, the Public Protector with regard to the first complaint (a complaint lodged by Ms Killian), amongst others, finds that there is no conclusive evidence to substantiate the allegation that General Nyanda was personally responsible for securing the Transnet Freight Rail (TFR) contract or that he used his position or relationship with the CEO of TFR to do so. However, the Public Protector further finds that the statement that was issued to the media by General Nyanda supporting the CEO of TFR who was subject of a disciplinary inquiry by Transnet, violates section 2.3(d) of the Code in that Mr Nyanda used his office improperly to benefit the erstwhile CEO of TFR.

With regard to the second complaint (a complaint lodged by Mr Trollip), the Public Protector concluded that, there is no basis for finding that General Nyanda's conduct constitutes a conflict of interest in violation of section 2 of the Act and the provisions of sections 3 of the Code.

The Public Protector also makes certain recommendations in her two Reports which the President is still considering.

As required in terms of the Act the President will submit copies of the two Reports to the National Assembly.