28 July 2026, Tshwane – The South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) has noted the Court Order by the High Court declaring its Routine Road Maintenance (RRM) tender award “unconstitutional and unlawful”. The award was reviewed and set aside on the 20th of July 2026 by Judge Millar.

On 29 November 2024, the roads agency issued a tender inviting interested parties to bid for the appointment on a panel of 20 contractors to conduct RRM Works across South Africa for a period of five years. SANRAL previously had approximately 251 contractors managing its RRM Programme.

Last year, a tender process called for the number of contractors to 20 to conduct RRM Works. The rationale given at the time was that the procurement process would be quicker and managing 20 contractors would be less complex than managing over 251 contractors. Bids came in and about 401 tenders were received, and 20 bidders were recommended for the RRM Works.

The procurement process culminated in the institution of two reviews applications by unsuccessful bidders, namely BCB Solutions and Botle Ba Afrika. The applications were in two parts. Part A sought to interdict SANRAL from concluding and/or executing service level agreements for the RRM Works and the commencement of the work by the 20 successful bidders, and Part B relates to the substantive reviews.

In light of the pending hearing in Part A, and other practical considerations (for example, the roads must continue being maintained), SANRAL prudently offered to extend the existing contractors’ contracts for six months, rather than risk proceedings that were likely to result in an interdict. In short, SANRAL undertook not to implement the RRM tender. It was a practical business decision informed by legal advice and a view that an extension by agreement, instead of an interdict against SANRAL, was a more legally sound approach. This decision was confirmed as part of judicial case management in front of a judge.

Meanwhile, SCM delayed dispatching the letters of extension to the existing RRM contractors despite a Board decision confirming the extensions. The CEO encouraged SCM colleagues to implement the Board decision by issuing extension letters. However, the impasse could not be resolved. Ultimately, the Board decided to recuse SCM from matters relating to the RRM Works, Programme and litigation in light of the perceived conflict of interest, and to delegate these powers to the CEO under the Board’s ultimate oversight. Some SCM colleagues had taken an unfortunate decision that SANRAL had extended already expired contracts. SANRAL’s position is that this is not correct.

On the 4th of February 2026, SANRAL instructed a firm of attorneys to conduct an investigation on matters related to the RRM. This includes establishing whether certain employees might have failed, intervened or obstructed the implementation of a Board decision. The firm of attorneys requested interviews with no less than nine (9) SANRAL employees, the CEO included. Every employee cooperated and attended interviews, except for three (3) SCM colleagues who did not attend interviews. After appeals from the CEO for cooperation, it became clear that there may have been reluctance to assist. SANRAL suspended three (3) SCM colleagues pending disciplinary proceedings. The three (3) SCM colleagues are of course presumed innocent until and unless proven otherwise. The SCM colleagues have challenged their suspension in the Labour Court. The judgement of the Labour Court is awaited.

The internal and external legal advice that SANRAL obtained indicated the procurement process followed in the appointment of the 20 contractors who made it to the RRM panel was materially flawed in several respects, and a number of procurement lapses were identified to such an extent that Senior Counsel advised that SANRAL should institute a self-review to set aside the RRM tender award. SANRAL should not, and will not, defend legal matters at all costs, particularly where it is apparent that material irregularities identified cannot be defended and there is no meritorious defence. Given the material irregularities identified, in an effort to ensure transparency and to remain accountable, SANRAL proposed to the Court, and the respective parties, that the RRM tender award is declared constitutionally invalid, reviewed and set aside. At the hearing on 20 July 2026, as directed by Millar J, SANRAL and the litigants entered into negotiations, after which all parties confirmed SANRAL’s position in relation to the irregularities affecting the procurement process and SANRAL concessions of the merits of the review.

The next steps for SANRAL are as follows:

• The new open tender process must be designed and launched without delay;
• There is a 30 November 2026 court-imposed deadline that is non-negotiable, and any further extension will require a further court application on good cause shown;
• The incumbent contractors remain in place until 30 November 2026, and SANRAL must ensure uninterrupted road maintenance during the transition; and
• All panel appointments have fallen away – no work may be allocated under the set-aside tender.

Similarly, two review further applications were heard concurrently on 12 June 2026, both challenging SANRAL’s decision in respect of the appointment of a panel of engineering consultants for conventional category 2, periodic and special maintenance, and certain strengthening projects, for works across South Africa. The matters were before the Judge Potterill in the High Court. Again, given the material flaws in the procurement process which were identified after an internal investigation, as well as external legal advice received by SANRAL, including advise from Counsel, SANRAL’s decision to award this tender was also reviewed and set aside.

SANRAL accepts that the procurement processes referred to above could not stand. Rather than defend it through protracted litigation, SANRAL has paved the way for new tenders, while ensuring that maintenance of South Africa’s national roads continues uninterrupted. SANRAL remains committed to a procurement process that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective, as required by section 217 of the Constitution.

 

-ENDS-

______________________________________________________________________________

Issued by the South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited (SANRAL). For editorial content or additional information contact Lwando Mahlasela on 082 440 5305 or pressoffice@nra.co.za

 

SANRAL’S OPENING STATEMENT AT A MEDIA BRIEFING

BY THE CEO

HELD ON 28 JULY 2026

1. INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the media. We have called this media briefing to deal, directly and fully, with a number of issues and allegations that have been circulating in the media and in the public domain about SANRAL – and, in recent weeks, about me personally.

Over a period now, SANRAL has been on the wrong end of several court cases owing to lapses in its procurement processes and practices. These cases range from the appointment certain companies in high value contracts, as well as panels for Category 2 engineering consultants and Routine Road Maintenance (RRM) contractors.

In almost all of the court challenges, the unsuccessful bidders brought review applications in two (2) parts. Part A, an interdict to block the signing of service level agreements (SLAs) and the commencement of work, and Part B, the substantive review of the merits. In each case, SANRAL sought internal and external legal advice on its prospects of successfully opposing the court challenges.

I can say, without fear of contradiction, that in almost all instances, after receiving legal advice from attorneys and Counsel, SANRAL’s prospects of success were extremely limited. Accordingly, SANRAL agreed to concede to the merits of the applications rather than fight losing battles at the taxpayer’s expense – a decision also driven by a simple operational reality: the roads must continue to be maintained.

Here are the five (5) things I need you to hear today:

1. In my professional capacity, as the CEO of SANRAL, I have never held procurement or tender award decision delegations. Every Supply Chain Management (SCM)
2. decision at the centre of this controversy – including Routine Road Maintenance (RRM) contract extensions – was taken by either the SANRAL Board, or by officials/committees the Board delegated that power to.
3. SANRAL has no Accounting Officer as a Schedule 3A entity in the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). Its Board is the Accounting Authority under the PFMA. My powers as CEO are delegated by the Board, and the Board can vary or withdraw them at any time.
4. Every contract extension at issue was a lawful Board decision, taken by SANRAL after obtaining legal advice, and disclosed to the court. This was done for one reason: South Africa’s roads cannot stop being maintained while litigation runs its course.
5. Where our own procurement fell short of the Constitution and the law, we did not hide it. We investigated ourselves, told the courts, and asked a judge to set our own tender aside. In some instances, the Board decided that we self-review. That is accountability – not corruption.
6. We have decided to procure services for RRM consultants and contractors, as well as Category 2 engineering consultants, individually using open tender process, as we have done in the past before exploring the panel route.

Let me also say upfront that this is not a self-defence exercise. We are a public entity and will always welcome being held accountable and to the highest standards of scrutiny. During the Question and Answer (Q&A) session later, I want you to keep that in mind. Let us have a no-holds-barred, open and honest engagement.

I want to use this time to do something simple: put the facts on the record, clearly, in one place – because a great deal has been said over the past weeks that isn’t true, and some of it has been designed not to be true.

I propose to deal with the matters in the following order:

• Court judgments against SANRAL and their root causes;
• The way forward in rolling out services for RRM consultants and contractors, as well as Category 2 engineering consultants;
• Challenges in SANRAL’s procurement and corrective action being taken;
• Allegations of corruption at SANRAL involving R9.5 billion; and
• SANRAL’s achievements during my tenure.

Let me now deal specifically with the most recent of these matters.

2. RECENT CASES/MATTERS

2.1 THE ROUTINE ROAD MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS’ TENDER PANEL AND EXTENSIONS

On 29 November 2024, SANRAL issued a tender inviting bids for the appointment of a panel of 20 contractors to conduct RRM works across South Africa for a period of five (5) years.

SANRAL had previously managed this work through approximately 251 contractors.

A decision was taken by SANRAL, following a recommendation by Supply Chain Management (SCM), to reduce that number of contractors to 20, on the basis that a smaller panel would be quicker and efficient to procure and far less complicated to manage – which was the most attractive part of the value proposition regarding the introduction of tender panels. During this tender process, some 401 tenders were received, and 20 successful bidders were recommended.

Two (2) unsuccessful bidders – BCB Solutions and Botle Ba Afrika – brought review applications, again in two (2) parts. Part A to interdict SANRAL from using any of the successful tenderers, and Part B to preserve the status quo (i.e. using the existing contracts) pending the determination of the review application.

Given the pending interdict and the practical imperative that road maintenance cannot simply stop, SANRAL prudently tendered to court to extend the existing contracts for six (6) months, rather than risk an interdict process. This was premised on considered legal advice provided and operational judgment: an agreed extension, rather than a court-imposed interdict, was the more sound path. As the courts are unlikely to grant orders, which amongst others in Part A, was to retain the status quo of retaining the existing panel, usurping public powers. The existing panel would have lapsed, and the new panel interdicted, plunging SANRAL and the national road network into undesirable and unsustainable chaos.

SANRAL’s decision was communicated to the legal team on 26 October 2025. At a case management meeting held on 27 October 2025, before the then Acting Judge President Poterrill, SANRAL undertook, first, to extend the existing contracts of the incumbent service providers for a period of six (6) months, during which the review was expected to be finalised, and second, not to implement the new tender (panel) pending the determination of Part B.

ON THE PERSONAL ALLEGATION

I must address, directly, an allegation that was circulating in social media that I, as CEO, unilaterally extended the RRM contracts because I stood to personally benefit.

For the record, the decision to extend the RRM contracts for six (6) month was a lawful decision of the SANRAL Board, endorsed at a judicial case management meeting as a pragmatic arrangement.

And, as I said at the outset, and will keep saying throughout this statement, I did not have the individual procurement award delegations to make that kind of decision in the first place. I will return to the question of delegations shortly, because it is the single most misunderstood fact in this entire matter.

Following the case management meeting, the Board – not the CEO – approved a memorandum for the allocated budgets on 30 November 2025 through the previous Board Chairperson, and the full Board ratified this decision on 01 December 2025, providing for: (a) the extension of the RRM contracts (for the existing service providers) for a period of six (6) months from 1 December 2025 to 31 May 2026, with associated costs; (b) the extension of the RRM consultant contracts for a period of three (3) months from 1 March 2026 to 31 May 2026 with associated cost; and (c) a further six (6) months from 1 June 2026 to 30 November 2026, in the event new service providers had not yet been appointed by 31 May 2026 – which is in fact what occurred. The new Board, which assumed office on 1 March 2026, duly noted that further extension already approved by the previous Board and approved the related budgets.

Allegations about two (2) different documents with different values are being investigated by an external law firm to establish the veracity of such allegations. In addition, allegations that SANRAL acted against a National Treasury (NT) opinion are also simply not true, and this matter is also subject to the an investigation on the implementation of the RRM extensions from 01 December 2025 to 30 May 2026.

The concession to extend, rather than risk an interdict, was a decision taken with due care: an interdicted panel and lapsed RRM contracts, with no contingency in place, would have been a significant operational risk SANRAL could not responsibly run. Four (4) dates matter here, and I ask you to hold onto them: (a) SANRAL’s decision and its communication to external legal counsel on 26 October 2025; (b) the case management undertaking on 27 October 2025, made in a hearing attended by the very applicants seeking the interdict; (c) the Board Chairperson’s sign-off on the associated budget on 30 November 2025; and (d) the full Board ratification of the decision on 01 December 2025. For all practical purposes, the extension was effected through a court-led process on 27 October 2025. What remained was the administrative step of dispatching the extension letters – and it is that administrative step, not the underlying decision, that was delayed.

The delay arose because certain Supply Chain Management (SCM) colleagues took the position – factually and legally incorrect – that the RRM contracts had already expired, and that extending them thereafter was impermissible. One SCM official wrote to NT, unsanctioned by SANRAL and without consulting either myself, the Board, Company Secretariat or SANRAL’s own Legal Services department, seeking a view on extending contracts after expiry. That letter omitted the material facts: the SANRAL’s decision of 26 October 2025 and SANRAL’s undertaking in court on 27 October 2025. Unsurprisingly, NT responded on 19 December 2025 that, on the facts before it, the contracts had expired on 30 November and could not be extended – an opinion given on an incomplete record. SANRAL’s Chief Legal, Risk and Compliance Officer (CLRCO), who served as Acting CEO for much of this period, will expand on this during Q&A, if required.

To be clear: SANRAL had taken the decision to extend the RRM contracts before their expiry. Only the administrative dispatch of the letters was delayed. That correspondence to NT, and NT’s response to an incomplete record, is what gave rise to the false narrative that SANRAL sought to extend contracts beyond expiry to protect particular contractors, or to maintain the so-called ‘evergreen contracts’. There are no evergreen contracts at SANRAL – at least not during my tenure. There are extended contracts, duly authorised by the Board, not by the CEO, for sound operational reasons.

SANRAL proceeded to issue the RRM extension letters, following external further legal advice, which included Senior Counsel, on NT’s opinion. I signed the letters personally, on 19 January 2026, because the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) had declined to do so, indicating by email that, given her position, she would rather I sign the extension letters. The underlying decision remained a lawful Board decision throughout, and I signed the letters to give effect to it as directed by the Board, nothing more.

THE DISPUTE INSIDE SCM

Further tension followed. The CLRCO, as Acting CEO during my leave, brought to the Board’s attention that internal communication had circulated suggesting the RRM extension letters had been withdrawn. He sought the CPO’s suspension at the Board meeting of 29 January 2026. The Board declined to suspend her at the time, but resolved along the following lines:

‘The Board has taken notice that there are two (2) high court matters pertaining to RRM bid process and that there is a great likelihood that Supply Chain Management is conflicted and must thus be recused on all current RRM matters. Therefore, the Board resolves as follows:

• The Chief Procurement Officer and all SCM functionaries are recused and all SCM delegations pertaining to RRM are withdrawn.
• The Board will exercise all decisions relating to RRM and the CEO will execute all Board decisions with assistance from relevant SCM practitioners for administrative processes.
• The Board reiterates its decision of November 30, 2025, that all RRM contracts are extended.
• All RRM contractors must be given letters of extension and any communication that stated the letters of extension are withdrawn or retracted is void ab initio.
• The Board re-emphasises its previous resolution of consequence management for any official who failed, intervened or obstructed the implementation of Board’s resolution(s) pertaining to RRM. Accordingly, the Board has commissioned an investigation into and legal advice on the commission or omission, by all relevant parties, relating to the implementation of its resolution of 30 November 2025.
• The Board awaits legal advice on these RRM legal matters and wishes to confirm its respect of all decisions undertaken by our legal team at court as part of case management’.

In short: the disputes between SCM, the CEO’s office and the Board over the extensions of the existing RRM contracts led to the Board resolving, on 29 January 2026, to commission an investigation into the failure to implement its own decision.

On 4 February 2026, SANRAL instructed a firm of attorneys to conduct the investigation into the RRM contracts – including establishing whether certain employees might have failed, intervened or obstructed the implementation of a Board decision.

The firm of attorneys requested interviews with no less than nine (9) SANRAL employees, myself included. Every employee cooperated and attended interviews, except for three (3) SCM colleagues who did not attend interviews. After numerous appeals from me personally for cooperation, and written requests from the law firm for interviews, it became clear that there may have been reluctance to assist. I suspended the three (3) SCM officials for gross insubordination and/or insolation pending disciplinary proceedings. These proceedings are pending. The three (3) SCM colleagues are of course presumed innocent until and unless proven otherwise.

I do not expect the said officials to speak well of me as I exit SANRAL, and I have a fair idea where some of the slanderous commentary about me originates. I stand by the decision to suspend them for refusing to cooperate with a Board-sanctioned investigation. It is a matter of public record that the said employees have since taken SANRAL to the Labour Court over those suspensions and judgment is awaited.

Pursuant to advice from the external legal team, led by a Senior Counsel, it was determined that the procurement process behind the RRM contractor panel was materially flawed. For more details and specifics in this regard, please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) contained in today’s media pack that our team will distribute. The flaws included, but were not limited to:

• Tenders were not opened at the tender box approximately one (1) hour after closing, as SANRAL’s own prescripts require, and the tender opening register was not made available to tenderers;
• SANRAL’s failure to require competition on price undermined section 217(1) of the Constitution — the panel was appointed on functionality alone; and
• Race was made the determining factor in selecting which of the 61 functionally competent tenderers were appointed to the panel of 20.

There was also prima facie information pointing towards possible and suspected fraudulent conduct at SANRAL – including awards to companies that do not appear to exist, or whose addresses and contact details cannot be traced – alongside serious irregularities throughout the bid specification, evaluation and adjudication process. I pause to mention, SANRAL cannot, and will not, defend legal matters at all costs, particularly where it is apparent that material irregularities identified cannot be defended. Given the irregularities identified, and in an effort to ensure transparency and to remain accountable, SANRAL itself proposed to the Court, and the respective parties, that the tender is declared constitutionally invalid, reviewed and set aside. Given all of this, SANRAL had no credible prospect of successfully defending the award, and approached the Court to agree to an order that the tender award be declared unconstitutional and unlawful.. At the hearing on 20 July 2026, as directed by Millar J, SANRAL and the litigants entered into negotiations, after which all parties confirmed SANRAL’s position in relation to the irregularities affecting the procurement process and SANRAL’s concessions of the merits of the review. SANRAL’s approach to the legal defence strategy was informed by internal and external legal advice, including advice from Counsel, having taken into account the irregularities identified during the internal investigation of the procurement process.

I have spent more time on the RRM matter than on any other today, because most of the issues in the media and public domain concerns it. I say again what I said at the outset: I did not hold the individual award delegations to make this decision. The Board and/or relevant bid committees, in line with the PFMA, did. That fact does not change no matter how many times the narrative around it is repeated.

2.2 THE CATEGORY 2 ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS TENDER PANEL

But RRM was not the only matter. It is also common knowledge now that this past June 2026, a SANRAL category 2 engineering consultants tender panel award was declared unlawful because of irregularities in the tender adjudication process.

The tender award sought to establish a panel of engineering consultants for periodic and special maintenance and strengthening projects. Two (2) unsuccessful bidders, Lathiso Consulting Engineering and Zutari brought review applications in the High Court inPretoria, challenging both the rejection of their own bids and the award of the tender to 32 other bidders for a five-year term.

Similarly, owing to patent fatal irregularities which were identified in the bid evaluation processes following an internal investigation, Judge Sulet Potterill issued separate orders against SANRAL – punitive costs in the Zutari matter, and costs in the Lathiso matter – declaring SANRAL’s disqualification of both bidders constitutionally invalid, reviewing and setting aside, and similarly setting aside the award to the existing panel.

There are currently no existing service providers for this service and therefore no extensions were required.

2.3 PROPOSED WAY FORWARD ON THE PANELS

SANRAL has not operated through panels in its core business of engineering since its formation in 1998. This was the first time we were introducing them, in a much short space of time following the establishment of SCM as a standalone Division and related process, systems and policy changes.

We have learned some important lessons as SANRAL from the two (2) panel litigation matters. Internally, we needed more time to prepare for this change in the core business operating model and to align our management processes and systems accordingly. Externally, we needed to understand the socio-economic impact on our service providers, some of whom may have been established mainly to service SANRAL and how they will be impacted by not being in the panels for a five-year term.

As a result of the above, we have decided to revert to procuring services for RRM consultants and contractors as well as Category 2 engineering consultants individually using open tender processes, as we have done in the past before exploring the panel route.

We have prepared the tender packs, we are running a live proactive internal assurance process, and will be issuing tenders in batches in the coming days. In the Western Cape and Northern Cape Provinces, a limited number of tenders have already been issued, thus signalling our intention to move with speed. As some of you would have seen in the settlement court order for the RRM contractor panel, we are required to have completed the appointments of RRM contractors by the end of November 2026 and, should it be required, we will go back to court to request for some extensions. This is, however, not our intention at all. Our engineering and SCM colleagues can explain the roll-out process further during the Q&A, if required.

3. CHALLENGES IN SANRAL’S PROCUREMENT AND CORRECTIVE ACTION BEING TAKEN

When I joined SANRAL in 2023, I found a functioning SCM department, under the leadership of the Chief Financial Officer. SANRAL’s SCM was conscious of its role in fulfilling government’s mandate to use infrastructure investment to reignite the economy and create jobs. I must acknowledge, though, that there were challenges from time to time, for example when the Board decided to split engineering consultants who prepared the tender documents from those that participated in bid technical evaluation in order to manage a potential conflict of interest. I had to deal with consequence management processes related to non-implementation of this Board decision immediately after I joined SANRAL.

In my first year (2023/2024), SANRAL awarded 395 tenders valued at R53 billion – this despite inheriting a huge backlog from litigation that had, prior to my arrival, brought awards to a halt. In the preceding year 2022/2023, under the then acting CEO Ms Lehlohonolo Memeza, SANRAL had awarded 320 contracts valued at R51 billion.

Structural reporting lines aside – SCM then reported to Finance – the system worked, and there was an upward trajectory of awards: R16.5 billion across 156 tenders in 2019/2020; R25 billion across 85 tenders in 2020/2021; R33 billion across 267 tenders in 2021/2022.

In 2024/2025, SANRAL continued to have a higher number of awards by volume and value in line with the upward trajectory. However, some concerns started emerging in the form of, for example, tender cancellations, the delayed approval of additional expenditure for ongoing projects, resulting in delayed completion of projects, some contractors abandoning sites, escalating litigation against SANRAL and consequential settlements etc. This indicated that there were potential underlying root causes within procurement that needed to be addressed.

Ladies and gentlemen

You will be entitled, having heard the procurement breaches I have described, to ask, where was the CEO? That question brings me to SCM delegations. On 29 January 2026, the Board took a decision that it will “exercise all decisions relating to RRM and the CEO will execute all Board decisions with assistance from relevant SCM practitioners for administrative processes.” This was a partial restoration to me of specific SCM delegations to allow for Board decisions to be implemented without delay. In a similar fashion, certain delegations such as appointing members of Bid Specification Committees and Bid Evaluation Committees were also given to the CEO during 2025 calendar year for the same reason.

As a Schedule 3A PFMA entity, SANRAL is governed by its Board of Directors, which constitutes the Accounting Authority in terms of the PFMA. SANRAL does not have an Accounting Officer, a role which would otherwise vest in me as the CEO. The Board is responsible for governance, policies and the procurement system in terms of section 51 of the PFMA.

In terms of section 56(1)(a) and 56(2)(b) of the PFMA, the Board may delegate its powers to any official, and it is from such delegation that I, as the CEO, derive my powers. In this instance, the erstwhile Board chose to delegate the SCM/procurement powers to the CPO during the establishment of the SCM division. The Board was within its lawful right in terms of the SANRAL Act and the PFMA to delegate procurement/SCM powers to the CPO.

The new Board has already introduced some reforms that must be implemented immediately to enable faster roll-out of projects, and these include – a number of standing bid specifications and evaluation committees; an enlarged pool of adjudication committee members; restoring internal proactive assurance processes and capabilities for high value tenders; and a consolidated delegations of authority document. Some of this work is a continuation of what the previous Board had started.

Given that we have now settled the litigation matters related to panels, we have instructed our Legal Advisers to commence with the necessary consequence management processes, where required and necessary, based on their recommendations. This, alongside rolling out new tenders, will be our big focus area. In certain instances, the consequence management preparation processes are already well advanced.

4. ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AGAINST SANRAL AND MY PERSON

There are allegations that SANRAL’s RRM contracts, dating back to 2011, have been riddled with corruption. Law enforcement is examining these allegations, and SANRAL is cooperating with that process fully. I arrived at SANRAL in 2023 and can only account for the period since I joined – my predecessors are best placed to account for their own tenures.

As for the claims made against me personally: I reject them, emphatically and unequivocally. I am advised that some of what has circulated amounts to defamation, and my attorneys are looking into this matter; I reserve my rights.

We have all, in a completely different setting this past week, watched a very public reminder that an allegation on its own, without evidence, is not a finding, and does not entitle anyone to be treated as guilty. I would ask that the same basic fairness be applied here. I want to address directly a further escalation of this campaign: a fabricated audio recording, circulating on social media in recent days, that names me personally as a beneficiary of irregular tenders. It is not authentic. SANRAL has said so formally, and I say so again today, on the record: as I have already explained, I have never held the delegations that would make such a claim possible, and not one piece of evidence – not one that I am aware of – has been produced to support it.

On the R9.5 billion figure that is often raised in connection with alleged corruption or ‘evergreen’ contracts: SANRAL has, for some years, been navigating historic irregular expenditure of approximately R9.5 billion, linked to RRM contracts awarded between 2011/12 and 2018/19 – before my time at SANRAL. These matters have since been resolved, with full disclosure in SANRAL’s own annual reports that are publicly available. Despite that irregular expenditure, SANRAL received unqualified audit opinions throughout the relevant period, because no confirmed irregular expenditure was linked to fraudulent or criminal intent. I emphasise again: I had not yet joined SANRAL when these matters arose.

5. SANRAL ACHIEVEMENTS DURING MY TENURE

I am not one for blowing one’s own horn, so let me simply repeat what SANRAL itself acknowledged in the SENS statement announcing my resignation. That statement recorded that, during my tenure, I played a key role in:

• Significant progress on strategic infrastructure projects, including the R573 Moloto Road, N2 Wild Coast Road, N2-N3 KwaZulu-Natal upgrades, N2 Corridor in Mpumalanga and N1 South Corridor, spanning both toll and non-toll road portfolios.
• The resolution of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) e-toll matter, materially strengthening SANRAL’s balance sheet following government’s decision to absorb all the GFIP/e-toll related debt.
• An increased borrowing limit of R16.5 billion for SANRAL up to 31 March 2028, including a R7 billion government-guaranteed New Development Bank facility, unlocking capital for toll portfolio previously constrained.

There is much more than these three (3), but I don’t want to turn this media briefing to become about me. Further detail is available in today’s media pack.

6. CONCLUSION

There are other allegations that have been made against SANRAL, and my person and I have no intention of conflating the two (2). I am a distinct legal personality and I understand that distinction very well. Suggestions that SANRAL initially refused to cooperate with the Hawks are unfounded. SANRAL is cooperating fully and will meet every deadline set, and my colleagues from Legal Services will deal with such matters during the Q&A, if required.

Ladies and gentlemen

Just over three and a half (3.5) years ago, I was asked to lead an agency that keeps this country moving, on a road network that carries the weight of our economy. I found a procurement pipeline backlog, with related slow execution of projects in key economic corridors, and a balance sheet under strain. I leave both stronger – not because controversy disappeared, but because every time this organisation faced a hard choice between expedience and the law, it chose the law, and it audited its own conduct, in public, even when that meant setting aside or cancelling its own tender awards. We have time and again, chosen to look for certainty rather than continue in an uncertain path where decisions where within our control.

That is the standard I was appointed to uphold. It is the standard I hand back to the Board and to my successor. And it is the standard by which I ask you, today, to judge SANRAL – and to judge me – not by anonymous or unproven allegations, but by the record now on the table in front of you.

Thank you

 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) ON SANRAL PROCUREMENT ISSUES IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

1) Why is the CEO leaving? Is it related to the recent negative media headlines SANRAL has been making?

Mr Demana has indicated his desire to go back to the financial services sector. The bulk of his career and working experience has been gained in investment banking, mergers and acquisitions’ advisory, BEE structuring, IPOs and capital raising.

His decision to leave has nothing to do with the headlines being referred to. In fact, the career move has been on the cards since October 2025 before the headlines being referred to.

2) There are a number of litigation matters facing SANRAL as the CEO departs. Some started during his tenure. Will he continue assisting SANRAL on these matters should his firsthand knowledge of these matters be needed?

Where Mr Demana can assist with any outstanding litigation matter, he has undertaken to assist SANRAL, of course within the constraints of his future commitments. It is noted that, since the announcement of Mr Demana’s departure, most of the contested tender litigation has been resolved. For example, the RRM contractors’ tender litigation was concluded on 20 July 2026, and the RRM consultants’ tender litigation (Lathiso Consulting Engineers and Zutari) was concluded on 12 June 2026. Mr Demana’s continued assistance, to the extent it is required, will principally concern the remaining matters.

3) SANRAL has been receiving negative media coverage around its Procurement Division. In what state is the CEO leaving the organization’s Procurement Department?

In the last two years, Supply Chain Management has faced some challenges occasioned by the creation of a new panels model it was piloting. These challenges resulted in court proceedings in which the RRM contractors’ panel 2 tender and the RRM consultants’ panel tender were both reviewed and set aside by the High Court. SANRAL has taken a decision to abandon the panel-based procurement model for RRM contractors and consultants entirely and to revert to individual open tender processes. SANRAL believes that, with the reforms underway, including the abandonment of the panel model and the move to individual open tendering, the organisation will overcome these challenges in due course.

4) What achievements under his tenure can SANRAL point out?

Since joining SANRAL, Mr Demana has driven a massive turnaround of the Agency, focusing on improving its balance sheet and borrowing capacity, increasing the national road network, driving already existing mega projects, improving internal capacity and resolving the operational matters relating to the e-toll project. Mr Demana’s key achievements during his tenure include, amongst others:

• SANRAL has made significant progress on strategic infrastructure projects, including the R573 Moloto Road, N2 Wild Coast Road, N2-N3 KwaZulu-Natal upgrades, N2 Corridor in Mpumalanga, and N1 South Corridor. These projects, which traverse both toll and non-toll roads, are crucial in facilitating connectivity, creating jobs and driving economic recovery and development.

• Regarding its core mandate, SANRAL spent approximately R35 billion directly on roads in the 2024/25 financial year, including R18.4 billion on capital works and R16.6 billion on maintenance. This reflects SANRAL’s improved delivery momentum and increased expenditure on the road programme. The national road network, which spans approximately 27,500 kms, and is valued at around R780 billion, is a testament to the scale and strategic significance of the road assets under Mr Demana’s stewardship.

• The resolution of the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) e-toll issue, which resulted in a significant improvement in SANRAL’s balance sheet, largely due to the government’s decision to absorb all the GFIP/e-toll related debt.

• SANRAL’s financial position has improved substantially, with a balance that shows significant growth. SANRAL’s borrowing limit was increased by National Treasury to R16.5 billion for up to 31 March 2028, including a R7 billion government-guaranteed New Development Bank facility. This was key to unlocking funding capacity for toll portfolio capital investment and previously constrained capital projects.

• SANRAL’s footprint has expanded in line with the long-term ambition to grow the national road network to 35,000 kms by 2030 through the transfer of more than 3,000 kms of roads from provinces.

• Throughout Mr Demana’s tenure, SANRAL has prioritised socio-economic transformation, ensuring that its projects are not disrupted, and that the roads agency empowers communities, people and businesses across all areas where the national road network traverse.

• SANRAL’s outreach programme, ‘Taking SANRAL to the People’, has been scaled up, and this has enabled an increased public understanding of the entity, thus enhancing community affiliation with the agency’s projects.

• This year, SANRAL launched the Contractor Development Programme, aimed at empowering black-owned construction companies to graduate to lead contractors. The programme provides targeted training, mentorship and financial support over a maximum of five years to Construction Industry Development Board’s (CIDB) grades 5CE to 9CE.

• SANRAL’s transformation outcomes have been notable, with 2,012 Small, Medium, and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) working on SANRAL projects in the 2024/25 financial year, supported by ongoing enterprise development and the participation of emerging contractors in the road construction value chain. SANRAL created 21,360 job opportunities on projects in 2024/25, exceeding its revised annual target of 15,000, while continuing to direct project opportunities to local labour, SMMEs and designated groups.

• SANRAL has strengthened its executive capacity, expanding the executive team to include Finance; ICT; Supply Chain Management; Legal, Risk and Compliance; Corporate Affairs; Human Resources; and Construction, Operations and Maintenance Engineering; as well as Planning and Design Engineering. In addition, SANRAL has independent governance support divisions in the form of Internal Audit and Company Secretariat. This team has supported SANRAL’s broader operating model reforms, aimed at aligning business functions with appropriate expertise and reducing our reliance on outsourced key operational functions.

• SANRAL has also successfully internalised the Central Operations Centre (COC), which was previously outsourced, and integrated its employees into the SANRAL staff in the newly created ICT division, introducing efficiencies and saving costs in the process.

• SANRAL has also advanced the provincialisation of our operating model, establishing a physical presence in all nine provinces, as opposed to four

• regional offices previously, and positioning Provincial Heads as critical to strategic alignment and stronger governance.

• In 2024, SANRAL took a bold step to separate Supply Chain Management from Finance and have them as two stand-alone divisions, in line with structures in similar sized state-owned entities. In the first year during Mr Demana’s tenure as CEO, SANRAL made 395 awards valued at R53 billion, an increase from the 320 awards in the previous year valued at R51 billion. These figures inspire hope that SANRAL has the resilience and capability to bounce back in the awarding of contracts.

5) What are the issues he is leaving unresolved?

There are a few legal matters that have yet to be fully resolved. These relate to contested tender awards and one labour-related matter. SANRAL is well able to resolve these without Mr Demana. Besides, there can never be an appropriate moment for one to leave an organization especially in the absence of litigation.

6) Is the Board releasing him unreservedly?

SANRAL has not attached any conditions to the resignation of the CEO.

7) Has the departing CEO indicated his future plans or what organisation, if any, he is joining?

SANRAL does not require resigning employees to disclose what their future plans are. To this end, Mr Demana’s future plans are his and he is the best placed person to answer this question.

8) Has an acting CEO been appointed and how long will the permanent filling of this critical position take?

Mrs Lehlohonolo Memeza has been appointed as the Acting CEO, pending the completion of a formal recruitment process for the appointment of a permanent CEO. Mrs Memeza currently serves as SANRAL’s Chief Corporate Affairs Officer and brings extensive executive leadership experience in corporate strategy, governance, stakeholder management, organisational performance and public sector leadership. Mrs Memeza’s appointment has been made in terms of section 21(1)(c) of the SANRAL Act, and it is intended to facilitate an orderly handover from Mr Demana and maintain momentum on SANRAL’s key strategic and infrastructure programmes. This is a role that is not unfamiliar to Ms Memeza as she has previously acted as CEO of SANRAL prior to Mr Demana’s appointment.

9) Is Sanral considering or has it decided to lay criminal charges against its chief procurement officer and two executives in the procurement office, all of whom are currently suspended? If so, when will this be done or when and what criminal charges were laid against them?

If there is prima facie evidence of reportable conduct where it is suspected that any SANRAL official is involved, SANRAL will comply with its legal obligation to report the matter to law enforcement authorities.

10) What was the rationale behind the decision to establish panels in the first place?

Prior to 2016/2017, SANRAL conducted its procurement of Routine Road Maintenance Works using a Gamma Model as part of its evaluation processes. However, this method ultimately resulted in irregular expenditure of about R9.5 billion. It is important to emphasise that Mr Reginald Demana had not joined SANRAL then.

From around 2016/2017, SANRAL discontinued the use of the Gamma Model and instead commenced with a process of appointing tenderers through normal open tender and evaluation processes. That resulted in 340 contractors appointed with each maintaining 200km of a national road network on an as-needed basis.

On 29 November 2024, at a time when the 340 contractors’ term was nearing an end, SANRAL issued a tender inviting interested bidders to tender for appointment of a panel of 20 contractors for a period of 5 years.

The rationale behind reducing the contractors from 340 to 20 was that it would speed up the procurement process (appointing 340 contractors would obviously take longer than 20 contractors) and make the management of the RRM contracts less cumbersome. The reasonableness and rationality behind the decision have since come into question. SANRAL has consequently decided to abandon the panel model and revert to individual open tender processes on a route-by-route basis.

11) What are the gaps/issues that were identified – resulting in the RRM tenders being set aside?

• The way SANRAL changed its business model (i.e. ran the tender) and appointed the new panel is flawed and unlawful.
• SANRAL did not comply with its own internal tender prescripts by not opening the tenders approximately one hour after tender closing at the location of the tender box. Further, the tender opening register was not made available to the tenderers.
• SANRAL purported to extend the tender validity period twice without requesting consent of all the bidders.
• SANRAL did not comply with the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act 5 of 2000 (“the PPPFA”), in particular s2(1)(a), when appointing the 20 bidders. Where SANRAL should have required the tenderers to compete on price, in order to “whittle down” the number of tenderers, it did not. It chose to use a deadlocking mechanism which was arbitrary and unlawful.
• SANRAL’s failure to require tenderers to compete on price undermined section 217(1) of the Constitution, and the appointment of the panel was based on functionality.
• SANRAL made race the determining factor in deciding which of the 61 functionally competent tenderers should be appointed to the panel.
• SANRAL’s tender documents (Volumes 1, 2 and 3) are not clear (vague and uncertain) on the role of price in determining which companies would be appointed to the Panel.
• Absence of adequate meeting minutes for the BAC and BEC that show how the decisions to appoint the Panel were made. Thus, it was impossible to understand SANRAL’s reasoning on its appointment of the Panel.
• The manner in which SANRAL conducted the tender was not transparent, fair, competitive or cost effective.
• SANRAL’s disqualification of some of the tenderers was unlawful and irrational.

Some of the above points towards possible and suspected fraudulent conduct at SANRAL (e.g. including awarding contracts to non-existent companies or companies whose addresses and contact details that cannot be located). Also, there were some serious irregularities in the bid specification and adjudicative process, leading to SANRAL having no good prospects of success in opposing the merits of the review applications.

12) Why does Sanral appear so determined to retain the old Routine Road Maintenance (RRM) contractors while cancelling the new appointments — and on what specific legal authority did you, as CEO, direct or endorse this decision? Was there a formal board resolution authorising the suspension of the 20 newly appointed panel members under Contract NRA 2024/1341, or was this your unilateral executive decision?

It was not the CEO’s decision to suspend the use of the new panel or extend the RRM contracts, but a board decision which was taken last year, having considered internal and external legal advice by Senior Counsel, and following litigation initiated against SANRAL by unsuccessful bidders. The RRM panel tender has since been reviewed and set aside by consent court order of the High Court on 20 July 2026. SANRAL has been directed to procure RRM services through a new open tender process evaluated on both functionality and the preference point system. The order expressly excludes the establishment of a panel of RRM works contractors. The incumbent contractors’ appointments remain in place only until 30 November 2026, at which point they will terminate, unless SANRAL obtains further relief from the court on no less than 5 days’ notice, and on good cause shown. SANRAL has an accounting authority, its Board, which makes decisions pertaining to strategic and organisational matters.

13) Have the reasons informing this decision been formally communicated to the newly appointed panel members who are now excluded from receiving work?

Yes, the panel members were informed, and the reasons for not allocating any work explained.

14) A SANRAL employee reportedly wrote the original affidavit under duress in an attempt to discredit the new RRM procurement process. A counter-affidavit by another SCM employee now repudiates that original statement. Why has Sanral not publicly acknowledged the counter-affidavit or launched an internal investigation into the circumstances surrounding both sworn statements? If this matter were referred to the South African Police Service or the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks), what is Sanral’s view on the potential criminal charges that could follow?

SANRAL is not aware of any official who deposed to a sworn affidavit under duress. Should there be such an allegation, the said employee must come forward, and an investigation initiated by the Board will look into the matter. Once investigated, SANRAL will look into the findings and implement the recommendations, including if any matter must be referred to the authorities.

15) Firms that were appointed to the panel allege possible collusion between Sanral executives and incumbent contractors — including the alleged misuse of the discredited affidavit — to collapse the new RRM database and protect existing arrangements. Is there any truth to these allegations, and what specific steps, if any, have you taken to investigate them?

SANRAL invites those with evidence of collusion to bring it to our attention and/or to the attention of law enforcement. All decisions that have been taken by SANRAL and/or its Board have been premised on legal advice following an internal preliminary review of the tender process and a formal investigation that followed. In addition, employees are obliged to disclose conflicts of interest and SANRAL is not aware of any conflicts or possible collusion.

16) How much public money has been spent under the legacy arrangements, has the resultant irregular expenditure been formally condoned and, if so, by whom — and why are the very contractors who benefited from that historical, non-competitive procurement now being retained and extended while lawfully appointed new panel members are excluded?

The RRM panel tender was the subject of review court proceedings brought by unsuccessful bidders. The matter has been concluded by consent court order of the High Court on 20 July 2026, with the court declaring the award constitutionally invalid and unlawful, and the court reviewing and setting it aside. All contractors that were awarded contracts under the panel were cited parties in the review applications. The incumbent contractors’ arrangements remain in place only until 30 November 2026, as directed by the court. There is currently no irregular expenditure related to legacy arrangements dating to 2012 to 2018 that has not been condoned, and SANRAL’s annual reports may be reviewed to confirm this.

17) After the court’s final determination on the review applications, what steps is Sanral taking to protect or compensate the commercial, financial and reputational interests of the 20 appointed panel members — companies that committed resources in good faith, engaging financiers, suppliers, subcontractors and partners on the strength of their lawful appointments?

SANRAL is enjoined to award constitutional and lawful awards. No other interest would supersede that of our Constitution and ensuring we provide a safe and reliable road infrastructure.

18) What are SANRAL’s plans to accelerate the re-tender process and what are the timelines?

The tenders will be issued in batches and applying urgency to ensure that some tenders are issued to the market for a shorter period. The batched tenders will have multi-projects that will be individually evaluated and awarded. The court order of 20 July 2026 imposes a non-negotiable deadline of 30 November 2026 for the incumbent contractors’ extended arrangements. Any further extension beyond that date will require a further court application on good cause shown, on no less than 5 days’ notice to the parties. This underscores the urgency of the re-tender timeline.

19) Given the procurement breaches that have happened, what reforms in the procurement space is SANRAL embarking upon?

Tender opening will be made public. Internal Audit will provide assurance on the pro-formas and will also review some tender awards on risk-based basis.

20) How far is the Labour Court matter in which the Chief Procurement Officer and two General Managers launched an urgent application seeking an order to declare their suspension unlawful, irrational and invalid?

Arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. We await judgment.

21) Given the procurement breaches that have occurred, what action will SANRAL take against the officials concerned?

It is incumbent on the SANRAL Board to fully investigate these matters before deciding what action to take against any official who may be implicated depending on the findings and recommendations from such investigation. This process is already underway. SANRAL’s Board is committed to ensuring that appropriate steps are taken against any officials who is suspected to be responsible for any conduct that may have caused procurement breaches.

22) The SANRAL Board has referred a number of allegations to an external legal firm for further investigation. How far is that process?

The process is ongoing and SANRAL has impressed the urgency of all matters under investigation on the appointed investigators.

23) What is SANRAL’s response to the allegation that its current CEO and previous SANRAL executives had monies paid into their accounts by sub-contractors?

This matter is now the subject of a law enforcement investigation. For his part, the CEO has responded to the allegation and emphatically denied it.

24) There was a recent social media post that was circulating that the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), commonly known as the Hawks, have obtained a warrant for the seizure of electronic devices and to confiscate laptops in order to extract and preserve digital evidence in their supposed investigations at SANRAL. Another post also circulated a couple of weeks ago that SANRAL’s offices were raided by the Hawks. What is SANRAL’s response to this?

SANRAL can confirm that the tweet is not only false but is malicious in its intent. SANRAL has also verified with the Hawks if such a warrant exists, and the Hawks have also confirmed that indeed the said warrant does not exist. SANRAL can also confirm that its offices were never raided by the Hawks.

-ENDS-