Security guard at DUT's Steve Biko campus checks on a vehicle entering the premises. Photographer: Khaya Ngwenya / Independent Newspapers
Durban — The Durban University of Technology (DUT) might be in contempt of a Durban High Court order by continuing to use the services of a security company whose contract with the institution was nullified last year.
Judge Mahendra Chetty ruled in March last year that the contract between the university and Izikhova Security Services to provide security at its campuses and student residences was unconstitutional and invalid.
The judge ordered that the DUT should conduct a procurement process and directed it to re-advertise the tender within 14 days.
However, the Sunday Tribune has established through reliable sources that the institution was still using the services of Izikhova Security Services and that the tender was not re-advertised.
The judge’s ruling followed a complaint by another company, Mzansi Fire and Security, which had lost the bid.
Mzansi filed an application in the high court alleging that the contract between the DUT and Izikhova was tainted by fraud and corruption.
According to the judgment, Mzansi, when it was informed about not getting the contract, was told that the Bid Evaluation Committee had given it a score of 70.5%, which was below the 75% minimum required for the contract.
Mzansi presented to the court a report, which it said had been leaked to it by a whistle-blower, indicating that during the evaluation Mzansi had scored “75% for functionality and not 70.5% as DUT alleged”.
Judge Chetty said the DUT did not dispute the existence of the leaked document.
“This is not a material dispute as DUT admits the contents of the report dated 17 November 2019, and which record forms part of the review record.
“The problem for DUT is that it does not ward off the allegations,” read Judge Chetty’s judgment.
According to the Sunday Tribune’s research on the DUT’s website, security companies were invited to submit their bidding documents for the “DUT2023/493” tender only on February 24, 2023, which was 11 months after the court order.
It was not clear why the DUT did not comply with the court order and instead continued using the services of Izikhova.
However, on November 23, 2023, the DUT procurement and materials director sent a memo, “To all Bidders of DUT2023/493” which was titled “Re: Non-award on Appointment of a service providers for Appointment of Security Service provider for Durban and Pietermaritzburg campuses and residences: DUT 2023/ 493”.
The memo read: “With reference to the above tender, the Durban University of Technology have made a final decision on the non-award.
“The University would like to thank you for your submission.”
When Izikhova was awarded the tender, Mzansi cried foul and demanded an appeal.
The institution charged Mzansi an appeal fee of R200 000, which was non-refundable in the event of the appeal being dismissed.
When Mzansi lost the internal appeal, it went to court seeking nullification of the contract and also demanding the return of its R200 000.
Judge Chetty also ordered the DUT to reimburse Mzansi for its tender appeal fee.
In a separate Durban High Court judgment that was issued on November 23, 2023, Izikhova lost an application to force the DUT pay an amount of R5.3 million for security services it alleged to have rendered but which was denied by the university.
The court found that the DUT was not obliged to pay, as the services were not part of a written and signed service level agreement (SLA), but were through verbal instructions from the university’s acting head of protection services, Lucky Dlamini. Therefore, the university refused to pay.
The court had found that according to the SLA the addition or reduction of guards required should be done in writing.
“This does not appear to have occurred,” read the judgment.
Attempts to get comment from Izikhova and Mzansi security companies were unsuccessful. They both did not respond to questions emailed to them. People who answered calls in both companies’ offices said they were not authorised to speak to the media and were busy.
The DUT could only confirm that Izikhova was unsuccessful in its application against the university regarding the R5.3m payment.
“However, the substantive High Court case is still ongoing (sub judice), hence, DUT is unable to comment further,” said the university in its written response.
The university requested to be given more time to respond to other issues.
Sunday Tribune