Hushed Forensic Reports and a Multibillion-rand IT Contract: Unveiling the Gijima Case

Unknown forensic reports could hold the key to unravelling the highly controversial cancellation of a multibillion-rand IT contract between Robert Gumede’s listed company, GijimaAst, and South Africa's Home Affairs Department, which made headlines last week.

The dismissal of the massive contract, estimated to be worth close to R4 billion, came under stark public scrutiny. However, tensions surrounding the deal were stoked further when the existence of two confidential forensic reports concerning the awarding of the contract came to light.

The primary report, conducted by the audit general at the request of former Home Affairs Minister, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, dissected the contentious tender awarding process to GijimaAst. Although handed over in February of the previous year, this crucial report has never been tabled in Parliament. Rumour has it that invaluable insights into irregular tender grants and benefiting party affiliates were uncovered.

To everyone's surprise, a second independent forensic report was assigned by the then correctional services minister Mapisa-Nqakula. Supervised by academic and mediator Harvey Wainer, the investigation focused on Gijima's Who-Am-I-Online contract. However, this cache of information was also kept under wraps, never publicly presented to the Home Affairs Committee, raising eyebrows and suspicions.

Adding a politically charged undertone to the saga were allegations of the conflict of interest involving a former director general, Mavuso Msimang, and Gijima CEO Jonas Bogoshi — both had previously held senior positions at Sita. This intrigue further disquieted the public, raising questions on institutional transparency, especially with the news of Msimang's contract not being renewed.

As Gijima faces an unfriendly announcement stating their contract is 'not valid and enforceable,' stakeholders and the general public alike remain on the edge of their seats. The Home Affairs Department attributes the contract's nullity, shocking considering millions had been paid under it, to lack of validity, not non-performance.

Meanwhile, the impending class-action lawsuit against the department looms large, threatening to unleash a chaotic legal battle that could see Gijima losing almost a seventh of its revenue. The company and its sympathisers air their grievances, citing the department's incompetence as a contributing factor. Their rallying cry: 'Who’ll pick up the bill of discontent?'