South African Tourism Board Wins Review Cases Against Swift Thinking and Letsema Consulting

In a landmark judgment on December 6, 2024, the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria declared the appointments of Swift Thinking (Pty) Ltd and Letsema Consulting and Advisory (Pty) Ltd by the South African Tourism Board (SA Tourism) as unlawful and constitutionally invalid. The court, under Acting Judge Khashane Manamela, ordered the review and setting aside of these procurement decisions, citing breaches of constitutional stipulations and SA Tourism’s procurement policies.

Swift Thinking and Letsema Consulting were initially appointed for tourism-related projects without a competitive bidding process, which contradicts the fairness, equitability, and transparency required under Section 217 of the South African Constitution. The case unraveled significant procedural flaws and highlighted the paramount importance of adhering to statutory and policy frameworks in public procurement processes.

**Understanding the Background:**

The debacle began when the former CEO of SA Tourism, Sisa Ntshona, made decisions to appoint these firms under procurement circumstances that were found to be substantively flawed. The court heard that these appointments were made without proper processes, thus breaching the required procurement and public financial management laws.

Swift Thinking was engaged for projects aimed at addressing the fragmentation of tourism data systems, precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This included projects like the International Visitor Tracking Portal and related software development. The Court revealed that Swift had received payments of approximately R8 million with additional invoices outstanding.

On the other hand, Letsema Consulting was drawn on board to spearhead the development of a recovery plan for the tourism industry during the height of the pandemic. Notably, their invitation to tender directly violated the government's stringent procurement regulations which necessitate an open and competitive bidding process.

**Court Findings and Implications:**

In the detailed judgment, Judge Manamela pointed out that the non-competitive processes followed by Mr. Ntshona and his unilateral decisions were central to the ruling. The judge emphasized that both companies were aware, or should have been aware, of the need for a competitive bidding process and thus could not plead ignorance of the law. Consequently, the court ordered Swift and Letsema to provide detailed accounts of reasonable expenses incurred during the projects, to differentiate them from any profits made, which are to be reimbursed to SA Tourism.

This case sets a precedent for transparency and stringent adherence to the legal frameworks governing state procurement in South Africa, serving as a cautionary tale to other public institutions and private entities engaging in government contracts.

**Concluding Thoughts:**

With this ruling, SA Tourism aims to recalibrate its procurement strategies and reinforce its compliance mechanisms to prevent similar breaches. The judgment not only underscores the significance of lawful procedures in public contracts but also reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional mandates within the realm of state-run enterprises.