Transnet Port Terminals Blacklists Seven Firms Over Alleged Fraud, Links Tongaat “Proxy” Case to Powertrans

Transnet Port Terminals has moved to tighten procurement controls after securing approval from the National Treasury to blacklist seven companies implicated in what it described as “serious unethical and unlawful conduct”.

Acting on forensic findings alongside the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), Transnet said its investigations uncovered a range of irregularities linked to financial misconduct and dishonest dealing. These included allegations of kickback schemes, bribery, theft of company assets, collusion between suppliers, and the submission of false information as part of business dealings.

The decision is effective from 15 June 2026 for a period of 10 years. The blacklisting is part of South Africa’s broader approach to combating corruption through the National Treasury’s restricted supplier framework, which allows state entities to exclude vendors suspected of serious wrongdoing.

While the National Treasury’s restricted supplier list is publicly available, Transnet’s latest announcement highlights that the overall applications covered multiple companies and individuals. From the information disclosed in the public record and confirmed to the media, the new blacklist contains seven entities in total, including individuals connected to a dispute surrounding Tongaat Hulett’s business rescue.

Powertrans named after “proxy” accusations in Tongaat Hulett dispute

The most prominent link to a high-profile corporate matter involves Powertrans Sales and Services.

National Treasury confirmed that the seventh blacklisted entity is Powertrans Sales and Services. The record also names Raven Naidoo and Mohini Singari Naidoo. Raven is the founder and director of Powertrans, while Mohini is his wife.

Mohini previously featured as an applicant in an unsuccessful bid to set aside the business rescue plan of sugar producer Tongaat Hulett. That matter has become one of the best-known examples of how business rescue proceedings can trigger complex legal battles involving competing creditors and investor groups.

Powertrans, however, has also been accused—by a rival consortium known as Vision—of operating as a “proxy” for a Mozambican group called RGS. According to Vision’s claims, RGS effectively funded Powertrans in the Tongaat litigation.

RGS and Powertrans deny the allegations. Despite the denial, the dispute has escalated into an argument over whether parties acted independently or in a coordinated way to oppose Vision’s position on Tongaat’s rescue plan.

Shared legal representation and claims of bias

Vision has said the legal teams involved in the Tongaat challenge point to coordination. In particular, Vision noted that the parties shared legal representation through DMI Attorneys. Vision described RGS’s ongoing opposition to its position as “vexatious and malicious”, while also alleging that Vision’s efforts were hindered by repeated procedural tactics.

RGS, for its part, contended that it faced bias in the process. Tongaat’s business rescue practitioners, however, deny that any bias affected proceedings.

As the civil dispute continues, RGS has sought to overturn the business rescue plan, and it is reportedly awaiting a ruling following a KwaZulu-Natal High Court hearing last month. The case underscores how business rescue can become a battleground not only for creditors and investors, but also for competing narratives about the integrity and fairness of the process.

Criminal consequences: fraud complaint tied to Absa letter

Beyond the civil court process, further legal pressure is building. The information available indicates that RGS is expected to return to South Africa to attend a criminal court matter next week.

This follows a fraud complaint lodged by Vision. Vision alleges that a fraudulent Absa bank letter was used as part of the process of putting the business rescue plan to creditors—meaning the complaint is aimed at whether critical documentation was manipulated during the rescue proceedings.

If the criminal allegations are upheld, the consequences could be significant for any parties implicated, ranging from further legal penalties to challenges of the validity of steps taken during the business rescue timeline.

Transnet disciplinary action: employees suspended over collusion

Transnet Port Terminals said it is not only pursuing supplier blacklisting, but also accountability inside the organisation. Transnet confirmed that disciplinary action has been instituted against employees who colluded with the seven blacklisted companies.

“Transnet Port Terminals remains committed to upholding the principles of good governance and conducting its business with the highest standards of integrity, transparency and accountability. Unlawful conduct will not be tolerated under any circumstances,” the company said.

This move follows earlier action taken by Transnet earlier in the year. It previously announced the suspension of nine employees implicated in alleged collusion with suppliers. Transnet said six of the employees left the organisation after disciplinary action. Proceedings against the remaining employees are still under way.

What the blacklist means—and what comes next

The restricted supplier list plays an important practical role in South Africa’s public procurement system. A blacklist can cut off a company’s access to state contracts for years, forcing vendors to overhaul leadership, compliance systems and ownership structures before they can re-enter bidding processes.

However, the effectiveness of any blacklist depends on transparency, consistent application, and due process. Constructively, the most impactful long-term reform is not only exclusion after wrongdoing is detected, but also better risk screening upfront—such as strengthening vendor due diligence, enhancing whistleblower pathways, and ensuring compliance teams have the authority and capacity to prevent irregularities before they occur.

For Transnet, the SIU-linked findings point to a procurement risk profile that includes not just isolated misconduct, but alleged patterns of collusion, bribery and falsification. That makes workforce integrity controls—like the disciplinary steps now underway—central to restoring confidence in port operations and supplier relationships.

For the business rescue world, the Tongaat-related allegations surrounding Powertrans and its directors are a reminder that corporate disputes in South Africa increasingly carry governance and fraud-adjacent risks. As RGS awaits a ruling after the KwaZulu-Natal High Court hearing and prepares for criminal proceedings, the outcome may shape not only Tongaat’s rescue trajectory, but also how courts and regulators view procedural fairness and documentary credibility in complex restructurings.