The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has welcomed a Special Tribunal judgment dismissing Puleng Peter Mabe’s application to suspend civil recovery proceedings arising from an investigation into an alleged irregular Gauteng government tender.
- Mabe sought to halt SIU recovery proceedings
- Tribunal rejects challenge to SIU’s preliminary investigation
- Criminal and civil proceedings can continue simultaneously
- R27.6 million waste vehicle tender under investigation
- SIU alleges money was channelled to Mabe
- Steyn City property and Porsche remain preserved
- SIU to continue civil recovery action
The Tribunal also ordered Mabe to pay the legal costs associated with his application, after finding that the application lacked merit and did not justify delaying the proceedings.
The case centres on a procurement contract involving 200 motorised three-wheel waste collection vehicles, awarded to Enviro Mobi (Pty) Ltd for approximately R27.6 million.
Mabe sought to halt SIU recovery proceedings
Mabe had asked the Special Tribunal to stay the SIU’s civil recovery action until the conclusion of a related High Court review application and criminal proceedings.
A stay application is a legal mechanism through which a party seeks to temporarily suspend ongoing proceedings.
According to the SIU, Mabe argued that an investigation conducted before the presidential proclamation authorising the SIU investigation was unlawful.
He further argued that the subsequent investigation was therefore tainted and that evidence arising from the earlier process could not be used in the SIU’s civil proceedings.
Mabe also challenged the SIU’s forensic report and findings, describing them as unconstitutional, while seeking to have the civil recovery proceedings postponed until his criminal case had been concluded.
Tribunal rejects challenge to SIU’s preliminary investigation
The Special Tribunal found that the SIU’s pre-proclamation work was lawful and preliminary in nature.
According to the judgment as described by the SIU, the work did not amount to a full investigation conducted under the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act.
The Tribunal further found that the Presidential Proclamation authorising the investigation was validly issued and could not be successfully challenged on the grounds advanced by Mabe.
The Tribunal also considered the High Court review proceedings relied upon by Mabe and found that they did not provide sufficient grounds for delaying the civil recovery case.
Criminal and civil proceedings can continue simultaneously
Another key issue was whether the existence of criminal proceedings should prevent the SIU from pursuing civil recovery.
The Tribunal ruled that the two processes can proceed concurrently because criminal and civil proceedings serve different purposes.
The SIU said evidence uncovered during its investigation pointing to possible criminal conduct was referred to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for consideration and further action.
The civil proceedings, meanwhile, seek to recover money and address alleged financial losses arising from the procurement process.
R27.6 million waste vehicle tender under investigation
The SIU investigation, conducted under Presidential Proclamation No. R15 of 2021, focused on the procurement of 200 motorised three-wheel vehicles intended for a waste-management project.
The tender, identified as GT/GDARD/030/2017, was awarded to Enviro Mobi for R27,599,250.
The SIU alleges that the procurement process was irregular and that there were instances of non-compliance with procurement requirements, misrepresentation and failure to deliver contracted services.
The contract was approved by senior officials within the Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment.
The City of Ekurhuleni subsequently procured another 70 vehicles for approximately R9 million under the same contract.
SIU alleges money was channelled to Mabe
One of the most significant findings cited by the SIU concerns the movement of funds after payments were made to Enviro Mobi.
According to the SIU, more than 90% of the money paid to Enviro Mobi was transferred into accounts controlled by Mabe.
The SIU alleges that these funds were subsequently used for Mabe’s personal benefit and for entities and individuals connected to him.
The investigation concluded, according to the SIU, that the tender process had been irregularly orchestrated to channel public funds to Mabe through Enviro Mobi.
These remain allegations forming part of the SIU’s civil recovery case and related criminal proceedings.
Steyn City property and Porsche remain preserved
The latest judgment follows an earlier preservation order obtained by the SIU in November 2024.
That order froze assets linked to Mabe, including an immovable property in Steyn City, Gauteng, and a Porsche 911 Carrera GTS.
The SIU says the preservation order followed findings of losses exceeding R25 million, alleged fraudulent tender awards and financial flows that benefited Mabe and associated entities.
The order prevents the affected assets from being sold, leased or transferred while the civil recovery proceedings continue.
The company involved, Enviro Mobi, is also referred to in the SIU’s statement as Groen Mintirho, its former name.
SIU to continue civil recovery action
The latest ruling allows the SIU’s civil recovery proceedings to continue while related criminal proceedings run their course.
The SIU said it would continue pursuing the recovery of money it alleges was unlawfully paid, while cooperating with the NPA on evidence relating to possible criminal conduct.
The case demonstrates the different roles played by civil recovery and criminal prosecution: the former seeks to recover public money and address alleged wrongdoing, while the latter determines criminal liability through the criminal justice system.
Under the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996, the SIU can institute civil proceedings in the Special Tribunal or High Court to address wrongdoing uncovered through its investigations.
