Castle Terminal Co. (Pty) Ltd & Oupa Teke responding to the Department of Public Enterprise: Director General Mr Kgathatso Tlhakudu

Registration Number: 2008/027442/07: Vat Number: 4080251459
Director: Oupa Teke
Page
1
Castle Terminal Co.
Smart lighting, Bright & Energy saving!
204 Ramotene Section, Chaneng, 0310.
P O BOX 62, Chaneng 0310. Tel: +27 81 805 2463,
Cell: +27 76 460 6327, Email: oupa.teke@gmail.com
Mr Kgathatso Tlhakudi
Director General
Department of Public Enterprises
80 Hamilton Streer, Arcadia
Private Bag X15, Hatfield, 0028
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 06 October 2020
Dear Mr Tlhakudi,
1. I hereby acknowledge receipt of the letter dated 01 October 2020 from Mr Kgathatso Tlhakudi, Director-
General, of Public Enterprises Department.
2. When he was responding to the correspondence that was addressed to the attention of His Excellency
President Mr Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa dated 27 September 2019, Eskom letter addressed to the
attention of Eskom Group CEO Mr Andre de Ruyter and the letter received from Eskom Board and the
Chairperson Mr Jabu Mabuza dated 14 November 2018.
3. Following the responds written in the letter dated 01 October 2020 received from the Director-General
of Public Enterprises Department Mr Kgathatso Tlhakudi, it is imperative to correct and submit
supporting evidence in the form of annexures, to some of the alleged response written in the letter which
are misleading. Procuring from some of the clauses in the letter specified in a form of advice given to
your goodself during the time you were corralling the relevant information pertaining to this matter is
disingenuous or deceitful.
4. Clause 6 of your letter described that accordingly, and in light of the foregoing, you humbly advised that
Eskom has done everything it could possibly do in the circumstances and within the ambit of the law to
accommodate Castle Terminal Co.
5. Clause 6 is misinforming or distorting to pronounce that Eskom has done everything it could possibly do
in the circumstance and within the ambit of the law, because Eskom Holdings Limited, Aurecon South
Africa, Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical and Bidvest, flouted Section 217 (1) of the Constitution of
the Republic of South Africa, Procurement Finance Management Act (PFMA) and Treasury regulation
supply chain management Act, in addition the breach or contravention of the rule of law or ambit of the
law is confirmed by means of the letter dated 14 November 2018 received by Castle Terminal Co., from
Eskom Board and Mr Jabu Mabuza asking for apology from Castle Terminal Co., and Oupa Lucas Teke.
6. Eskom Holdings Limited Supply Contract Core Clause: Subcontracting clause 23 state that:
23.1: If the Supplier (Aurecon) subcontract work, the Supplier (Aurecon) is responsible for
Providing the Goods as if the Supplier (Aurecon) had not subcontracted. This contract
applies as if a subcontractor’s employee’s and equipment of (Voltex Lighting or
Bidvest Electrical) were of the supplier’s (Aurecon)

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
2
23.2: If the Purchaser (Eskom) instruct the Supplier (Aurecon) to submits the name of each
proposed subcontractor (Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical) to the Purchaser
(Eskom) for acceptance. A reason for not accepting the proposed Subcontractor
(Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical) is that the subcontractor’s appointment will not
allow the Supplier (Aurecon) to provide Goods. The Supplier (Aurecon) does not
appoint a proposed subcontractor (Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical) until the
Purchaser (Eskom) has accepted the Subcontractor (Voltex Lighting or Bidvest
Electrical).
7. Therefore, any verdict taken by the Court or Public Protector cannot violate Subcontracting Clause 23.
23.1 and 23.2. as mentioned above. Any verdict taken by the Court or Public Protector cannot separate
Aurecon from Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical activities. Aurecon cannot run away from its
responsibility for subcontracting Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical as the contracted company to
Eskom Generation following clause 23.1 above. Any one who seek to believe that Aurecon must be
separated from Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical must be regarded as partial and in breach or flouting
Section 217 (1) of the Republic of South Africa, PFMA and Treasury regulations Supply Chain
Management Act.
8. Aurecon and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical wrote Pre-tender audit and design report which
reproduced tender GEN3135, and the contracted company and the subcontracted company are both
regarded as the commissioner to tender GEN 3135. Aurecon was providing a lead consulting, quality
assurance, project management and also audited and designed Heat Ventilation Air Condition and
Domestic Water Heating despite the fact that Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical audited and designed
energy efficiency lighting was done on behalf of Aurecon South Africa who in turn was contracted to
Eskom Generation Division.
9. Aurecon South Africa and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical were regarded as the Eskom Generations
Bid Specification Committee. Aurecon and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical improperly permitted
by Eskom Bid evaluation committee and Eskom Adjudication committee to participated in Tender GEN
3135 by virtue of the fact that Aurecon designed, supplied and install Heat Ventilation Air Condition and
Domestic Water Heating at the same time as Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical designed, supplied
and installed energy efficiency lighting.
10. Aurecon Pre-tender audit and design report contract number 4600024744 dated 3 September 2010 known
as Aurecon Conducting Electricity Efficiency Review on the Eskom Generation Fleet Comprising of 15
Power Stations illustrate the improper conduct of Aurecon and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical very
well. This is evidenced by the copy of the outside cover of Pre-tender audit and design report
attached hereto and marked Annexure A.
11. The Aurecon Pre-tender audit and design report covered the audit, design and the results for Grootvlei
Power Station. The audit results indicated a saving of 0.5 MW (3.3 GWh p.a.) at a total cost of R26
Million Rand.
12. Lighting was by far the most cost-effective area for savings in terms of payback with a potential of 293
Kw (2.21 GWh p.a.) of savings at a cost R4.6 Million rand, followed by water and then HVAC (Heat
Ventilation Air Condition). Potential energy efficiency saving of 42% for lighting, 33% for HVAC and
67% for water were identified. Aurecon Pre-tender audit and design report was regarded as one (1)
project divided into two (2) as follows:
a. Aurecon South Africa performed a detailed audit and design of Heat Ventilation Air Condition
(HVAC) and Domestic water heating.

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
3
b. Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical and Bidvest performed a detailed lighting audit and
design.
SEE ANNEXURE A

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
4
13. The Project Organization, Organogram: directly involved in the execution of this plan is as shown below
as follows: This is evidenced by the Organogram copy in the pre-tender audit and design report
attached hereto and marked Annexure B:
a. Eskom Generation : Owner of the Project
b. Aurecon (Pty) Ltd : Contracted
c. Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical : Subcontracted
d. Audit Team : Aurecon / Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical
e. Design Team : Aurecon / Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical
SEE ANNEXURE B

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
5
Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical Role and Responsibility in the Pre-tender audit and design
Report. This is evidenced by the copy of Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical audit and design
attached hereto and marked Annexure C
SEE ANNEXURE C:

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
6
14. The Project Scope in the Pre-tender Audit and design report contract number 4600024744 confirm the
scope of inclusion as follows:
a. The Scope of the project is as defined below;
✓ Produce a detailed design only, with estimated project execution costs.
✓ The design will be presented in such a manner to allow high return areas to be identified
and prioritized.
✓ The design will evaluate lighting, sensors, water heating and Heat Ventilation Air
Condition (HVAC) loads only.
✓ The Scope will be confined to Eskom property only and will be ring fenced on a site by site
basis as defined in writing by the Eskom Site Manager / Engineer.
✓ Derive project costs accurate to within 90% at the time of design release.
✓ Aurecon will evaluate existing sites on Occupational Health and Safety (OHS),
Lighting compliance at a high level only, new design will comply with all SANS and
OHS requirements.
15. The Roles and responsibilities of Aurecon South Africa;
a. Aurecon is providing a lead consulting and project management role. Aurecon is doing the
HVAC and water Heating audits and designs whilst Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical will
act as a subcontractor for the Lighting and Occupational Sensor switching audit and design.
Aurecon has established the audit and design criteria in association with the Eskom
representative and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical and is managing the progress and
quality aspects of the project. Aurecon will provide the interface with the client as well as the
quality assurance functions.
16. Aurecon South Africa as the quality assurer providing interface with the client Eskom Generation
submitted a Pre-tender audit and design report known as Aurecon Conducting an Electricity Efficiency
Review on Eskom Generation Fleet Comprising of 15 Power Stations Report, contract number
4600024744 to Eskom Bid Evaluation committee. Eskom Bid Evaluation Committee had to evaluate the
pre-tender audit and design report in terms of the evaluation criteria stipulated in the bid document, and
must be regarded as acceptable if it complies with the bid conditions and specifications requirements.
17. Eskom Holdings Limited as the Organ of State subscribe to Standardised Specification only.
Standardised specification and other publications in clause 5 of Eskom Holdings Limited Standard
Condition of Tender 2008, under clause 2 known as Tenderers Obligation: State that tenderer must
obtain, as necessary for submitting a tender, copies of the latest revision of Standardised specifications
and other publications, which are not attached but which are incorporated into the tender documents by
reference.
18. The scope of work is given in the Works Information. The terms and conditions of the proposed contract
are identified in Agreements and Contract Data.
19. Eskom Holdings Limited’s Standard Conditions of Tender specifies the actions to be taken during
the process of tendering. The section entitled ‘Tender Data’ provides the details which make the
Standardised Conditions of Tender specific to this tender, including the criteria you are required to
comply with in order to be able to submit a tender in response to this invitation. This is evidenced by
the Copy of Eskom Holdings Limited Standard Condition of Tender April 2008 hereto attached
and marked Annexure D.

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
7
20. Eskom Holdings Limited Standard Conditions of Tender April 2008: clause 1 General: Actions 1:
Eskom Holdings Limited (“Eskom”), the Eskom Representative and each tenderer submitting a tender
shall act timeously as stated in these Conditions of Tender and in a manner, which is fair, equitable,
transparent, competitive and cost-effective.
21. Eskom Holdings Limited Standard Conditions of Tender April 2008: clause 1 General:
communication 5: Each communication between Eskom and a tenderer shall be to or from the Eskom
Representative only, in writing, and in a form that can be read, copied and recorded. For this purpose,
‘in writing’ means hand-written, type-written, printed or electronically made, and resulting in a
permanent record. Communication shall be in the English language.
SEE ANNEXURE D:

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
8
22. Eskom Generation Bid specification committee, Eskom Bid evaluation committee and Eskom Bid
adjudication committee received 15 Pre-tender Audit and Design reports representing each Eskom Fossil
Power Stations from Aurecon South Africa and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical and Bidvest
23. Eskom Holdings Limited paid Aurecon South Africa and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical the total
cost of R390 million rand (Three hundred and Nighty Million Rand) for writing a pre-tender audit
and design report known as Aurecon Conducting an Electricity Efficiency Review on Eskom Generation
Fleet Comprising of 15 Power Stations Report which reproduced tender GEN 3135.
24. All the pre-tender audit and design reports known as Aurecon Conducting an Electricity Efficiency
Review on Eskom Generation Fleet Comprising of 15 Power Stations Reports, were not written in
Standardised Specification. The 15 Pre-tender audit and design reports were written in Proprietary
Specification or Brand names or Trade marks of Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical. The
Proprietary specification written on the 15 Pre-tender audit and design report reproduced Tender GEN
3135. Tender GEN 3135 similarly was written in Proprietary specification, which means tender GEN
3135 document was in breach or contravention of the law or ambit of the law.
25. The Constitutional Court has ruled that any procurement process tainted by unlawfulness must be
declared unlawful by Court or the Public Protector. All the 15 Pre-tender audit and design Reports were
paid unlawfully or criminally by Eskom Holdings Limited to Aurecon South Africa, Voltex Lighting or
Bidvest Electrical because they flouted the Section 217 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa Act, 108, of 1996, PFMA, Treasury regulation supply chain management Act and Eskom Board
and Eskom Chairperson Mr Jabu Mabuza agreed and confirmed by apologising to Castle Terminal Co.,
and Oupa Lucas Teke on the letter dated the 14 November 2018.
26. It is a duty of the Public Protector to investigate conduct of any person performing a public function.
This include anyone performing any official duty which affects all, or part of, the people of South Africa
such as employees of the state like a policeman or electoral officers. Corporations or Companies where
the state is involved such as Eskom and Telkom can also be investigated and that fall under jurisdiction
of the Public Protector Constitutionally.
27. Public Protector failed to suspend the implementation of the project until the investigation is final and a
report released. Eskom benefitted Aurecon South Africa, Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical from the
partial conduct of the Public Protector investigation taking 8 years investigating such a simple corruption
activity while she had all the powers vested in her by the Constitution.
28. Aurecon South Africa, Voltex lighting or Bidvest Electrical flouted section 217 (1) of the Constitution
of the Republic of South Africa, PFMA and Treasury regulation supply chain management Act, and they
were improperly benefitted by Eskom and Public Protector for not recovering R390 million rand paid
unlawfully or criminally to them.
29. When Eskom receive Pre-tender Audit and Design reports written in Proprietary Specifications and
paid the total cost of R390 MILLION Rand. Secondly Eskom unlawfully reproduced Tender GEN
3135: Known as Eskom NEC3 Engineering & Construction Contract Between Eskom Holdings Limited
(Reg No. 2002 / 015527 / 06) and for the supply, delivery and installation of lighting fixtures for six (6)
Fossil Fired Power Stations (Arnot, Grootvlei, Tutuka, Hendrina, Camden, and Komati) to realise energy
efficiency savings at the Power Stations during the period 2011-01-03 to 2011-02-15, written in
Proprietary Specification. This is evidenced by the Tender GEN 3135 attached hereto and marked
Annexure E.

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
9
30. Thirdly Both Aurecon South Africa and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical are regarded as the
Commissioner in Tender GEN 3135. and Fourthly Eskom permitted both Aurecon and Voltex Lighting
or Bidvest Electrical to tender in tender GEN 3135. Aurecon must take a full responsibility as the
contracted company.
31. The Public Protector in Report No.13 of 2017 and 2018 conducted a partial investigation and ultimately
released a partial or biased Report which corruptly hiding or secreting the unlawful payment to the total
cost of R390 Million Rand (Three hundred and ninety million rand) paid to Aurecon South Africa,
Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical for contravening the constitution or breaching the Constitution,
PFMA and Treasury regulation supply chain management Act by writing all 15 Pre-tender Audit and
Design reports submitted and received by Eskom in Proprietary specification.
32. The unlawful payment was from Eskom Generation Fleet Comprising of 15 Power Stations as follows:
Type Output
(installed capacity)
Location Specification
In Each Report was written
in Proprietary Specification
and not in Standardised
specification as required by
the Constitution of South
Africa
No. Aurecon
Office
Operational
Coal fired
stations
Arnot: 2 100 MW
(6 X 350 MW)
Middleburg,
Mpumalanga
Flouted the Constitution 1 Tshwane
Duvha: 3 600 MW
(6 X 600 MW)
Witbank,
Mpumalanga
Hendrina: 2000 MW
(10 X 200 MW)
Hendrina,
Mpumalanga
Kendal: 4 116 MW
(6 X 686 MW)
Witbank,
Mpumalanga
Kriel: 3 000 MW
(6 X 500 MW)
Kriel,
Mpumalanga
Lethabo: 3 708 MW
(6 X 618 MW)
Sasolburg,
Free State
Majuba: 4 110 MW
(3 X 657 MW, 3 X 713 MW)
Volksrust,
Mpumalanga
Matimba: 3 990 MW
(6 X 665 MW)
Ellisras,
Northern
Province
Matla: 3 600 MW
(6 X 60 MW)
Kriel,
Mpumalanga
Tutuka: 3 654 MW
(6 X 609 MW)
Standerton,
Mpumalanga
Mothballed
coal fired
stations
Camden: 1 600 MW
(8 X 200 MW)
Currently in a re-commissioning
phase which started 2005
Ermelo,
Mpumalanga
Grootvlei: 1 200 MW
(6 X 200 MW)
Balfour,
Mpumalanga
Komati: 1 000 MW
(5 X 100 MW, 4 X 124 MW)
Middleburg,
Mpumalanga
Drakensberg: 1 000 MW
(4 X 250 MW)
Bergville,
KwaZulu Natal
Palmiet: 400 MW
(2 X 200 MW)
Grabouw,
Western Cape

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
10
33. Eskom failed to execute its function as the owner of the project in compliance with Section 217 (1) of
the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 108 of1996, PFMA and Treasury regulations supply
chain management.
34. Therefore, a total cost of R390 million rand paid by Eskom Generation to Aurecon South Africa and
Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical was improperly, unlawfully and criminally paid against the ambit
of the law.
35. The above-mentioned information shows how Aurecon and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical cannot
be separated by both Eskom, and partial Public Protectors report No 13 of 2017 and 2018. Trying to hide
improper conduct performed by Aurecon South Africa as the contracted company. Aurecon was
providing a lead consulting, quality assurance, project manager, auditor and designer of Heat Ventilation
air condition and Domestic water heating and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical performing a detailed
lighting audit and design. And their participation as the Delivery, Supplier, Installer and
Commissioner in Tender GEN 3135.
36. The Chairman of Aurecon the late Professor Jakes Gerwel, Mr Richard Ahlschlager and Mr HL
Townsend on behalf Aurecon contracted to Eskom Generation they were unlawfully and improperly paid
the total cost of R390 Million rand for flouting Section 217 (1) of the Republic of South Africa Act, 108
of 1996, PFMA and Treasury regulation supply chain management. For writing Aurecon Pre-tender
Audit and Design report in Proprietary specification on behalf of Eskom.
37. The Chairman of Bidvest Mr Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa, Bidvest Group CEO Mr Brian Joffe and Chief
Executive of Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical Mr Stanley Green conducted Aurecon audit and
design on behalf of Aurecon South Africa who in turn was contracted to Eskom Generation Division
when Eskom Generation unlawfully and improperly paid them a total cost of R390 Million Rand for
flouting Section 217 (1) of the Republic of South Africa Act, 108 of 1996, PFMA and Treasury regulation
supply chain management. For writing Aurecon Pre-tender Audit and Design report in Proprietary
specification on behalf of Eskom and for tendering unlawfully.
38. Operational review notes that Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical under Chief Executive Mr Stanley
Green, Group Chief Executive of Bidvest Mr Brian Joffe and Chairman of Bidvest Mr Cyril Matamela
Ramaphosa earned a Revenue of R4.1 Billion with 3,1% increase and trading profit of R181,8 million
rand (2010-2011).
39. Chairman of Bidvest Mr Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa and Group Chief Executive Mr Brian Joffe in
August 27, 2011 signed the Directors responsibility for the financial statements.
40. Therefore, it is very disheartening to find the name of His Excellency the Honourable State President of
the Republic of South Africa Mr Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa in directly or directly discovered that he
was partaking in flouting Section 217 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic South Africa Act, 108 of
1996, PFMA and Treasury regulation supply chain management Act in Eskom Generation Project.
41. When Aurecon South Africa, Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical and Bidvest were contracted by
Eskom Generation. Criminally, Aurecon South Africa, Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical and Bidvest
they were paid by Eskom Holding Limited a whooping total cost of R390 Million Rand for writing the
Pre-tender audit and design report in proprietary specification and of which is against Section 217 (1)
of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 108 of 1996, PFMA and Treasury regulation
supply chain management Act, supporting Standardised Specification. The facts are procured from the
letter written by Eskom Board and Chairperson Mr Jabu Mabuza dated the 14 November 2018 and
consequently apologising from Castle Terminal Co. and Oupa Lucas Teke.

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
11
42. Eskom Group CEO Mr Brian Dames as the accounting officer, Eskom Project Manager Mr Logan Reddy
and Shanil Narain Singh Eskom Chief Engineer, Shanil Narain Singh Eskom Project Supervisor, Eskom
Senior Manager Commercial Generation Department Mr P du Toit, Eskom Commercial Generation
representative Ms Matsebela Mosoatsi, Eskom Commercial Generation representative Mr Thulani
Mdakane, Eskom Negotiation Specialist Mr Themba Sibanyoni, Eskom weekly meeting Mr Ronny
Khumalo, Eskom Senior Legal Advisor Regulations and Governance Mr Liwalam Jafta did not do
everything they could possibly do in the circumstance and within the ambit of law. This is evidenced by
copy of PROPRIETARY SPECIFICATION hereto attached and marked Annexure E;
SEE ANNEXURE E: PROPRIETARY SPECIFICATION ON EXISTING AND PROPOSED:

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
12
43. They Abused their power, they were unfair, they conducted undue delay to Castle Terminal Co., Eskom
failed to respect and follow its policy and procedures and they flouted section 217 (1) of the Constitution
of the Republic of South Africa Act, 108 of 1996, PFMA and Treasury regulation supply chain
management.
44. For accepting Aurecon Pre-tender audit and design report written in proprietary specification. And for
reproducing tender GEN3135 written in proprietary specification. And for unlawfully paying out the
total cost of R390 million rand to Aurecon South Africa, Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical and
Bidvest.
45. For refusing Extension to Castle Terminal Co. against the contract number 4600025920 or lately known
as 4660025920. And Finally, through cancelling Castle Terminal Contract through effluxion of time.
46. Eskom Holdings Limited submitted the Notice of Acceptance to Castle Terminal Co., on the 21st
December 2010. Which state as follows:
a. Basis of acceptance clause 1: We accept your proposal dated 2010-11-28 and subsequent
agreement reached at the negotiations meeting held on 2010-12-20 for the supply, delivery, and
installation of lighting fixtures for two (2) Fossil Fired Power Stations i.e. Arnot and Grootvlei
to realise energy efficiency savings at the Power Stations.
b. Contract date clause 3: The contract starting date is 2011-01-03 to 2011-02-15.
c. Documentation clause 5: The contract document will be available for Castle Terminal Co.
signature and acceptance within one week of the date of this Notification of Acceptance.
Therefore, Castle Terminal Co., was expected to sign the contract document on the 31st
December 2010. Eskom conducted undue delay by signing the contract document on the 14
January 2011. Mr P du Toit Eskom Senior Manager Commercial when he printed his signature
on the contract document on the 14 January 2011, he confirmed that this agreement comes into
effect on the date when the tenderer receives one fully completed original copy of document,
including the schedule of Deviations in contract number 4600025920. Castle Terminal Co.,
received original contract document on the 14 January 2011 with schedule of Deviations
omitted.
d. Communication clause 6: Please address all further communications to the Project Manager
of this contract, Mr Logan Reddy, telephone (011) 800 5178.
e. Confirmation and Acknowledgement clause 7: Eskom confirm that a contract now exist
between us on above basis.
f. Adjudicator clause 8: Eskom confirm that the Adjudicator for this contract will be appointed
when a dispute arises.

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
13
47. On the 27 January 2011 Castle Terminal Co., received a letter from Mr Logan Reddy Project Manager
This is evidenced by the letter dated 27-01-2011 attached hereto and marked Annexure F
SEE ANNEXURE F:

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
14
48. On behalf of the Castle Terminal, it was contended, that the request does not amount to the breach.
Instead it is well within the bounds of the agreement which provides that “any extension,
concession, waiver or relaxation of any action stated in this contract by the Parties … does not
constitute a waiver of rights”. Castle Terminal has been advised that the proper interpretation of
the final construction contract is that the extension was foreseeable and as such could not be
unreasonably withheld.
49. On the 02 February 2011 Castle Terminal Co., received a letter from Mr Logan Reddy Project Manager:
This is evidenced by the letter dated 02-02-2011 hereto attached and marked Annexure G:
SEE ANNEXURE G:

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
15
50. On the 24 February 2011 Castle Terminal Co., received a letter from Mr Logan Reddy Project Manager:
This is evidenced by the letter dated 24-02-2011 hereto attached and marked Annexure G:
SEE ANNEXURE H:

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
16
51. Eight months later on the 05 October 2011 Eskom Hendrina Power Station invite Voltex Lighting or
Bidvest Electrical on the Project or tender which was supposed to be completed on the 15 February 2011
when Eskom decide to cancel Castle Terminal Co. on the 24 February 2011. That simply show that this
tender was meant for Aurecon South Africa and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical. And clearly the
conduct of Eskom was not within the ambit of the law: Eskom was destroying small Enterprise to satisfy
the interest of Aurecon South Africa, Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical and Bidvest. This is
evidenced by the letter dated 05 October 2011 from Eskom Generation Hendrina Power Station
attached hereto and marked Annexure I
SEE ANNEXURE I:

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
17
52. Eight months later on the 06 October 2011 Eskom Hendrina Power Station invite Voltex Lighting or
Bidvest Electrical on the Project or tender which was supposed to be completed on the 15 February 2011
when Eskom decide to cancel Castle Terminal Co. on the 24 February 2011. That simply show that this
tender was meant for Aurecon South Africa and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical. And clearly the
conduct of Eskom was not within the ambit of the law: Eskom was destroying small Enterprise to satisfy
the interest of Aurecon South Africa, Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical and Bidvest. This is
evidenced by the letter dated 05 October 2011 from Eskom Generation Hendrina Power Station
attached hereto and marked Annexure J
SEE ANNEXURE J:

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
18
53. Adjudicator clause 8 of the Notice of acceptance neatly state that: Eskom confirmed that the
Adjudicator for this contract will be appointed when a dispute arises. Following Adjudicator Clause 8,
Eskom did not have the powers to cancel Castle Terminal Co or write such a letter dated 24 February
2011. Eskom had to appoint an adjudicator. Eskom realized that its corrupt activities were exposed by
Castle Terminal Co.
54. A Contractual Relationship existed between Eskom Holdings Limited and Castle Terminal Co as
follows: This is evidenced by copy of Contract number 4600025920 or 4660025920 attached hereto and
marked Annexure K
SEE ANNEXURE K:

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
19
55. The Existing contractual relationship number 4600025920 or 4660025920 between Eskom Holdings
Limited and Castle Terminal Co., was signed by Castle Terminal Co., on the 12 January 2011. Was
Unduly delayed by Eskom Generation: This is evidenced by the date Castle Terminal Signed its part
of the Contract attached hereto and marked Annexure L:
SEE ANNEXURE L:

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
20
56. The Existing contractual relationship number 4600025920 or 4660025920 between Eskom Holdings
Limited and Castle Terminal Co., was signed by Eskom Holdings Limited on the 14 January 2011. Which
Unduly delayed by Eskom Generation when they expected Castle Terminal to start working on the 03
January 2011 without a contract: This is evidenced by the date Eskom Generation Commercial Manager
signed the contract attached hereto and marked Annexure M:
SEE ANNEXURE M:
57. Notwithstanding anything contained in here, this agreement comes into effect on the date when tenderer
receives one fully completed original copy of this document, including the schedule of Deviations.
Schedule of Deviation was omitted deliberately by Eskom Generation;

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
21
58. Castle Terminal Co., is aware that Eskom Holdings Limited is pretending as if Contract Number
4600025920 is not existing. Eskom is trying by all means to hide this Contract. It has to be noted that
around 2012 and 2013 Eskom Holdings Limited merged data from Generation, Transmission and
Distribution. During that process the system changed Castle Terminal Co., Number 4600025920 to
4660025920. Castle Terminal Vendor Number is 11066240, Oupa Teke, with cell phone number 082 258
1471.
59. Therefore, anyone who want to access Contract Number 4600025920 the system will reject him or her
and which simply means that there is no contractual relationship between Eskom and Castle Terminal
Co., but when Contract No. 4660025920 is punched on Eskom system Castle Terminal Co. appears as
the company from East London with East London address. It is Flagged for procurement Blocked.
60. Why should Eskom Board and the Chairperson Mr Jabu Mabuza letter date the 14 November 2018,
apologise to Castle Terminal Co., and Oupa Lucas Teke on the other hand Castle Terminal is Flagged
Block from procuring with Eskom?
61. Castle Terminal Co., demand from Eskom the compensation of the Capital Sum of R10 990 086.00 plus
compound interest in the sum of R17 034 633.30.
62. The demand for compensation made by Castle Terminal Co., to Eskom Holdings Limited is within the
ambit of the law and is justifiable.
63. Castle Terminal Co., is ready to approach the Courts to verify if Eskom Paid the total cost of R390
million rand to Aurecon South Africa, Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical and Bidvest for flouting
Section 217 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 108 of 1996, PFMA and Treasury
regulations supply chain management.
64. The Constitution regulates public procurement by the State and its Organs, generally referred to as
“Organs of State”. Organs of State are defined in various statutes and include, generally, governmental
departments at all levels, parastatal, institutions discharging statutory duties or spending public money
65. Castle Terminal Co., have the following remedies:
a. It is not uncommon for a bidder to participate in a procurement process, only to be confronted
by a decision that is either obscure or incorrect. Often bidders feel helpless as they do not
understand their rights, and feel intimidate by the process.
b. The remedies available to a bidder in the face of a (presumably) tainted or irregular award of a
tender are twofold, namely:
✓The bidder may request access to the relevant bid document under PAIA, and evaluate
the ground on which the Organ of State made its decision;
✓ The bidder may request reason for the decisions under PAJA, and the Organ of State
is obliged to provide the reasons; and
✓Armed with both the documents and the reasons, the bidder may seek to review the
decision by the Organ of State as being unlawful, based on the ground prescribed under
PAJA. These grounds include the failure to follow the prescribed Legislative
Framework, a failure to take decision, fraud and irrationality.

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
22
66. The Constitutional Court has ruled that any procurement process tainted by unlawfulness must be
declared unlawful by court or the Public Protector. Once this is done, the courts or Public Protector must
consider what a just and equitable order would be, regard being had to the prevailing circumstances.
Such a remedy may include the matter referred back for re-consideration, a substitution award to the
aggrieved bidder, or any other appropriate remedy.
67. Typically, if confronted with an unlawful award, an aggrieved bidder will both apply to court or Public
Protector to have the award reviewed and set aside. And for the implementation of the award to be
suspended until the review is finalised.
68. The Constitution provides bidders with far-reaching and overarching remedies and powers to challenge
incorrect or perverted procurement processes adopted by Organs of State. These powers are however not
self-policing, and it is the responsibility of each aggrieved bidder to exercise the rights accorded them in
the Constitution, and to hold the Organs of State accountable.
69. Bidders who are confronted with a seemingly irregular procurement process and who nevertheless fail
to enforce their rights must accept that it was their decision to abide the irregularity and forfeit their
rights. The protection exists. It is available, but for the asking.
70. Therefore, Eskom failed to execute its function in compliance with the legislative framework known as
Section 217 (1) of the Constitution of Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, PFMA and Treasury
regulation supply chain management Act. Which States that:
c. When an Organ of State, in the National, Provincial or local sphere of Government, or any other
institution identified in the National legislation contract for goods or service, it must do so in
accordance with the system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective.
d. Reference is also made to section 3(1) of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (herein
after referred to as PFMA) read with Schedule 2 thereto which provides that the latter Act is
applicable to Eskom. Your attention is also drawn to paragraph 16 of the National Treasury
Regulation dealing with Supply Chain Management and issued during March 2005 in terms of
Section 76 of the PFMA.
71. The procurement obligations imposed on an organ of state by the Constitution are given effect to in, inter
alia:
e. The Public Finance Management Act (“PFMA”) that authorises National Treasury to issue
regulations or instruction concerning the determination of a framework for an appropriate
procurement and provisioning system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and
cost-effective.
f. The Preferential Procurement Policy Frame (“PPPFA”) and the Regulations framed thereunder,
regarding the obligation on Organ of State to determine its preferential procurement policy, and
to implement such policy within a preference point system specified in Section 2 (1) of PPPFA.
This act gave birth to, inter alia, BEE legislation;
g. Statutes aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability on the part of Organs of State,
namely; the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (“PAJA”) that obliges organs of state to
follow certain procedures, and entitles any person affected by any administrative decision to
call for and receive reasons for the decision; and the Promotion of access of information Act
(“PAIA”) that entitles members of the public to obtain copies of documents and records in the
possession of Organs of State.

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
23
h. The Treasury Regulations issued by the National Treasury by virtue of the PFMA, regulating
the processes to be adopted by Organs of State in the procurement of goods and services by
Organs of State and requiring Organs of State to develop and implement a Supply Chain
Management System for the acquisition of goods and services that is fair, equitable, transparent,
competitive and cost – effective, and consistent with PPPFA. In addition, the Treasury
Regulations require the procurement for goods and services to be done by way of quotations or
through a bidding process, within the threshold values determined by National Treasury,
Generally, Organs of State are obliged to adopt a competitive bidding process if the value of the
goods or services exceed R500 000.
i. The Treasury Regulations, inter alia, prescribe that, if procurement through a bidding process
is required:
✓Bids are to be advertised in at least the Government Tender Bulletin for a minimum
period of 21 days before closure, except in urgent cases when bids may be advertised
for such shorter period as the accounting officer or accounting authority may
determine;
✓Awards are to be published in the Government Tender Bulletin and other media by
means of which the bids were advertised;
✓Bids are to be adjudicated by a bid adjudication committee; and
✓Bids may only be evaluated in terms of the evaluation criteria stipulated in the bid
document, and must be regarded as acceptable if it complies with the bid conditions
and specifications, all the prescribed forms were signed by the bidder, the bidder
submitted the prescribed forms or documents; and the bidder has the necessary
capacity and ability to execute the contract. The use of cost estimates as a bench mark
for acceptability is prohibited.
✓The award of bids must be published in the Government Tender Bulletin and other
media by means of which the bids were advertised. Prescribed information regarding
successful bids must be made available on the institution’s website and in the
Government Tender Bulletin as well as in the media where the bid was originally
advertised.
✓The procurement guidelines by National Treasury allow for the requirement for a
competitive bidding to be dispensed within urgent and emergency cases.
✓In order to qualify as an urgent procurement, the applicable regulations require that
immediate action must be critical in order to avoid a dangerous or risky situation or
misery, the invitation of competitive bids must either impossible or impractical, and
specifically state that a lack of proper planning does not constitute urgency.
72. The Accounting officer of Eskom, the Group CEO Mr Brian Dames received a dispute report letter from
Castle Terminal Co., on the 11 February 2011 and Dispute report letter dated 8 February 2011 addressed
to the Project Manager Mr Logan Reddy.
73. Eskom accounting officer failed to report Dispute formally reported by Castle Terminal Co., dated the
11 February 2011 to Treasury and to Parliament as required by PFMA.

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
24
74. The R390 Million Rand paid to Aurecon and Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical is regarded as
Financial misconduct: 4: Therefore, Eskom failed to follow PFMA and Treasury regulation
Supply Chain Management as following:
4.1: Investigation of alleged financial misconduct [Section 85(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the
PFMA]
4.1.1: If an official is alleged to have committed financial misconduct, the
accounting officer of the institution must ensure that an investigation is
conducted into the matter and if confirmed, must ensure that a disciplinary
hearing is held in accordance with the relevant prescripts and agreement
applicable in the public service.
4.1.2: The accounting officer must ensure that such an investigation is instituted
within 30 days from the date of discovery of the alleged financial misconduct.
4.1.3: If an accounting officer is alleged to have committed financial misconduct,
the relevant treasury, as soon as it becomes aware of the alleged misconduct,
must ensure that the relevant executive authority initiates an investigation into
the matter and if the allegations are confirmed, holds a disciplinary hearing in
accordance with the prescripts applicable and agreements applicable in the
public service.
4.1.4: A relevant treasury may:
a. direct that an official other than an employee of the institution conducts the
investigation; or
b. issue any reasonable requirement regarding the way in which the
investigation should be performed.
75. Criminal Proceedings [Section 86 of the PFMA] 4.2
4.2.1: The accounting officer must advise the executive authority, relevant treasury
and the Auditory-General of any criminal charges it has laid against any
person in terms of Section of the Act.
4.2.2: The relevant treasury may direct an institution to lay criminal charges against
any person should an accounting officer fail to take appropriate action.
76. Reporting [Section 85(1)(a) and (e) of the PFMA] 4.3
4.3.1: The accounting officer of a department must, as soon as the disciplinary
proceedings are completed, report to the executive authority, the Department
of Public Service and Administration and the Public Service Commission on
the outcome, including:
a. the name and rank of the official against whom the proceeding was instituted;
b. the charges, indicating the financial misconduct the official is alleged to have
committed;
c. the findings;

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
25
d. any sanction imposed on the official; and
e. any further action to be taken against the official, including criminal charges
or civil proceedings
77. Treasury Regulation: PFMA: 16A8 Compliance with ethical standards is as follows:
✓ 16A8.1: All officials and other role players in a supply chain management system must comply
with the highest ethical standards in order to promote:
(a) mutual trust and respect; and
(b) an environment where business can be conducted with integrity and in a fair and
reasonable manner.
✓ 16A8.2: The National Treasury’s Code of Conduct for Supply Chain Management Practitioners
must be adhered to by all officials and the role players involved in supply chain
management.
✓ 16A8:3 A supply chain management official or another role player:
(a) must recognise and disclose any conflict of interest that arise;
(b) must treat all suppliers and potential supplier equitably;
(c) may not use their position for private gain or to improperly benefit another person;
(d) must ensure that they do not compromise the credibility or integrity of the supply
chain management system through the acceptance of gifts or hospitality or any
other act;
(e) must be scrupulous in their use of public property; and
(f) must assist accounting officers or accounting authorities in combating corruption
and fraud in the supply chain management system.
✓ 16A8:5 An official in the supply chain management unit who becomes aware of a breach of or
failure to comply with any aspect of the supply chain management system must
immediately report the breach or failure to the accounting officer or accounting
authority, in writing.
78. Treasury Regulation: PFMA: 16A9 Avoiding abuse of supply chain management system as
follows:
✓ 16A9.1 The accounting officer or accounting authority must:
a. take all reasonable steps to prevent abuse of the supply chain management
system:
b. investigate any allegations against an official or other role player of
corruption, improper conduct or failure to comply with the supply chain
management system, and when justified:

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
26
i. take steps against such official or other role player and inform the
relevant treasury of such steps; and
ii. report any conduct that may constitute an offence to the South
African Police Service;
c. check the National Treasury’s data base prior to awarding any contract to
ensure that no recommended bidder, nor any of its directors, are listed as
companies or persons prohibited from doing business with the public sector;
Treasury Regulation: PFMA: 16A6 Procurement of goods and services:
✓ 16A6.1 Procurement of goods and services, either by way quotations or through a bidding
Process, must be within the threshold values as determine by the National Treasury.
✓ 16A6.2 A supply chain management system must, in the case of procurement through a bidding
process, provide for:
a. the adjudication of bids through a bid adjudication committee;
b. the establishment, composition and function of bid specification. Evaluation and
adjudication committee;
c. the selection of bid adjudication committee member;
d. bidding procedure; and
e. the approval of bid evaluation and / or adjudication committee recommendations’
✓ 16A6.3 The accounting officer or accounting authority must ensure that:
a. bid documentation and the general condition of a contract is in accordance with:
i. The instruction of the National Treasury; or
ii. The prescripts of the Construction Industry Development Board, in the case
of a bid relating to the construction industry;
b. bid documentation include evaluation and adjudication criteria, including the
criteria prescribed in terms of the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework
Act, 2000 (Act No. 5 of 2000) and the Broad Based Black Economic
Empowerment Act, 2003 (Act No. 53 of 2003);
c. bids are advertised in at least the Government Tender Bulletin for a minimum
period 21 days before closure, except in urgent cases when bids may be advertised
for such a shorter period as the accounting officer or accounting authority may
determine;
d. awards are published in the Government Tender Bulletin and other media by
means of which the bids were advertised;

Director: Oupa Teke
Page
27
e. contracts relating to information technology are prepared in accordance with the
State Information Technology Act, 1998 (Act No. 88 of 1998), and any regulations
made in terms of that Act;
f. Treasury Regulation 16 is complied with when goods or services are procured
through public private partnership or as part of a public private partnership; and
g. instruction issued by the National Treasury in respect of the appointment of
consultants are complied with
✓ 16A9.3 The National Treasury and each provincial treasury must establish a mechanism:
a. to receive and consider complaints regarding alleged non-compliance with the
prescribed minimum norms and standards; and
b. to make recommendations for remedial actions to be taken if non-compliance of any
norms and standards is established, including recommendations of criminal steps to
be taken in the case of corruption, fraud or other criminal offences.
Castle Terminal Co., is approaching the Courts to verify Payment to the total cost of R390 million rand to Aurecon
South Africa, Voltex Lighting or Bidvest Electrical and Bidvest for flouting Section 217 (1) of the Constitution
of the Republic of South Africa Act, 108 of 1996, PFMA and Treasury regulations supply chain management. As
confirmed by the letter dated the 14 November 2018 from Eskom Board and Chairperson Mr Jabu Mabuza.
Eskom Holdings Limited failed to report the Dispute dated the 8 February 2011 and 11 February 2011 to
Independent Adjudicator, Treasury and to Parliament as required by PFMA.
Should Eskom fail to amicably address Patrimonial damages Castle Terminal Co., will proceed to the court for
intervention. Castle Terminal Co., will apply for condonation.
I therefore, demand within the ambit of the law and justifiably so, that Eskom pay the patrimonial damages to
Castle Terminal Co.
Please respond within four (4) days to Castle Terminal Co.
I thank you
With best regards
Oupa Lucas Teke

Castle Terminal Co. (Pty) Ltd & Oupa Teke responding to the Department of Public Enterprise: Director General Mr Kgathatso Tlhakudu

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Similar to Castle Terminal Co. (Pty) Ltd & Oupa Teke responding to the Department of Public Enterprise: Director General Mr Kgathatso Tlhakudu

Similar to Castle Terminal Co. (Pty) Ltd & Oupa Teke responding to the Department of Public Enterprise: Director General Mr Kgathatso Tlhakudu (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Castle Terminal Co. (Pty) Ltd & Oupa Teke responding to the Department of Public Enterprise: Director General Mr Kgathatso Tlhakudu