The P1.5 billion water tender dispute has exploded into a full-scale legal and possible institutional crisis with the Director General of the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC), Botlhale Makgekgenene and Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) Chief Executive Officer Tumelo Motsumi now facing possible jail time for contempt of court.
In an affidavit deposed by Kagiso Moremi on behalf of Tawana JV, the applicants are now seeking the joinder of both Makgekgenene and Motsumi into contempt proceedings already before the High Court. The affidavit states that the DCEC Director General ‘is sought to be joined to the contempt application as a further contemnor and orders will be sought against her, including her committal to prison as a sanction for her impugned conduct.’
Papers before the courts show a procurement process involving a multi-billion Pula water tender which Tawana JV says was unlawfully suspended despite clear court rulings in its favour. According to the affidavit by Moremi, the High Court on February 24, 2025 ruled that Tawana JV was ‘entitled to contract placement within 21 days’ in terms of the Public Procurement Regulations. That judgment was later upheld by the Court of Appeal on March 27, 2026 after the respondents lost their appeal. But Tawana JV argues that instead of implementing the judgment, authorities moved to frustrate and undermine the court orders.
‘After the Court of Appeal judgment of 27 March 2026 had been delivered… a series of acts were undertaken by the Accounting Officer, ostensibly in concert with the DCEC and the PPRA, the cumulative effect of which has been to ring-fence the Accounting Officer’s non-compliance,’ Moremi’s affidavit reads. He alleges that on May 7, 2026 the Accounting Officer issued a letter purporting to suspend the procurement process. He argues that the suspension may have been unlawful because Section 107(4) of the Public Procurement Act states that where a public oversight agency is investigating a procurement process, the process cannot be suspended without prior written approval from the PPRA. Moremi now wants the court to compel disclosure of critical procurement records, including what it describes as the ‘original alleged instruction’ from the DCEC directing suspension of the tender process. He argues that the legality of the DCEC’s actions ‘will directly affect the DCEC and its Director General.’
He further states: ‘Any orders made by this Honourable Court in respect of the procurement process, the contempt application, or the interlocutory relief, will necessarily involve a determination of the scope and lawfulness of the Director General of DCEC’s conduct.’ According to Moremi, the PPRA’s role is central because it is the statutory regulator responsible for procurement oversight and records. He adds that; ‘The lawfulness of the purported suspension of the procurement process turns, in part, on whether the PPRA approved the suspension as required by Section 107(4) of the Act.’
He further argues that the PPRA possesses crucial documents and information that could determine whether the suspension was lawful or part of an effort to defeat the implementation of court orders. He insists no prejudice would arise from joining the DCEC and PPRA bosses to the proceedings because they had already participated in correspondence surrounding the disputed suspension. The decision by Tawana JC to launch the interlocutory application and seeking to have DCEC and PPRA senior officials imprisoned follows another application pending before the court by the joint venture to have accounting officer at the Ministry of Water and Human Settlement to be held in contempt of court for failing to implement the High Court and Court of Appeal judgements that favoured the joint venture to be awarded the tender for the water project.