Three dismissed managers from the Roads Authority (RA) have raised fresh allegations of interference, policy breaches and procurement irregularities in their disciplinary and appeal processes. The dismissed RA officials include Johan Boois (executive officer for transportation), Richard Milinga (divisional manager for the transport inspectorate) and Christopher Mayumbelo (executive officer for legal services).
The trio told New Era, presenting new details which they allege were not previously made public, particularly regarding the alleged role of new CEO Mbahupu Tjivikua in the final stages of the disciplinary process.
According to them, the initiator in the disciplinary hearing had initially recommended a final written warning after assessing the evidence and mitigating factors presented.
However, that position allegedly changed following internal instructions.
It is claimed that Tjivikua verbally instructed that the initiator should argue for dismissal instead. This instruction was later communicated via email, which was copied to Tjivikua, but reportedly not disputed.
This, they argue, directly contradicts earlier public claims that there was no involvement by Tjivikua in the matter.
Their legal representative, Uno Katjipuku, said the developments point to serious flaws in the process.
“There are clear signs of interference and inconsistencies in how the disciplinary proceedings were handled. The process raises concerns about whether fairness and due procedure were upheld,” Katjipuku said.
The trio also alleges that the disciplinary hearing itself was influenced by the board, which they say communicated directly with the chairperson to push for the matter to be finalised within a set timeframe.
“In any fair process, the presiding officer must operate without external pressure. Any attempt to influence timelines or outcomes compromises that independence,” he said.
New concerns have also been raised about the appeal process, particularly the hearing held on 16 March 2026.
According to the managers, the appeal was not conducted within the prescribed 14-day period outlined in internal policy, despite the appeal being lodged within two days after the sanctions. They further allege that key individuals involved in the appeal were not properly appointed in line with procurement procedures. Information shared indicates that the initiator who represented the institution during the appeal hearing was only considered for approval by the procurement committee after the hearing had already taken place.
“This suggests that services were rendered before proper procurement processes were completed,” Katjipuku said.
She added that such actions could constitute a violation of procurement laws and internal policies.
Questions have also been raised about the appointment of the appeal chairperson, with claims that the individual was assigned through a contract variation that did not lawfully cover the case. “When you look at the disciplinary phase and now the appeal stage, there appears to be a continuation of the same irregularities,” she said.
The managers also highlighted concerns over escalating legal costs, claiming that service providers in the matter exceeded initial contractual limits.
Katjipuku noted that procurement laws place strict limits on contract variations.
“Any variation beyond what is legally permissible must follow proper procedures. Failure to do so raises compliance issues,” she said. She said his clients are currently pursuing the appeal process but are prepared to take further legal action if necessary.
“We are exploring all legal avenues available, including approaching the courts, should internal remedies fail,” Katjipuku said. She emphasised that the central issue remains fairness. “At the heart of this matter is the right to a fair and transparent process. That is what our clients are seeking,” she said. Contacted for comment, Tjivikua declined to entertain questions, saying it was an internal matter.