Robert Gumede — Tongaat Hulett’s not-so-sweet suitor

The man who has positioned himself as a business crusader coming to the rescue of embattled sugar giant Tongaat Hulett Limited (THL) is facing ongoing claims that he was the mastermind behind one of the most outrageous alleged procurement frauds during the Covid-19 crisis.

Robert Gumede is the most prominent face of the Vision Sugar consortium that is attempting to take over THL, currently in business rescue but on the brink of liquidation.

But amaBhungane has established that Gumede remains entangled in a Special Tribunal case brought by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), which is sharply critical of his role in what it portrays as one of the biggest tender scams from the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The SIU is seeking to claw back nearly R400-million in relation to allegedly overpriced personal protective equipment (PPE) – mainly hand sanitiser – that Gumede, via a company linked to him, Red Roses Africa (Pty) Ltd, supplied to the South African Police Service (SAPS) in April 2020.

Red Roses Africa is run by Gumede’s nephew, Blessing Qwabe.

The SIU wants the Special Tribunal to “review and set aside” the contract between Red Roses and the SAPS, and to order Gumede, Qwabe and Red Roses Africa to repay the SAPS R390,754,000 (alleged to be undue super-profits they made off the tender) plus interest within 30 days of the SIU obtaining a successful order from the Tribunal.

Gumede is the third respondent in the SIU’s case, launched in 2024, but in the investigator’s final affidavit deposed on 22 December last year, he is portrayed as the deal’s prime mover and beneficiary.

Read the SIU’s replying affidavit here.

In an earlier affidavit filed on behalf of Red Roses in October 2025 to rebut the SIU’s initial claims, Mario Pillay, a group executive at the Guma group founded and chaired by Gumede, denied wrongdoing and attempted to distance his boss from any scandal.

Read Pillay’s answering affidavit here.

“The narrative set out by [the SIU investigator] against Mr Gumede, and the Guma Respondents, is simply scurrilous,” Pillay opined, adding elsewhere, “I am unsure as to what is meant with the allegation that Mr Gumede was a ‘critical player whose role appears crucial’. There were numerous persons involved in the transactions…”

In response, the SIU’s Chief Forensic Investigator, Jackey Mathabathe, hit straight back, noting Gumede “was a critical player … because he was instrumental in initiating the process regarding this contract and he spearheaded it in all respects”.

He accuses Gumede of having “induced the SAPS to grant the contract to [Red Roses] through a fraudulent misrepresentation”.

Mathabathe alleged that all the deals were done by Gumede “to his benefit, family and business interests”, adding elsewhere that the evidence demonstrated “the obscene and opulent lives lived off the hundreds of millions that they made off this transaction”.

More later on how the money flowed, but for now, it is important to note that Red Roses has alleged the SIU investigation was biased or unprofessional and that the Special Tribunal will ultimately determine where the truth lies.

Read more

Red Roses Africa, the SIU and the dodgy Covid-19 PPE contract

August 30, 2024

In its response to amaBhungane, Red Roses notes that the “irregularity” alleged by the SIU has been “contradicted by findings from National Treasury and the Auditor-General, as well as by the SAPS internal witnesses who denied that irregular procurement occurred”.

One of the SAPS witnesses who came out in support of Red Roses was retired Major General Johannes Riet, formerly the SAPS national procurement chief, who was previously linked by amaBhungane to another set of PPE procurement fraud allegations.

The Red Roses’ claims and counterclaims have also had significant repercussions within the SAPS.

In July 2025, National Commissioner Fannie Masemola delivered an “explanatory” affidavit in support of the SIU, which fingered both retired Deputy National Commissioner Lieutenant General Francinah Vuma and the current Divisional Commissioner: Supply Chain Management Lieutenant General Molefe Fani (who was employed by National Treasury at the time of the Red Roses deal and later joined the SAPS).

Fani denies wrongdoing and has not been disciplined, although it appears the SAPS initiated an internal investigation.

Meanwhile Vuma – who faced disciplinary charges but retired before her case was finalised – has denied wrongdoing and made startling counter-allegations against Masemola.

At the parliamentary ad hoc committee (investigating the disclosures made by KZN Provincial Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi), she told MPs she was targeted by Masemola for refusing to go along with other corruption.

Red Roses has seized on the internal SAPS drama to bolster its claims of innocence.

The company told amaBhungane, “Red Roses has consistently maintained that it was caught in an internal institutional conflict within the SAPS that unfolded during the extraordinary circumstances of the Covid-19 emergency procurement period… Red Roses is the innocent victim of a battle between two elephants.”

But it’s not only the SIU that believes there was price gouging by Red Roses.

Separately, the Competition Tribunal will preside over the excessive pricing case in relation to the tender after the Competition Commission found Red Roses Africa guilty of excessive pricing (236% markup) on 90,000 25-litre containers of hand sanitiser it supplied to the SAPS.

This is essentially the same set of transactions that the SIU is challenging.

The matter was referred to the Competition Tribunal for prosecution in May 2023, and Competition Commission spokesperson Siyabulela Makunga says it’s ongoing.

“The pleadings in the matter have closed, and the prosecution is currently at the pre-hearing stage before the Competition Tribunal. The Tribunal has scheduled the hearing of the complaint for 21 to 30 October 2026.”

Red Roses told us it was contesting the Competition Commission’s case “because it believes the Competition Commission has misunderstood both the facts and the economic context of the transaction that occurred during the Covid-19 emergency procurement period”.

“Red Roses also challenges the methodology used by the Competition Commission to allege excessive pricing. The Competition Commission compares the bid price with procurement costs calculated after the event using a weighted average of multiple later supply transactions. Red Roses submits that this comparison is fundamentally flawed because those later procurement costs were not known and could not reasonably have been predicted when the bid was submitted…

“Red Roses is confident that it will succeed at the Tribunal hearing scheduled for October 2026.”

Not so confident that it is not trying once more to make representations after having previously abandoned a high court review of the commission’s decision – and, in the case of the SIU, held an unsuccessful face-to-face meeting with then SIU boss Andy Mothibi to try to get the claim against Red Roses overturned.

Now, bolstered by Vuma’s allegation that she and the Red Roses deal were unfairly targeted by Masemola, Gumede is trying again.

Red Roses told us the company “intends to engage with both the SIU and the Competition Commission to invite them to reconsider their respective cases in light of the evidence presented by Lt General Vuma which deals a deathblow to both matters”.

That assessment seems optimistic when assessed against the detail of the SIU case, which, at the very least, reveals the startling allegation that, of the R514-million paid out by the SAPS, only R162,015,846.50 was actually disbursed for PPE related goods and services, while the rest of the money was transferred “to related parties and individuals” including for the purchase of a R4-million Lamborghini.

Read Red Roses’ full response to amaBhungane here.

The SIU investigation

Daily Maverick first investigated links between Gumede, Qwabe and Red Roses Africa in 2021 after details of the R514,694,000 tender were published on the National Treasury’s dashboard on the government’s Covid-19-specific expenditure.

On 31 March 2022, Mathabathe and a colleague were assigned to investigate.

Mathabathe initially set out details around the case in his founding affidavit filed to the Special Tribunal in March 2024.

Read Mathabathe’s founding affidavit here.

In it, Mathabathe alleges that on 25 March 2020, five days after President Cyril Ramaphosa declared a national state of disaster, Gumede wrote on behalf of Red Roses Africa (then called Mainstreet 699) to Molefe Fani, then a senior official in the National Treasury, to offer to supply PPE.

Gumede stated this company “offers end to end testing and protective gear solutions against the coronavirus Covid-19 pandemic”. The information was passed on to the SAPS, and Red Roses began lobbying police management to place an emergency order.

• The SIU claims that Gumede told the SAPS the PPE could be imported immediately from China and brought to South Africa on a “specially chartered Airbus”. But Mathabathe says “there never was any airbus that was ready and waiting or even readily available … in China with the required PPE equipment…” Instead, the respondents “appeared to have been either lying or fraudulently misrepresenting the truth to the SAPS so as to induce the conclusion of an urgent contract, or were only going to look for an airbus after the payment was made to them”. Gumede and Qwabe dispute this and say the source of the PPE and how it would be transported are irrelevant to the terms of the contract.
• The SIU says that, instead of being imported from China, the hand sanitiser was sourced from local companies, including Dis-Chem. Red Roses was contracted to supply 90,000 25-litre containers and two million face masks.
• The SIU says Red Roses Africa paid R162-million to the companies that supplied it with the hand sanitiser and masks it then provided to the SAPS, allegedly making R390-million that the SIU says is an “unlawful overcharge”. It says Red Roses Africa paid R1,150 for a 25-litre vat of hand sanitiser inclusive of VAT, but it sold the same on to the SAPS for R5,405 – “78% above the unit costs resulting in a 370% gross profit”. Gumede and Qwabe do not dispute the amount they made from the PPE sales, but say it was reasonable in all the circumstances.
• Mathabathe claims Gumede was the mastermind, noting, “Given the amount of money that flowed to [Gumede] and to persons and entities associated [with] him, I submit that there is nothing… that [Red Roses] and [Qwabe] would have done without the knowledge and concurrence of [Gumede].”

Gumede responds

Fifteen months later, in June 2025, Mario Pillay, who describes himself as “the seconded executive [from Gumede’s Guma group] appointed to assist [Red Roses Africa] with the sourcing and procurement of goods”, filed an answering affidavit to the Special Tribunal on behalf of Gumede, Red Roses and a further nine Guma-associated companies.

Read Pillay’s answering affidavit here.

Pillay’s 88-page affidavit denies any wrongdoing.

● It claims Gumede did not unilaterally approach Treasury to offer to procure PPE, but reached out “to address a necessary issue of assisting the South African Police Service with much needed Personal Protective Equipment pursuant to a Request for Quotation” – despite the fact that Red Roses had not previously supplied or sold PPE items;

● It presents two expert witnesses to argue that Red Roses Africa’s prices were reasonable;

● It says that Red Roses did negotiate to import PPE from China via an Airbus, but that this arrangement fell through because of delays by the National Treasury and the SAPS in signing a contract;

● It claims the SIU’s case of overcharging is flawed as it fails to properly consider the uncertain economic landscape at the time and the fact that Red Roses was not in a position to determine whether it would be chosen to supply PPE to the SAPS and at what price.

● Pillay states that it is “preposterous” to suggest, as Mathabathe did, that Gumede “had knowledge and concurred with all the transfers”, and further argues there was “nothing untoward” in the money Red Roses received from the SAPS being rapidly disbursed amongst other Guma-linked companies.

Flashy cars and an unnamed ‘global IT entity’

In following the money trail, the SIU’s investigation highlights that, post payment to Red Roses, these monies were paid on through a network of 47 companies, service providers and associates – with nine of the recipient companies making up the “Guma respondents”.

Red Roses Africa’s payments to Guma companies included:

• Four Rivers Trading 21 (R58,589,359)
• Guma Group (R1,027,000)
• Guma Afrika Consulting (R1,050,000)
• Guma Capital (R16,601,843)
• Guma Railway Solutions (R44,804,000)
• Gijima Ast Finance (R31,000,000)
• Guma Property Holdings (R75,250)

Over and above these transactions, the SIU says Gumede directly scored R4.2-million (while Qwabe received only R250,987.58).

The SIU further alleges that Red Roses also paid for a Lamborghini worth more than R4-million from Prestige Marque (Pty) Ltd – seemingly ordered by Gumede.

Mathabathe states, “This transaction was first negotiated on 1 May 2020 by [Gumede] at his Sandhurst home… On 15 May 2020 an amount of R50,000.00 was paid as a deposit to [Prestige Marque’s] bank account by [Guma company Four Rivers Trading 21] on behalf of [Red Roses Africa]. The balance of R4,000,000.00 was paid by [Red Roses Africa] on 15 June 2020. Soon after the [SAPS] transaction was concluded and still at the height of Covid deaths.”

Gumede’s son is also alleged to have taken his Porsche to have a “performance exhaust system installed for over R260,000.00” – a payment the SIU believes was made from the proceeds of the SAPS PPE tender.

The largest onward payment was made to a law firm – Nicqui Galaktiou Inc (NG Inc) – into whose account Red Roses Africa paid R152,663,500.00.

The SIU labelled this as “a transfer for no apparent commercial reason…”

In response to questions, the law firm told us the funds received “related largely to a commercial transaction of a global IT entity. In the circumstances, the quantum, given the magnitude of the business transaction, is neither suspicious nor unrealistic. There is thus nothing untoward regarding receipt of such proceeds nor the disbursement thereof”.

NG Inc took umbrage at our attempt to elicit more information about the underlying transaction and how Red Roses was involved, citing attorney-client confidentiality and noting, “Law firms routinely facilitate and administer transactions involving substantial sums … particularly where trust structures, cross-border dealings, or complex commercial arrangements are involved. The amount referenced by amaBhungane is neither unusual nor indicative of illegality in this context.”

At their insistence, NG Inc’s full responses are available here and here.

Mathabathe klaps back

In January this year, Mathabathe filed his replying affidavit to the Tribunal, responding to Pillay.

Read the SIU’s replying affidavit here.

In it, Mathabathe challenges Pillay’s description of how, despite challenges to its business, supply chains and customers arising from the national disaster, Red Roses unselfishly sought to assist the SAPS to meet its PPE needs.

Scathingly, he notes, “Guma Respondents were opportunistic in their response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Theirs was to enrich themselves as proven by the factual and expert evidence presented by the [SIU] in the founding papers. I vehemently deny that their actions were motivated by their desire to assist the SAPS…”

He also takes issue with the Red Roses avowal that the SAPS generals acted appropriately in terms of the emergency Treasury regulations for procurement during Covid – a version that Vuma, Fani and Riet all support.

Mathabathe (with the support of Masemola’s affidavit) maintains that the SAPS generals were either misled or they colluded with Red Roses in the misapplication of those rules.

Finally, Mathabathe is clearly angered by claims that he is hell-bent on tarnishing the reputations of Gumede and Guma or has ulterior motives in pursuing this investigation.

Mathabathe denounces these claims: “I have noted with concern that throughout the Guma Respondents’ answering affidavit the personal attacks on my credibility and expertise have been a constant feature. Their personal attacks are short of using foul language. I submit that the tone of these attacks shows the lack of respect towards me, an attitude of entitlement, and are totally unfounded.

“The Guma Respondents fail to note that prior to this matter, I did not know who they were and whence they came. It was only through the investigations of this matter pursuant to the President’s Proclamation, that I came to know about them.

“The evidence discovered during the investigation warranted the course of action currently taken… It is, in any event, authorised by law. Every detail dealt with in this matter is purely within the scope of executing our duties and nothing else.”

The matter should come before the Special Tribunal this year. DM