Joburg ignores warnings and appoints ‘potential security risk’ to head Public Safety Department

The appointment on Wednesday, 26 August, of former Gauteng Health boss Lesiba Malotana to head the City of Johannesburg's powerful Public Safety Department has sparked outrage after the City’s security screening found that he posed a “potential security risk for the City of Joburg”.

Malotana’s appointment was approved at the City’s monthly council meeting on Wednesday after a DA attempt to postpone the decision until he had been cleared of the outstanding matters was defeated.

According to DA Johannesburg shadow MMC for Public Safety Solly Maila, who submitted the postponement motion, the appointment was supported by the ANC, EFF, Patriotic Alliance and Al Jama-ah coalition, and opposed by the DA, Freedom Front Plus, SACP and ActionSA.

Malotana, a former head of the Gauteng Department of Health (DoH), comes to Johannesburg with a controversial history. He was suspended by Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi in October last year after a Special Investigating Unit (SIU) lifestyle audit classified him as “high risk” and recommended further forensic investigation. The audit reportedly identified more than R1.6-million in questionable cash deposits, while Malotana has also faced separate allegations relating to Gauteng DoH procurement contracts. He has not been convicted of any criminal offence or found guilty of misconduct.

But the City’s own documents, tabled before the council this week, reveal that the City identified its preferred candidate as a potential security risk – and sought external legal advice before proceeding with his appointment.

The warning emerged after the City’s Group Forensic and Investigation Services (GFIS) conducted further screening and discovered that Malotana had been flagged as “high risk” by the SIU.

A second personnel suitability check subsequently found “negative information which indicates a potential security risk for the City of Joburg”.

The finding was serious enough for the City to obtain an independent external legal opinion on Malotana’s suitability for appointment. The legal opinion found there was no legal bar to appointing him because he had not been convicted of a criminal offence or found guilty of misconduct, but advised the City to “proceed cautiously”.

Despite this, Malotana remained the first-ranked candidate and was recommended for appointment – ahead of two other candidates whose security screenings found no negative information that might render them security risks.

Malotana’s appointment was condemned by the DA and the Joburg Crisis Alliance (JCA). The DA is preparing a high court review application to challenge the appointment, and the JCA has demanded that it be immediately rescinded.

“We cannot allow the City to impose this man on us. This is a permanent position, so we will be stuck with him for years,” said Maila. “His appointment is not in the interests of the residents of Johannesburg, especially in such an important position as Public Safety.”

The JCA said the council had acted “with its eyes wide open” despite the information before it. It said the issue was not whether Malotana was guilty of any offence, but whether the council had exercised responsible judgement in appointing to one of the City’s most powerful positions a person facing unresolved integrity questions.

According to the council report, the external legal opinion found that Malotana’s personnel suitability check was clear in that he had not been convicted of a criminal offence or found guilty of misconduct. The allegations against him arose from pending investigations and had not been finally determined by a competent tribunal or court.

However, the opinion noted that the pending SIU investigation and further vetting affected his long-term suitability and recommended that the City of Johannesburg proceed cautiously and introduce measures to manage the risks.

Special conditions

Those measures resulted in an unusually extensive set of “Enhanced and Additional Conditions of Appointment” applying to Malotana.

The council report states that his appointment is conditional on him passing any outstanding personnel suitability assessments, vetting processes, security screening and integrity checks required by the City or any other authorised state institution.

It also stipulates that Malotana faces disqualification if any adverse finding emerges from the SIU or any related forensic investigation that materially affects his “integrity, security status, trustworthiness, or suitability” to hold the position of Public Safety head of department.

His appointment will be subject to a six-month probationary period, which may be extended where legally permissible.

During that period, the City may review his suitability based on information received from the SIU, GFIS, law enforcement agencies or other competent authorities.

The conditions also impose continuing disclosure obligations on Malotana.

He must immediately inform the City of developments involving criminal investigations or charges, disciplinary proceedings, findings by oversight or regulatory bodies, SIU investigations or any other matter that could reasonably affect his suitability for office.

Failure to disclose material information may constitute misconduct and could result in disciplinary action or termination of his employment.

Malotana must also consent to further vetting, security screening, lifestyle audits, integrity assessments and suitability reviews whenever the City considers them necessary.

Most significantly, the City has reserved the right to review and potentially terminate his appointment if an investigation, vetting process or official report produces information that affects his suitability.

The other candidates

The City’s treatment of Malotana is in sharp contrast to its assessment of the next two ranked candidates.

Regarding second-ranked Andries Mucavele, the City found there was “no negative information that was detected which may render the applicant a security risk”.

The identical finding was recorded for third-ranked Stephen Podile.

Malotana nevertheless emerged well ahead of his rivals during the interview process, scoring 93%, compared with 83% each for Mucavele and Podile and 66% for Lindokuhle Ngubane.

Both Malotana and Mucavele were subsequently assessed as competent during the competency-assessment process, while Podile was assessed at “basic proficiency” and deemed unsuitable.

The selection panel ultimately recommended Malotana for appointment, with Mucavele ranked second and recommended to take the position if Malotana was unable to accept the offer.

R1.6m in questionable cash deposits

The controversy surrounding Malotana intensified last year when the SIU conducted a lifestyle audit into his financial affairs.

The SIU report classified him as “high risk” and called for a deeper forensic investigation.

According to reporting on the audit, investigators identified about R1.6-million in questionable ATM cash deposits over three years.

The report also raised questions about Malotana’s bank accounts. He had disclosed four accounts, while information obtained from the Financial Intelligence Centre reportedly associated him with six.

Investigators also identified about R201,000 in inward and outward international transfers which the SIU said had not been disclosed during the lifestyle-audit process.

The audit raised further concerns about allegedly undisclosed income-generating properties, a non-profit organisation and transactions involving Malotana’s business interests.

These were investigative findings and red flags requiring further investigation, rather than findings that Malotana had committed corruption.

Suspension upheld by Labour Court

Lesufi suspended Malotana as head of the Gauteng DoH in October 2025 following the lifestyle audit and SIU investigation.

Malotana went to the Labour Court seeking to have his precautionary suspension overturned. He lost, and Judge Benita Whitcher dismissed the application with costs in November.

According to the Gauteng provincial government’s account of the judgment, the court found that the SIU material contained “believable allegations of serious misconduct” and revealed “a strong, initial case”.

The court also found there was a real risk Malotana could use his position to influence the investigation if he remained at work.

The ruling did not constitute a finding that Malotana was guilty of the underlying allegations.

Malotana returned to work after his precautionary suspension period expired, without disciplinary action having been instituted within the prescribed period.

He was temporarily deployed as a senior manager in Gauteng’s Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Department while outstanding processes continued.

Separate tender allegations

Malotana has also faced allegations concerning Gauteng DoH procurement processes.

He was already the subject of an SIU investigation when he was appointed head of the Gauteng DoH in 2024 over allegations concerning tenders dating back several years.

The allegations included claims that Malotana and two other officials received millions of rands in kickbacks for influencing Gauteng DoH tenders.

These allegations have not resulted in a criminal conviction or final finding of misconduct against Malotana.

The existence of pending investigations was among the issues the City considered in obtaining legal advice before proceeding with his appointment.

Apparent discrepancy

There is, however, an apparent discrepancy between the City’s recruitment report and the circumstances surrounding Malotana’s suspension recorded elsewhere.

The City’s report states that Malotana was placed on three months’ precautionary suspension “due to his failure to submit documents in time”, but had since returned to work and had never been subjected to a formal disciplinary process.

This contrasts with the circumstances surrounding his October 2025 suspension and the subsequent Labour Court proceedings arising from the SIU investigation and lifestyle audit.

The City has been asked to explain what documents Malotana allegedly failed to submit and whether the council was informed of the full circumstances surrounding his suspension and unsuccessful Labour Court challenge.

Call for better vetting

The JCA said the appointment demonstrated why Johannesburg needed stronger standards of integrity and accountability in senior appointments.

Public Safety oversees critical functions including the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department, Emergency Management Services, traffic enforcement and municipal law enforcement.

“The person leading this department must command unquestionable public confidence,” the organisation said.

The JCA said the council had had an obvious and responsible option available to it: wait for the SIU investigation to conclude before making the appointment.

The organisation demanded that the appointment be immediately rescinded and called on political parties, civil society organisations and other interested parties to examine the legality and rationality of the decision and institute legal proceedings to have it reviewed and set aside.

It also called on the City to disclose the full risk assessment and legal advice placed before the council.

“Council has made the wrong decision. It must rescind it – and if it refuses, the decision must be challenged in court,” said the JCA.

Malotana’s right of reply

Malotana has previously disputed the implications drawn from the investigations against him and has not been convicted of a criminal offence or found guilty of misconduct.

Daily Maverick attempted to send detailed questions directly to Malotana at his previously published Gauteng government email address, but the message could not be delivered.

The questions were subsequently sent through the City of Johannesburg with a request that they be forwarded to him for his right of reply. At the time of publication, no response had been received. DM