Testifying before the State Capture Commission of Inquiry on Wednesday, the Blackhead Consulting CEO said the payment was a settlement of his liquor debt from a lounge and entertainment venue owned by Zulu just outside Pietermaritzburg.

According to investigations by the commission, Sodi made the R600 000 payment to a car dealership for Zulu in December 2015 just a year after his company - in a joint-venture with Diamond Hill Trading, owned by the late Ignatius “Igo” Mpambani - scored a R255 million asbestos project in the Free State.

OFM News previously reported that the Free State Human Settlements Department has been found guilty, by Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, of improper conduct involving this project.

Mkhwebane, in her investigation report released in May, said there was no value for money and that the provincial department participated in an expired contract of the Gauteng Human Settlements Department - and failed to conduct a due diligence investigation before participating in it.

She said the province was in possession of the Gauteng Department's Service Legal Agreement, which had expired, and went ahead to pay the service provider millions despite the Auditor-General having declared the procurement as irregular as early as July 31, 2015.

In her report, she further indicated that the service provider had subcontracted the contract at a fee of just over R21 million, while the service provider, being the Blackhead Consulting and Diamond Hill Trading joint-venture, walked away with more than R230 million.

During Sodi's testimony on August 8, the Commission heard how the Blackhead Consulting and Diamond Hill Trading joint-venture had the skills and expertise to audit and assess asbestos houses in the Free State, but not to handle or remove it as they were not accredited.

Responding to questions posed by evidence leader Adv. Paul Pretorius, Sodi in his August 8 testimony, confirmed the two Gauteng-based companies awarded a R255 million worth contract by the Free State were not in a position to remove any asbestos material from the houses they had agreed to audit, as they were not accredited.

He said there is no need to be registered to conduct asbestos audits although there is a need to be registered to remove and dispose of it. He further told the commission the multimillion-rand asbestos project was set to unfold in two phases with the first one entailing the audit of houses and the second the removal thereof, which he claimed they sub-contracted.

OFM News