Key Takeaways
- Andries Helani, former Senior Director of Student Affairs at the University of Johannesburg (UJ), was found to have accepted bribes and made false representations to secure accreditation for two non‑compliant private student‑accommodation properties.
- The accredited properties were claimed to provide 1,441 beds, but an investigation revealed they actually offered only 299 beds.
- UJ paid more than R18 million to the providers through Fundi; Helani personally received over R3 million in payments linked to those transactions.
- The Labour Court deemed Helani a willing and active participant in a fraudulent scheme, ordered him to repay the full R18.18 million loss, and required him to cover the university’s legal costs.
Background and Role at UJ
Andries Helani served as the Senior Director of Student Affairs at the University of Johannesburg from January 2017 until his dismissal in March 2024. In that capacity he oversaw the university’s interactions with privately owned student‑accommodation providers, chaired the Bid Evaluation Committee, and acted as the project leader for the accreditation process. His senior position gave him authority to prepare reports that were submitted to the Tender Committee, which relied on his assessments when deciding whether to grant accreditation to prospective providers.
Details of the Accreditation Applications
In 2021 Mahlatse Investments submitted applications for accreditation of two Braamfontein properties—one on Jorissen Street and another on Bertha Street. Helani’s office processed these applications, and the Bid Evaluation Committee, under his leadership, recommended approval. The Tender Committee subsequently accredited the Jorissen Street property for 748 beds and the Bertha Street property for 693 beds, together representing a capacity of 1,441 beds for UJ students.
Findings of the Investigation – Bed Capacity Discrepancy
A later investigation by UJ’s internal auditors and external forensic experts revealed stark inconsistencies between the accredited numbers and the actual physical capacity of the buildings. The Jorissen Street property was found to contain only 125 beds, while the Bertha Street property accommodated just 174 beds, for a combined total of 299 beds—less than a quarter of the claimed capacity. The investigation also uncovered incomplete applications, missing compulsory documents, and other compliance failures that should have prevented accreditation.
Financial Payments from University to Providers via Fundi
Fundi, the entity that facilitated payments from UJ to accredited accommodation providers, transferred R17.09 million to Mahlatse Investments (or its related entity Mahlatsi Properties) between March and October 2022. Adding Fundi’s six percent service fee of R1.09 million brings the total amount paid by the university in relation to the two properties to R18.18 million. UJ argued that it received no value for this expenditure because the properties were not compliant and should never have been accredited.
Payments Received by Helani and Evidence of Bribes
Forensic accounting showed that Helani received 366 payments totalling over R3 million from Mahlatse Investments and associated parties between March 2021 and March 2024. Notable entries included R30,000 labelled “Siphiwe K”, R29,000 paid toward his son’s school fees by Mahlatsi Properties, and a further R9,000 payment. Between March and November 2022 alone, Helani personally collected R457,000 from Siphiwe Khoza and Mahlatse‑related entities. The timing of these payments closely mirrored the disbursements made by Fundi to the accommodation providers, suggesting a quid‑pro‑quo arrangement.
Helani’s Attempted Explanations and Court’s Rejection
Helani attempted to justify some of the funds by claiming they stemmed from a property transaction with Siphiwe Khoza and a personal loan he had taken due to financial difficulties. He could not produce a deed of sale, proof of property transfer, or evidence that the alleged loan had been repaid. Moreover, he failed to disclose his relationships with Khoza, Nkele, and the entities linked to them, despite being obligated to do so under UJ’s conflict‑of‑interest policies. The court found these explanations inadequate and indicative of an effort to conceal illicit gains.
Helani’s Role in the Accreditation Process and Misrepresentations
As the project leader and a member of the Bid Evaluation Committee, Helani prepared the report that recommended accreditation for the two Braamfontein properties. He represented to the Tender Committee that the applications had been properly evaluated, inspections conducted, and the buildings compliant with all requirements. The Tender Committee, unaware of any irregularities, relied on his assertions when granting approval. Judge Daniels concluded that these representations were false and that Helani either knew they were false or must have known, given his senior role and access to the underlying documentation.
Prior Warnings and Ignored Red Flags
Evidence presented at trial showed that Helani had been warned about fraudulent activity involving the individuals connected to the accommodation providers. In September 2021, former UJ Manager for Operations and Customer Support Elmarie Britz emailed him a report highlighting bogus leases and invoices linked to Khoza and Nkele. Despite receiving this alert, Helani did not flag the individuals when the later accreditation process was undertaken. The court held that he knew, or reasonably ought to have known, about their involvement in fraudulent schemes and yet chose to ignore the warning signs.
Forged Inspections and Fraudulent Documentation
Security officer Mthetheleli Jafta testified that his name appeared on inspection checklists for the two properties, although he never performed the inspections. He stated that colleagues had asked him to sign the documents, and his signature was subsequently forged. A forensic examination confirmed that the inspection records were fabricated and that no genuine assessment of the buildings’ suitability had taken place. Subsequent physical inspections found only one UJ student residing at the Bertha Street property and none at the Jorissen Street site, further underscoring the lack of legitimate occupancy.
Court’s Judgment, Damages Awarded and Legal Costs
Judge Reynaud Neil Daniels determined that, but for Helani’s breach of contract through fraudulent misrepresentations, UJ would not have accredited the non‑compliant properties and would not have incurred the R18.18 million loss. Consequently, the court ordered Helani to repay the full amount to the university, together with all legal costs incurred in the proceedings, including expenses related to his unsuccessful applications to amend pleadings and postpone the trial. The judgment affirmed that Helani was a willing and active participant in a coordinated scheme to defraud UJ, emphasizing the necessity of accountability for senior officials entrusted with safeguarding institutional resources.