By Zama Nteyi
The appointment of Madira Inc by the Gauteng Film Commission (GFC) has come under fresh scrutiny.
According to sources, the law firm was appointed without going through a competitive tender process and that its terms of reference were never clearly defined.
But sources familiar with the appointment have told Africa Daily that Madira did not go through an open tender process.
“This company has no clear terms of reference. That is a serious concern because it is unclear what exactly the firm was contracted to do within the institution. This raises questions about the scope of its mandate, the deliverables it was expected to provide, and the basis on which it was paid,” our source revealed.
These conflicting accounts place the GFC under pressure to produce the procurement records that would settle the matter.
The GFC was asked whether Madira Inc was appointed through an open tender process or another SCM mechanism?
If so, the commission was asked to provide the tender number. The institution has failed to provide the information.
“Abrams Madira Attorneys firm was appointed in and around November 2023 following the conclusion of the procurement process conducted according to GFC SCM Policy framework,” Kelebogile Masemola responded.
The response does not say what procurement mechanism was used.
There is no tender number. No quotation reference. No explanation of whether Madira was appointed from a panel. No explanation of whether a deviation was authorised.
And no indication of whether the appointment was subjected to competitive bidding.
That omission becomes considerably more significant in light of the sources’ allegation that there was no tender process at all.
If the appointment was not made through an open tender, the GFC should be able to explain exactly what alternative procurement mechanism was used and under what authority.
Sources have also raised concerns about the scope of Madira’s appointment.
According to Masemola, the firm was initially appointed to provide
“The firm was initially appointed to render general legal advisory services that arise from time to time (given the fact that at that time the Legal Specialist role was vacant and unfunded), contract management, and legal administration pertaining to the GFC public listing transitional process from NPC to Schedule 3C Entity.
“Following the appointment of the internal Legal Specialist in 2026, all other legal services were removed from the scope of Madira Attorneys as well as contract management and legal administration relating to the GFC’s transition from an NPC to a Schedule 3C entity,” Masemola explained.
Sources further allege that the terms of reference were not sufficiently clear, raising questions about the boundaries of the firm’s mandate.
That becomes important when assessing public expenditure.
A clearly defined scope of work should establish what services are required, what deliverables are expected and the basis upon which the service provider is remunerated.
The absence of clarity could make it difficult to establish whether payments made to a service provider corresponded with the work it was actually contracted to perform.
The GFC has not provided the terms of reference in its response.
The commission was also asked to disclose the total value of the contract and how much it had paid Madira since the firm’s appointment.
Masemola did not answer either question.
“The GFC legal services budget allocation is R300 000.”
But the answer does not establish whether the R300,000 represents the total annual legal budget, Madira’s contract value or an allocation for a particular financial year.
It also does not reveal how much Madira has actually received since 2023.
That figure is critical.
If the commission’s entire legal-services allocation is R300,000, the public should be able to determine how much of that allocation went to Madira and whether payments remained within the approved budget.
Conversely, if R300,000 refers only to a particular period, the GFC should clarify the total expenditure over the life of the appointment.
The procurement controversy is compounded by the GFC’s own description of the CEO’s role in procurement.
Masemola told this publication that SCM is administered by its Finance Division under the CFO.
But she also said: “The Office of the CEO has the authority and responsibility to review and approve the outcome of every procurement process taking place within the organisation.”
That makes the CEO’s role in the Madira appointment an important unanswered question.
Did the CEO, Keitumetse Lebaka review and approve Madira’s appointment? Was the CEO involved in the procurement process itself? What procurement recommendation reached the CEO?
And what documents were considered before the appointment was approved?
The GFC was asked what safeguards exist to ensure separation between procurement and executive functions.
Masemola’s response did not set out those safeguards. Instead, she pointed to their SCM policies and annual audits.
The Madira controversy comes as the GFC is also undertaking what it describes as an ad-hoc job evaluation project involving six positions.
The commission was asked to identify the six positions and explain why they had been selected.
Masemola declined to name them.
Instead, she said the exercise was intended to assist management in making decisions about organisational capacity.
The refusal to identify the positions raises further questions about transparency, particularly if the exercise could ultimately result in positions being upgraded or salaries being increased.
The GFC has also not disclosed when the entire organisation will undergo job grading.
Masemola also confirmed that their previous Board’s term ended in September 2024, while the Interim Board only commenced in March 2026.
She did not explain what governance structure exercised the Board’s functions during the approximately 17-month gap.
“The previous Board term lapsed at the end of September 2024. The Interim Board term commenced in March 2026,” she said.
That timeline raises another question about oversight of procurement and organisational decisions during the period.
The dispute can ultimately be resolved by the documentary trail.
The GFC should be able to produce the procurement record, including the mechanism used to appoint Madira attorneys, the applicable procurement reference, the approval documentation, the terms of reference, the contract, the contract value and the payments made.
Its refusal to answer the specific procurement questions coupled with allegations from sources that there was no tender and that the terms of reference were unclear, leaves the appointment facing serious questions about transparency and accountability.
For an entity spending public money, “we followed our SCM policy” is not the end of the inquiry. It is the beginning of it.