A special tribunal issued a ruling that annuls the decision by South African Airways (SAA) to extend a dry lease agreement worth R85.34 million with Flyfofa Airways for a freighter Boeing 737-300 aircraft. The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) achieved this decision, which also mandates measures to recover profits and investigate potential liability of former directors.
According to the anti-corruption oversight body, the Tribunal found that the SAA Board's decision to extend the lease for 36 months totaling R85,340,863, starting from July 1, 2019, was made without a procurement process and/or approval from the Ministry of Finance on deviation, and that it did not comply with the requirements of a fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective procurement system, as required by Section 217(1) of the Constitution.
Tribunal orders Flyfofa to provide payment report
Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that Flyfofa must provide the SIU lawyers with a detailed report on all funds received from SAA, as well as on the expenses actually and properly incurred while fulfilling the agreement, within 30 days of the ruling dated September 11, 2026. The company is also obliged to provide a report on the period when the aircraft ZS-TGG was grounded and any substitute services provided during that time.
The Tribunal additionally ordered Flyfofa to pay the SIU any amount deemed profit or unjust enrichment, plus interest at an annual rate of 11% from the date of the ruling, within 14 days.
The SIU investigation revealed that SAA effectively outsourced its internal overnight charter operations to Flyfofa. Evidence presented before the Tribunal demonstrated that SAA had previously assessed Flyfofa's financial standing as 'high risk,' citing the lack of audited financial statements, a solvency ratio of 0.1, and losses for the previous two financial years.
Judge Fortuin criticized the conduct of the SAA Board, even though the board members were not named as respondents. The Judge noted: 'The conduct of the SAA Board in this matter deserves criticism. This conduct has costs, and they do not only concern SAA. These are costs to the public.'
The Tribunal also ordered that this decision be sent to the minister responsible for SAA, its directors, and the board chairman for consideration of the need to take further action.