Transnet shaken by leak of secret device

Manager suspended, then reinstated, after safety invention goes astray

● The head of security at Transnet Freight Rail (TFR) has been implicated in how a top-secret piece of technology developed by Transnet engineers ended up in the hands of a service provider.

Marius Bennett, general manager for safety and security at the Transnet subsidiary, was suspended from December to January after TFR technicians spotted Transnet’s patented prototype contact wire reflector (CWR) at the Roodepoort offices of Fidelity Security Services during a benchmarking visit in November last year.

The Sunday Times understands that Bennett was suspended alongside Transnet senior engineer Percy Dzhivhuho, who led the team that developed the device. However, three Transnet insiders said Dzhivhuho was found to have played no role in sharing the technology.

“It was Dzhivhuho who handed the technician’s report to legal, and he also told investigators that he gave the only device, and its specifications, to Bennett months before it was discovered at Fidelity. It was supposed to be in [Bennett’s] possession because he had wanted to see the device as it had security functionality,” said one insider.

Another said TFR had set aside R500m to develop and roll out the CWR countrywide, meant for service providers who would manufacture, supply, and deliver the device. “That can be tempting for anyone with access to it. The project has always been kept within the team working on it, as well as [intellectual property] lawyers inside TFR.”

Dzhivhuho referred all questions to Transnet. Bennett did not respond to numerous requests for comment sought by phone and text since Thursday.

The CWR is similar to a cat’s eye on the road. It is designed to hang on an overhead electrical train cable to help train drivers driving at night see when a line has been cut. Hanging electrical cables can cause serious injury to train drivers.

The second phase of the CWR’s development, which includes incorporating tracking technology and an early warning system to alert authorities to tampering on the line, would have helped address Transnet’s cable theft problem.

Late last year, TFR revealed it had lost an “unprecedented” 1,000km of cable to theft and vandalism in the first seven months of the financial year. Transnet said it lost about R2bn a year in revenue because of the missing cable.

TFR issued a tender for the manufacture and supply of the CWRs, but this was cancelled at the final stage of adjudication.

“If you put all of this together it’s clear that the contract was deliberately sabotaged because Fidelity did not bid. By the time it is re-advertised they will be ready [to produce their own device] because they have a professor and technician working on it,” said one source.

Another source agreed, saying it was clear the device would benefit Fidelity.

However, another insider disagreed, saying the contract was cancelled because mass-producing the first iteration of the device, without planned security features, would have been wasteful.

“It is true that Bennett rejected the CWR because he did not like the design, and we don’t know what that means exactly, but there were equally genuine concerns about not wasting public funds on an incomplete product. The security features are being tested now anyway,” said the source.

The CWR device was discovered at Fidelity’s Roodepoort headquarters when Fidelity employees allegedly boasted about it to a visiting team from Transnet at a meeting on November 23. Unbeknown to the Fidelity staff, they were presenting the CWR to those who had conceptualised and designed it.

The Transnet team reported to their boss Dzhivhuho that while Fidelity had the device that still sported the Transnet logo, the security company had also made its own device with features included in Transnet’s upgraded version. Fidelity managing director Wahl Bartmann said it was unaware of the CWR tender and had not bid for it. He declined to comment further, saying Fidelity was bound by nondisclosure clauses in its commercial contract with Transnet.

In response, TFR said it was “common and permissible practice to give service providers access to Transnet infrastructure if it would aid them in carrying out their duties”.

“Fidelity is one of seven security service providers ... [and is] therefore in possession of all artefacts that would aid in the fight against cable theft and vandalism of Transnet infrastructure … The contact wire reflector technology is not new and has already been deployed in parts of the rail network.”

TFR would not say which other security providers had access to the device.

“TFR acted swiftly to conduct an independent investigation of any wrongdoing when internal resources disclosed Fidelity’s access to the technology. Investigations into this particular matter have been concluded and both individuals returned to work,” said a TFR spokesperson who declined to comment further.

However, two sources with direct knowledge of the investigation said Bennett was given a final written warning after admitting he had forgotten a file containing information about the device at Fidelity’s offices. He did not address how the actual device was found there.

“This guy was investigated and issued with a final written warning without there being a transparent disciplinary process. He is a senior member of TFR’s executive committee and is supposed to be investigated by the Transnet Group’s forensic services, but that never happened,” one source said.