Masuku denies lapse in PPE oversight
• Special Investigating Unit sticks to its finding that then health MEC should have reasonably known procurement was taking place in an irregular manner
The Special Investigating Unit on Thursday stuck to its finding that former Gauteng health MEC Bandile Masuku did not fulfil his oversight role over the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE). Masuku was accused of impropriety after it emerged that his friend Thandisizwe Diko’s firm Royal Bhaca Projects had been awarded a multimillion-rand tender to provide PPE to the Gauteng government. Masuku has denied the allegations, saying he was unaware of the tender.
The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) on Thursday stuck to its finding that former Gauteng health MEC Bandile Masuku did not fulfil his oversight role over the procurement of protective gear used to fight Covid-19.
The procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been one of the biggest scandals related to the government’s response to the pandemic.
Masuku was accused of impropriety after it emerged that his friend Thandisizwe Diko’s firm Royal Bhaca Projects had been awarded a multimillionrand tender to provide PPE to the Gauteng government.
It was alleged that the friendship between the Diko and Masuku families influenced the decision to award the contract.
The allegations led to Diko’s wife, Khusela — who is President Cyril Ramaphosa’s spokesperson — and Masuku’s wife taking leave of absence as the two families sought to clear their names.
Masuku and Khusela Diko have also faced an ANC disciplinary committee over the allegations.
Masuku has denied the allegations, saying he was unaware of the tender.
At the time the allegations arose, Masuku was the health MEC. He was axed by Gauteng premier David Makhura after the SIU investigation found that he should have been aware of all irregular procurement processes undertaken by the department, under which all Covid-19 procurement for the province was centralised.
On Thursday, Masuku asked a full bench of the high court to set aside the findings made by the SIU that he had failed to conduct oversight in the way he should have as health MEC.
Masuku does not want the MEC job back, but says he wants to clear his name.
No findings were made about him acting in a corrupt way in the letters at the heart of the dispute. But the SIU did say that Masuku should have reasonably known that his department was procuring PPE-related goods and services in an irregular manner and that he either promoted it, facilitated it, allowed it, or even remotely turned a blind eye and failed to do anything about it.
The SIU said Masuku’s “support” for the proposal to centralise procurement in the department of health was for nefarious purposes, to ensure control over procurement and exploit the poor supply chain management.
‘NO EVIDENCE’
On Thursday, Masuku’s counsel was at pains to stress this was not the case.
They said there was no evidence for the finding made against him and that he did everything he could, including initiating a probe into red flags raised with regard to procurement. But the SIU’s counsel, Vincent Maleka SC, was adamant there was a legitimate connection between the information before the SIU and the conclusions it reached.
He said the inference the SIU made about Masuku was justified and raised the issue of the delay between Masuku being informed of irregularities and the start of the investigation.
Masuku’s counsel, William Mokhari SC, however disputed that the then MEC had not acted timeously after the issues were raised.
While the question of whether he had failed in his oversight duties is important, the court will have to decide if the findings by the investigating unit can be reviewed, as this was still in dispute.
Mokhari argued that taking the decision on review was the only option for Masuku, whose dignity and reputation had been impugned.
However, Maleka argued against the possibility of a review.
NO FINDINGS WERE MADE ABOUT HIM ACTING IN A CORRUPT WAY IN THE LETTERS AT THE HEART OF THE DISPUTE