SIU’S 274 blacklisting referrals ignored

DESPITE the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) making 274 referrals for the blacklisting of service providers, none of them have been barred from doing business with the state.

This was revealed by SIU head Andy Mothibi when he briefed the standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) yesterday.

Mothibi told MPS that service providers were given an opportunity to respond and ultimately the national Treasury placed them on the list of restricted companies.

“We have to really follow up and make sure this happens,” he said. “There has not been anyone the process has completed and blacklisted.

“The delay causes problems that … service providers could still do business with the government.

“They have to be placed on the list of restricted service providers.”

In his briefing to Scopa, Mothibi said blacklisted service providers were those found to be in the wrong in SIU investigations.

He said there were 78 new cases since their report in September, bringing the number to 274.

“The new ones include 60 in the Free State. Those have to do with the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (Sahpra).”

Mothibi said there were seven new cases in Gauteng that also involved the Sahpra.

There were six involving the national Department of Health, and five involving the Kwazulu-natal Department of Education.

Mothibi told the MPS that when the Kwazulu-natal Department of Education was asked for an update on blacklisting the companies, it had asked for the names of the concerned service providers, although they had been given to the department.

He said the total number of cases referred for blacklisting stood at 274.

“What this really tells us is there are quite a number of service providers that have made themselves guilty of all irregularities and we would like to see action taken.”

He noted that the blacklisting of companies was subject to administrative processes.

ANC MP Bheki Hadebe said the long time taken to conclude the blacklisting process was a concern.

“The report to date paints a bleak picture,” Hadebe said.

He noted that some cases were referred to departments for blacklisting in November 2020, for them to begin the administrative action, and yet 13 months later they were still under consideration.

“There has to be a fundamental stumbling block for this to take a year. What is it they are considering?” he asked.

“We talk about 274 referrals. Thirteen months to date, we are told what we were told in September. It can’t be,” Hadebe said. He also asked if the companies concerned were submitting bidding proposals for work with the state and whether they were still benefiting from trading with the state.

“Is there no way while dealing with this … there has to be a moratorium placed on companies until their cases are resolved?” Hadebe again asked.

Mothibi said they shared the same concerns around the slow pace of blacking the companies.

“In all of the matters we handed over we are really seeing some inefficiencies creeping in.”

He said the departments and regulatory bodies have the authority to deal with the matters.

“I am tempted to say that the honourable committee should approach the state institutions to check why they are not acting.”

Mothibi said the SIU would investigate whether they have the legal standing to take action and blacklist the companies as an interested party.

“If we are to assist and be part of the process in these administrative actions, we would put our effort behind it … We can consider if we have locus standi and institute rather than refer. That is what we would consider and report back.”

Mothibi said the long delays in dealing with blacklisting was sending the wrong message to the companies involved and they were potentially still doing business with the state.

“We offer to consider if we would, on a legal basis, have a standing to do the administrative process as the SIU … and also check if they (implicated service providers) do business with the state,” he said.