Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) scandal in Free State is finally over.
This as Special Tribunal Judge, Lebogang Modiba reviewed and set aside contracts issued by Free State Treasury under SCMQ 11/2020: COVID-19 following SIU Chief Forensic Investigator Johannes Hendrick Nicolaas Nepgen who on behalf of the SIU will asked the court to:
Part B – seek to review and set aside procurement decisions and actions of MEC for Treasury which falls under ambit of administrative actions that were taken for procurement of the surgical gowns under SCMQ 11/2020: COVID-19.
According to Nepgen the cumulative costs for surgical gowns were R39 150 739.60 which Treasury had committed for SCMQ 11/2020: COVID-19.
Step Up SA News reported a total of 231 331 surgical gowns were discovered to have not been sterilized as required.
Context: Free State Provincial Executive Council (PEC), took a decision to centralize the PPE procurement to Treasury despite Health Department being the custodian of Health (Infection, Prevention & Control) protocols, a decision that angered former HOD Dr Motau.
Background: The Free State PPE’s scandal has been a hotly debated topic since the news broke late last year. The President also gave a go ahead to the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to investigate the misuse of Covid-19 funds.
Nepgen in his founding affidavit said Treasury’s Chief Director Assets and Liability Management, Tshepo Mabilo received complaints from Department of Health Medical Depot regarding the quality of delivered surgical gowns procured under SCMQ 11/2020: COVID-19. Up on investigation, Mabilo found only 3(three) out of 32(thirty two) service provider supplied the correct surgical gowns as per technical specifications contained in SCMQ 11/2020: COVID-19.
The hearing was held virtually on the 24th August 2021, while submissions were handed on the 18th January 2022.
According to the tribunal, Modiba invalidated the appointment of the 36 companies who won the contracts worth R39.1 million.
Judge Modiba ruled that the respondents’ entities are to be divested of the profit they have derived or stand to derive from the [contracts]. The Judge ordered that the SIU [Special Investigating Unit] should enlist the services of an appropriate independent expert to assess the surgical gowns delivered to the Free State Department of Health and Provincial Treasury… which are still in possession of the departments,” the tribunal said.
Modiba ordered that the expert be enlisted in order to assess the quality of the surgical gowns and their appropriate use, and determine the fair value of the surgical gowns in light of their quality and appropriate use.
“In the event… that any respondent entity disputes the determination of the order, it is entitled to appoint their own expert and file [a] report. In doing so, they will need to notify the other parties of such an intention. Thereafter, it shall file its expert report within 15 days,” the Tribunal said.
Modiba also directed that companies, which were found to have supplied surgical gowns that were not up to standard, to supply audited statements reflecting “all the money due or received from the Free State Provincial Treasury for supplying gowns to the departments and all the costs that they have incurred” in the procurement of those gowns.
Furthermore, Modiba ordered that officials implicated in the scandal be made to account.
“To the extent that the departments stand to suffer any loss from the RFQ [request for quotation], Accounting Officers of both the Departments of Health and Provincial Treasury shall invoke section 38 (1) (h) of the PFMA against implicated officials to recover any fruitless and wasted expenditure incurred or to be incurred from the [contracts],” the tribunal said
Last week the SIU referred 27 suppliers who provided incorrect gowns committed fraud by providing false addresses in bid documents to NPA.
It was also found all 30 suppliers of the surgical gowns contravened sections 14, 19 and 22c(6) of the medicines and related substance act, act 101 of 1965 which constitutes an offence in terms of section 29, and is punishable in terms of section 30 of the same act. Section 30 of act 101 of 1965 reads:
- Any person who is convicted of an offence referred to in section 29 shall be liable to a fine, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 year.
- The court convicting any person of an offence under this act may, upon application of the prosecutor, declare any medicine or scheduled substance in respect of which the offence has been committed to be forfeited to the state.
- Any medicine or scheduled substance forfeited under this act shall be destroyed or otherwise dealt with as the Director General may direct.
This means all 231 331 surgical gowns could be forfeited while those found guilty fined or imprisoned.
Gadija Brown, Free State Provincial Treasury MEC said they will deal with matters tribunal raised.
“Happy that the judgement once again confirms that there are no fraud, losses or maladministration incurred.
We will have to deal with the contract management matters raised by the SIU.”
What is of importance is where these suppliers bought surgical gowns, it cant be a coincidence that 231 331 surgical gowns supplied to Free State Treasury were unsterilized.
If you have news or tips please email us: news@stepupsanews.co.za
More Stories
A company with links to Patrick Phuti gets R97 million tender
“Cde Thabo is out of line” – Setai to Motsoeneneng
Women shot dead a few kilometres from Men’s Indaba venue