The Special Investigating Unit has accused former Gauteng health MEC Bandile Masuku of changing his story too often when questioned about an e-mail he received which listed companies that benefited from the scandalous R2bn PPE tenders in the province.
The e-mail in question was sent to Masuku by then CFO Kabelo Lehloenya and it listed Royal Bhaca Projects, a company owned by Thandisizwe Diko, the husband of President Cyril Ramaphosa's spokesperson Khusela Diko. The Dikos are family friends of Masuku.
Royal Bhaca Projects scored a R125m tender from his department.
Masuku is seeking to review in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria a report by the SIU on the PPE scandal, which was used by Gauteng premier David Makhura to fire him.
The SIU placed Masuku at the centre of the PPE scandal, arguing that he knew that Royal Bhaca Projects scored a R125m tender.
In an affidavit filed in the high court, which is set to hear the matter today, SIU forensic investigator Asashanduki Rabali said Masuku actually did not dispute all the acts of corruption, unlawful and improper procurement which took place while he was MEC but simply absolved himself from knowing about them.
Rabali pointed to Masuku’s inconsistencies on the e-mail dated April 1 2020, which recorded the involvement of Royal Bhaca in the PPE tenders.
According to Rabali, Masuku received the e-mail from Lehloenya, who attached two spreadsheets listing PPE suppliers. Royal Bhaca Projects was included in both spreadsheets.
Rabali said Masuku, in his initial response when interviewed on August 14, indicated that he was not the only one the email was sent to, saying other people had been copied in it.
Rabali said when Masuku was shown the e-mail he then said to have not opened it. “Later the applicant [Masuku] states 'it's strange that there is only one recipient'.”
Rabali said it was not surprising that Masuku said not to have read the e-mail from Lehloenya when he received it.
“He clearly wished to place himself as far away as possible from the knowledge of the contents of the e-mail because those contents would reveal that Royal Bhaca was one of the suppliers of the PPE,” Rabali said.
The e-mail, according to Rabaili, starts with words “Dear MEC ... please find the list as requested”.
He said Masuku explained in his affidavit “as requested” in the e-mail was referring to a call he had received from a colleague — MEC for education — who had been contacted by Patrice Motsepe indicating his foundation wanted to help with Covid-19. He said someone at the Motsepe Foundation asked for a list of PPE suppliers so they could arrange to donate.
“There is no explicable and acceptable reason the CFO could have sent the e-mail to the applicant [Masuku] if the applicant had no reason to have knowledge of the contents of the e-mail, namely, the identities of the suppliers and quantities of the PPE ordered,” Rabali said.
Rabali said the Motsepe Foundation explanation was a new version introduced on October 20 and repeated in Masuku's founding affidavit. Rabali said despite having belatedly discovered the seriousness of the e-mail, Masuku failed to approach the SIU to correct his version.
“Any responsible and responsive public official knowing, as the applicant did, that the SIU was investigating widespread corruption on PPE procurement in his own department and knew that the SIU showed great interest in the said e-mail during his interview would have volunteered such [an] important new version ... so it takes into account in its investigation and follow the lead allegedly involving the Motsepe Foundation.”
The SIU said because Masuku did not volunteer the new version before his court application it was unable to investigate it.
Masuku maintains that the SIU findings were “untruthful and unsubstantiated conclusions which are based on illogical inferences, suppositions and conjecture”.
Rabali further stated, however, that even if Masuku’s version of not having read the e-mail were to have credence, he was co-chair of the provincial command council, which was regularly informed on PPE procurement from suppliers.
These reports were submitted after the provincial command council took a decision to centralise procurement of PPE within the health department.
“He knew that the procurement of PPE was on an emergency basis, which is notoriously abused and is a hot-bed of corruption and unlawful procurement, and that his department was weakened in its supply chain and asset management capacity to manage a huge-scale procurement of that kind.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.