[ad_1]
Gauteng Health MEC Dr. Bandile Masuku.
Images by Sharon Seretlo / Gallo via Getty Images
- A preliminary report from the SIU and an independent forensic report on the Gauteng PPE scandal contradict each other.
- The first implies while the second exonerates MEC Bandile Masuku from any irregularity related to the acquisition of PPE in his department.
- Masuku received a special license after the husband of the presidential spokesperson, Khusela Diko, was awarded a bid for 125 million rand in the department.
An independent forensic report on allegations regarding the irregular procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) in Gauteng has found no evidence to suggest that Gauteng Health’s MEC, Bandile Masuku, interfered with any PPE procurement process.
This report conflicts with the preliminary report of the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) on the case that places Masuku at the center of the bidding processes in the department, which resulted in the husband of the presidential spokesperson , Khusela Diko, received a R125 million tender to supply PPE. TimesLive reported.
“There is no evidence that Dr. Masuku interfered with any EPP procurement process. His stated motivation for ‘participating’ was in delivery rather than procurement and solely to ensure that GDoH did not run out of essential PPE, putting so in danger [the] life of GDoH medical staff or patients, “the 39-page forensic report reads.
READ | Gauteng Premier dismisses health MEC Bandile Masuku
The forensic report by Paul O’Sullivan and Associates, dated October 8, sought to conduct a diligent search for evidence of crimes such as fraud and / or corruption by the now-fired MEC for Health in Gauteng, Bandile Masuku and his wife. Loyiso Masuku, with a specific focus on PPE procurement, and report on their findings.
This comes after Masuku faced an accusation of being involved in illegal PPE supply contracts at the Gauteng Department of Health (GDoH).
Diko, Masuku and Loyiso, who serves as MMC in the city of Johannesburg, were put on leave after receiving reports of corruption in the GDoH.
Diko’s husband, Chief Madzikane II, received a bid for 125 million rand to supply PPE to the department, News24 reported.
READ | PPE scandal: Makhura considering SIU’s findings on Masuku
The forensic report also found no evidence that the health MEC “named its people” or raised any red flags from a lifestyle audit in Masukus.
Defamatory
“Any allegation that Dr. or Ms. Masuku was involved in any bid rigging, corruption, fraud or mismanagement related to the Gauteng PPE tenders, could be de facto defamatory, “the report concluded.
However, the SIU report, dated October 1, found that Masuku was aware of the irregular procurement processes of his department, because senior officials such as the CFO and the Head of SCM had kept him informed at every step of the process, already in April. 2020.
However, the O’Sullivan & Associates report states that Masuku was unaware that Chief Madzikane II, Diko’s husband, was bidding for the PPE supply chain.
READ | Ramaphosa asks citizens to use the Covid-19 app: this is how it works
“There is no evidence to indicate that the Masukus knew that Mr. Diko was engaged in GDoH with a view to supplying PPE products before May 24, 2020,” the report concludes.
Furthermore, he discovered that Masuku invoked an internal audit as soon as he became aware of the irregularities in the department.
The SIU report, however, found that Masuku was aware of the procurement processes carried out by the GDoH at “all relevant times.”
“Although the MEC, during an interview with the SIU, tried to distance itself from the day-to-day activities of the GDoH, it is clear that the GDoH and the GDoH CFO had gone out of their way to keep the MEC fully informed regarding it. to the acquisition of EPP by the GDoH “, concludes the SIU report.
Fired
Gauteng Prime Minister David Makhura announced that he was firing Masuku as a Gauteng Health MEC on Friday during a virtual Covid-19 update.
Makhura said his decision was based on the SIU report that found that Masuku failed to fulfill his role in accordance with the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).
It noted that it was aware of O’Sullivan’s report, but further clarified that its action was based solely on the SIU’s finding and recommendation in its preliminary report.
“I heard about the O’Sullivan report but I work on reports formally commissioned by state institutions, I have not looked at it. I am acting on the SIU report that recommended action,” he explained. .
