[ad_1]
Gauteng Health MEC Dr. Bandile Masuku. Image: Sharon Seretlo / Gallo Images via Getty Images
POLITICS
Axed Gauteng Health’s MEC, Bandile Masuku, has accused the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) of going behind his back to access the emails of his colleagues and of improperly interviewing his adviser to further his case against him.
Masuku has already filed a court application to quash the SIU findings against him, leading to his removal from office by Prime Minister David Makhura.
Masuku argued that the SIU’s findings lacked both factual and legal foundation, and used the incorrect sections of the Public Finance Management Act and the Constitution to attribute blame to him for his handling of the procurement of personal protective equipment in the province. .
Read: Axed health MEC Bandile Masuku keeps fighting
The SIU found that Masuku had not exercised supervision in his department during the pandemic and that, although he had been alerted to irregularities in the procurement process, he had not acted.
In a strongly worded letter to the SIU, Masuku’s attorney, Mojalefa Motalane, expressed “grave concern and disappointment of our client at the SIU’s misuse of authority, unprofessional, unethical and improper conduct, particularly taking into account the fact that the SIU is an institution entrusted with crucial and broad investigative powers ”.
Motalane wrote that the SIU was abusing the proclamation allowing it to investigate the looting of Covid-19 funds to “illegally request information to support its opposition to our client’s request, whose request is pending.”
The lawyer stated that the abuse of the proclamation had started with an email from the SIU project director of investigations, Lorinda Adlam, dated November 6, allegedly requesting access, as a matter of urgency, to the electronic devices of the Masuku’s former chief of staff, David. Maimela and her advisor, Zolela Ngcwabe.
Since then, Motalane had written to Adlam, asking him not to request access to electronic devices, as there was a pending request in a higher court challenging the SIU’s findings.
He argued that Masuku’s belated attempt to obtain more information smelled like a “fishing expedition.” “The information should have been obtained by the SIU prior to the findings contained in the letters challenged by the application,” he wrote.
He also claimed that Ngcwabe had been invited to an interview with the SIU under false pretenses.
The SIU appears to have placed the cart before the horse. He should have conducted these investigations prior to making the damning findings contained in the September 18 letters and
Bandile masuku
“They have also provided us with two draft confirmatory affidavits that the SIU wants Ngcwabe to sign in support of their opposition to our client’s urgent request. It is clear from these draft confirmatory affidavits that SIU wants Ngcwabe to endorse their version in our client’s pending application. “
He accused the SIU of belatedly seeking to request a version of Ngcwabe when it had already made findings about his involvement.
“The SIU appears to have placed the cart before the horse. It should have carried out these investigations before making the damning conclusions contained in the September 18 and October 1 letters. “
Motalane asked the SIU to desist from illegal conduct, which it described as unethical, unprofessional and amounting to an abuse of power.
Read: Bandile Masuku Labels SIU Findings ‘Trash’
He threatened to use the information pointing to such unlawful conduct to motivate an order for punitive costs and the corresponding censorship of the SIU by the court.
The matter will be heard in court in January.
Masuku ran into trouble when it was discovered that a tender for personal protective equipment had been awarded to a company owned by Thandisizwe Diko, the husband of presidential spokesperson Khusela Diko and a friend of the Masuku family.
Masuku has claimed that he did not participate in the procurement processes and left them to his department officials.
SIU spokesman Kaizer Kganyago said they would not give step-by-step comments on an ongoing investigation, especially since the matter was also before the courts.
|
||||||
 |
