Former Limpopo Department of Health head Thokozani Mhlongo’s woes have worsened this week after the Special Tribunal dismissed Pro Secure’s exception application in the personal protective equipment (PPE) procurement case that rocked the country in 2022.
The matter involved the supply of PPE to the department at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic that gripped the country during 2020.
This week, the tribunal rejected Pro Secure’s exception with costs, including those for two counsels which supported the Special Investigating Unit’s (SIU) stance on the irregular procurement of PPE by the during the pandemic.
While Pro Secure was the second defendant in court papers, Mhlongo was the first.
Mhlongo, who resigned in June 2022 after facing a disciplinary hearing arising from the SIU’s investigations, was suspected to have colluded with the company.
She later in 2023 had her pensions frozen resulting from the matter.
The tribunal’s order follows an investigation by the SIU into the affairs of the department. However, Pro Secure raised several exceptions to the SIU’s particulars of claim, challenging the SIU’s legal standing, the non-joinder of the relevant department, review jurisdiction, and issues related to the timing of the judicial review under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).
In a statement, SIU spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago said the investigation uncovered irregularities in the appointment of service providers such as Pro Secure (Pty) Ltd, Clinipro (Pty) Ltd, and Ndia Business Trading (Pty) Ltd for the supply and delivery of PPE, resulting in about R182 million in irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure by the department.
He said the SIU instituted civil proceedings against Mhlongo and Pro Secure, alleging various irregularities and contraventions in awarding a tender.
“The SIU has successfully interdicted the pension payout of Dr Mhlongo following her resignation amid disciplinary action,” he said.
Mhlongo’s troubles started in 2022 after an Independent Media investigation that found that the department had awarded Pro Secure a R185m contract to supply the PPE despite it not appearing on the official database of suppliers.
The KwaZulu-Natal company, whose sole chief executive is Durban businessman Ferrel Govender, secured the contract to supply hand sanitisers, according to official documents seen by “The Sunday Independent” (“The Star’s” sister newspaper) at the time.
It had reported that Pro Secure was among 216 hand-picked companies which shared Limpopo’s R932m worth of PPE contracts.
Most of the successful bidders appear to be politically connected individuals, ANC activists and relatives of senior officials and prominent politicians.
Mhlongo suffered another blow in 2023 after the public protector investigated allegations of maladministration and procurement irregularities in the awarding of tenders for the supply of the equipment, revealing the department had not followed due processes in the awarding of the tender.
It was also revealed that Mhlongo’s conduct was in contravention of the Public Finance Management Act and constituted maladministration.
Making the ruling, Judge K Pillay, said she agreed with the plaintiff’s (SIU) counsel’s submission that it was an irregular step, and is liable to be set aside.
She said according to the SIU findings, a request for a quotation was sent to Pro Secure for 5 000 hand sanitisers which was followed by the company submitting a quote of more than R7m.
She said: “The memorandum of appointment included the appointment of suppliers for manual dispensers, which contradicted the specifications listed in the quote.”
“The memorandum indicated that the second defendant (Pro Secure) would be contracted to supply 30 000 manual hand sanitisers at R250 per unit and 900 000 refill bottles at R170 each.
“However, the second defendant delivered 30 000 dispenser holders at R420 per unit and 900 000 litres of hand sanitisers at R170 each.
“The second defendant was paid R161 485 545.16, which was significantly higher than the bid for R7 057 722.”
“Consequently, the exception is dismissed with costs, such costs to include costs consequent upon the engagement of two counsel,” she said.
The Star