I am not one to lose my temper easily. Yet when I learnt in a recent parliamentary presentation that, of the 467 individuals and companies the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) recommended for blacklisting as state suppliers, only one had been blacklisted, I could barely contain my rage.
How can those implicated in corruption still be permitted to do business with the government? And if the presidency, National Treasury and accounting officers at state entities refuse to act on SIU recommendations, how can we ever hope to clean up state corruption?
The SIU, which falls under the department of justice, is mandated to investigate serious malpractice, maladministration and corruption in state institutions, state assets and public money. It is often called in by government departments and state-owned enterprises to conduct internal investigations, which frequently expose not only inefficiency but entrenched corruption.
The outcomes of these investigations matter. The SIU refers cases to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), recommends disciplinary action against corrupt officials, and advises that tainted suppliers be blacklisted from future business with the state.
Under advocate Andy Mothibi the SIU has become one of the best-run state bodies. With limited resources, its investigations are consistently completed on time, within budget, and with clear recommendations. Investigators often put themselves at personal risk, taking on criminal syndicates that are sophisticated, politically connected and frequently violent.
Despite this, the SIU’s excellent work is undermined by the fact that its recommendations are not legally binding — and by the GNU government’s lack of seriousness in the fight against corruption.
Presentations to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) by the NPA and presidency confirm as much. In the past five years the SIU has referred almost 3,400 cases to the NPA. Yet few have resulted in criminal convictions. Of the nearly 3,000 cases handled by the Specialised Commercial Crimes Unit inside the NPA, only 83 ended in conviction and sentencing.
Scopa also learnt — and this is where my anger boiled over — that while the SIU has recommended 467 individuals and companies for blacklisting, only one has been placed on the Treasury’s Restricted Suppliers Register. The other 466 remain eligible to win government contracts.
The picture is no better on the disciplinary front. Of the SIU’s 1,657 disciplinary recommendations against officials implicated in corruption, only 28 people have been dismissed. That means fewer than one in 50 implicated individuals are ever properly held accountable.
What, then, is the point of having a corruption-busting institution if its work is ignored? And is this lack of action merely negligence or is it deliberate?
Two uncomfortable truths help explain the situation. First, the Hawks, which investigate on behalf of the NPA, are severely underfunded and understaffed. Their budget is smaller than that of VIP protection for ministers and deputies, and nearly half of their posts are vacant. Second, many accounting officers in departments and state entities — the very people responsible for enforcing SIU recommendations — have skeletons in their own closets. Acting against others risks exposing themselves.
This is no mere administrative delay. It reflects a systemic collapse in consequence management, enabling suppliers and officials implicated in corruption to continue doing business with the state. It is for this reason that ActionSA lodged a complaint with the public protector, calling on her to exercise her constitutional mandate to protect the public from maladministration and ensure that SIU recommendations — intended to safeguard the public purse — are implemented without further delay. The office of the public protector confirmed on Thursday that it is investigating ActionSA's complaint.
Accounting officers — heads of departments, municipal managers and SOE executives — carry the primary legal responsibility under the Public Finance Management Act and Municipal Finance Management Act to act on SIU findings, initiate disciplinary processes and enforce supplier restrictions. Failure to do so constitutes maladministration and dereliction of statutory duty.
The Treasury also carries oversight responsibility for the integrity of the procurement system and the management of the restricted suppliers register. Despite receiving SIU referrals, the Treasury has failed to ensure they translate into actual supplier restrictions. While the 2024 Public Procurement Act removed a clause that would have empowered the Treasury to intervene directly where accounting officers fail, that change does not absolve the Treasury of its oversight obligations.
The presidency also bears responsibility. It receives SIU investigation reports, issues consequence management directives, and is tasked with tracking outcomes. That referrals are recorded but rarely enforced is not a technical flaw. This is a failure of political will, leadership and co-ordination.
The SIU recently released its interim report into procurement irregularities at Tembisa Hospital, following the 2021 assassination of whistleblower Babita Deokaran. The report discloses that more than R2bn was looted by three sophisticated crime syndicates. The investigation has implicated 207 service providers in more than 4,500 purchase orders.
Unless urgent steps are taken to blacklist these suppliers, they remain free to trade with the government. Meanwhile, corrupt officials inside the system continue to enable looting at the direct expense of critical services such as healthcare.
The SIU remains one of the most important weapons against state corruption. But unless its recommendations are taken seriously and enforced, it will remain an unloaded gun, firing blanks while the syndicates suffocating state procurement grow ever stronger and more dangerous.
• Beesley is an ActionSA MP and member of Scopa.
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.