Masemola charged with violating public finance management act in R360m tender

State alleges police commissioner failed to oversee awarding of contract to company linked to murder-accused Matlala

National police commissioner Gen Fannie Masemola leaving after appearing in courting the Pretoria magistrate's court. (Veli Nhlapo)

Police commissioner Gen Fannie Masemola has been charged for failing to prevent irregular expenditure and losses resulting from criminal conduct in a R360m tender.

Masemola appeared briefly in the Pretoria magistrate’s court on Tuesday to face four counts of breaching the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) in relation to the tender awarded to Medicare24 Tshwane District in 2024.

The company, which is linked to attempted murder-accused Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala, was to manage SAPS health services for three years.

Masemola will be in the dock again on May 13, alongside Matlala and 15 others who are accused of fraud, corruption and money laundering in the same tender.

The state has accused Masemola of being “grossly negligent” as head of the SAPS after failing to provide proper oversight in the Medicare24 tender.

All four charges relate to the alleged violation of the PFMA, but not corruption. The state alleges Masemola “unlawfully, wilfully and/or in a grossly negligent way” failed to comply with the PFMA by failing to take effective and appropriate steps to prevent unauthorised, irregular and fruitless and wasteful expenditure and losses resulting from criminal conduct regarding the tender awarded to Medicare24.

The state further alleges Masemola failed to comply with the PFMA by not halting the acceptance of orders from Medicare24 and payment of invoices from the company which had not fully complied with its contractual obligations.

A further charge is that Masemola failed to ensure that Medicare24 was properly screened and tax-compliant to render services to SAPS.

“You unlawfully, wilfully and/or in a grossly negligent way failed to comply with a provision of the PFMA in that you failed to comply with duty to take effective and appropriate disciplinary steps against officials in the service of the SAPS within the supply chain management division and other divisions of the SAPS, who were involved in the unlawful procurement of the services that was awarded to Medicare24 Tshwane District,” the charge sheet states.

The state has also charged senior police officers Brig Rachel Matjeng, Brig Alpheus Ngema, Brig Patrick Nethengwe, Maj-Gen Busisiwe Temba, Brig Kirsty Jonker, Brig Reabetsoe Lenono, Brig Onica Tlhoale, Capt Brian Cartwright, Col Nonjabulo Mngadi, Col Anton Paulsen and Col Johannes Monyai, service provider James Murray and procurement officer Tumisho Maleka.

Most of the police officers arrested were members of the bid evaluation committee that evaluated the tender which was later awarded to Medicare24.

Conflict of interest

The state alleges that Cartwright, who was the sub-section commander of the tactical equipment of the division of supply chain management of the SAPS was appointed to serve as the facilitator of the bid committee that evaluated the tender awarded to Medicare24.

It alleges Cartwright knew Matlala and Medicare24 and should have declined the appointment as facilitator due to a conflict of interest.

The state maintains that the members of the evaluation committee made several misrepresentations, including that Medicare24 had business addresses in eight provinces; that Medicare24’s computer system was compatible with the police system; and that the company had infrastructure in nine provinces.

If there had been proper checking, the company would not have won the tender, the state contends.

Masemola, speaking to the media on Tuesday, has denied any wrongdoing in the matter. He also refused to answer questions on his discussions with President Cyril Ramaphosa and whether he will be suspended.

Wits university law lecturer Blake Martin said that if Masemola’s charge is sufficiently linked to the same facts and evidence as the existing charges, joinder will likely be favoured, even if his charge is less serious.

“He can challenge this, but it won’t be easy. He would need to demonstrate that the joinder causes real prejudice or undermines his section 35 rights,” he said.

Masemola has not indicated whether he would challenge the joinder in the criminal trial, which could take years.

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Comment icon