Masuku accuses SIU of drawing conclusions without facts
Johannesburg - Former Gauteng Health MEC Bandile Masuku’s advocate has argued before the North Gauteng High Court the Special Investigative Unit (SIU) failed to take into account crucial facts when it made findings and recommendations against him.
The court heard Masuku’s application virtually on Thursday. The application was filed late last year following his firing as Health MEC.
Gauteng Premier David Makhura used the SIU’s findings and recommendations to dismiss him.
The SIU found Masuku had failed to exercise his duties in compliance with the Constitution and the Public Service Management Act.
Masuku is accused of playing a role in the wrongful awarding of personal protective equipment (PPE) tenders.
The Premier explained he had no choice but to remove Masuku following the SIU recommending he takes action against the former MEC. Masuku has not been found guilty of corruption. The SIU indicated it was still investigating allegations.
His legal representative, William Mokhari SC, argued before three High Court judges the SIU failed to take into account material facts and to gather the needed evidence.
The advocate argued Masuku could not possibly be held liable for the centralisation of PPE procurement processes by the Gauteng government. The SIU found there were issues with the decision to centralise the procurement of PPE.
He said the SIU had also failed to interview the necessary individuals regarding whether Masuku was made aware of the everyday running of the procurement process.
Mokhari accused the SIU of drawing conclusions without facts. The advocate argued Masuku had actually initiated the steps to investigate procurement issues, but instead of acknowledging his role, the SIU said the head of the department had been the one to initiate the process.
“The SIU failed to take material facts into account and gather evidence and make findings that pass the test of the Constitution. It applied the wrong sections of the Constitution.
“If it is found that they have done wrong, the applicant should be granted an order stating they failed to perform their duties. The court should set them (findings) aside.
“The court should come to the assistance of the applicant because he has demonstrated that the findings have affected his dignity and cannot be corrected by anyone but the court. They remain as an albatross around his neck."