Businessman Suleiman Carrim has been told he will be held accountable for his role in alleged tender-rigging at Tembisa Hospital, in which an estimated R2 billion was siphoned out through procurement processes that are now subject to multiple investigations, including by the Special Investigative Unit.
Carrim unsuccessfully tried to have the commission ignore the SIU report into Tembisa Hospital, suggesting the matter was not part of its terms of reference. In his rebuttal, Evidence Leader Mathew Chaskalson said the inquiry believed Carrim worked closely with controversial mystery businessman Hangwani Maumela and alleged criminal mastermind Vusimuzi Cat Matlala to steal tenders from state institutions by influencing decision-makers.
“We are interested in the relationship between Mr. Matlala, Mr. Maumela, and this witness. We are also interested in how the proceeds of crime move between them,” said the Evidence Leader.
Furthermore, Mr. Matlala and Mr. Maumela are alleged to have been involved in widespread tender fraud and corruption at Tembisa Hospital. “At the very least, we are entitled to investigate whether what we are looking at here is a criminal syndicate engaged in widespread tender fraud and whether that syndicate exercised influence over members of the SAPS. That is where these questions are directed,” he said in a submission consistent with his line of questioning, which sought answers on a string of payments, in the millions of rands, made between the three men.
Carrim’s lawyer, Rafik Bhana, likened the commission’s line of questioning to a fishing expedition.
“There have been loose statements referring to ‘proceeds of crime’ and allegations that Matlala and Maumela were involved in hospital tender fraud. That illustrates our point — this line of questioning is beyond the scope of this Commission. We submit that this is a fishing expedition aimed at embarrassing this witness over matters that have nothing to do with the Commission,” said Bhana.
“You are better acquainted with your mandate than I am, Chair, but none of this falls within it. It is entirely outside the scope of this inquiry. If this line of questioning is allowed, we submit that the Commission would be acting contrary to the rule of law and the principle of legality,” said Bhana.