SWAZIPHARM Director Kareem Ashraff has accused Auditor General Timothy Matsebula of abusing the constitutional authority of his office by taking ownership of forensic reports produced by Funduzi Forensic Services, a company whose credibility has come under sustained scrutiny and which has repeatedly secured work from his office despite having little demonstrable track record.
Ashraff further claims that the AG’s office breached fundamental principles of procedural fairness by finalising reports without first giving those implicated, including Swazipharm, an opportunity to respond to the allegations before findings were reached.
Ashraff was responding to evidence presented before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on Monday during the presentation of Funduzi’s ‘Extension Investigation into the Recall of Drugs/Medicines including Framework Systems across Eswatini Government Health Facilities’ report.
During the hearing, Matsebula defended his appointment of Funduzi, telling MPs that Section 13 of the Audit Act empowers him to appoint specialists with the expertise required to assist his office in carrying out forensic investigations.
“The reports are not Funduzi’s reports. They are the AG’s reports,” Matsebula told the committee, adding that once he had lawfully exercised those statutory powers, ‘nobody can stop an appointment that has been approved by the auditor general.’
The AG’s legal adviser, Advocate Malinda Magagula echoed his sentiments and said Funduzi had been appointed through a proper tender process. So did Funduzi’s Zakhele Dlamini, who said the company was not a ‘fly-by-night’ operation, insisting Cabinet had previously satisfied itself regarding the firm’s credentials.
Ashraff, however, argued that the AG’s statutory authority to appoint forensic investigators did not exempt his office from procurement laws or broader principles of accountability.
“The Constitution does not give anyone a licence to spend taxpayers’ money, however, they choose,” Ashraff said.
“The AG is saying he has the power to appoint forensic investigators. Nobody is disputing that. What we are disputing is whether those appointments are made lawfully, transparently and in the public interest. Constitutional powers cannot become a shield against accountability,” he added.
He said Matsebula’s decision to publicly defend Funduzi had strengthened, rather than allayed, his concerns about the relationship between Matsebula and the forensic firm.
“If he is saying these are his reports, then he must also accept responsibility for the process that produced them. You cannot own the report but distance yourself from the manner in which it was compiled. If the process was fundamentally flawed, then the report itself cannot escape scrutiny,” he emphasised.
Ashraff further questioned why Funduzi appeared to derive virtually all of its public-sector forensic work from the AG’s office.
“Why are taxpayers paying millions of emalangeni to a company whose only client appears to be the auditor general? If this were such an important national investigation, why not appoint an established forensic firm with an unquestionable track record?” he asked.
He also criticised what he described as the office’s reliance on reports compiled without first hearing from those facing potentially damaging findings.
Funduzi invited various suppliers who supply medicines and medicinal supplies to the ministry of health to attend investigative interviews scheduled for July 23 and 24 last year. Those interviews were, however, postponed on the day they were due to commence and were never rescheduled.
Swazipharm maintains that no meaningful opportunity was subsequently provided to answer allegations, explain transactions or place documents into context before the report was finalised.
Ashraff argued that such an approach fell short of accepted standards governing forensic investigations.
“We are expected to remain silent while allegations from a report we believe is procedurally flawed are repeated publicly,” he said.
“He is shielding reports by a company that is questionable and expecting us to stay quiet while our names are dragged through the mud. I will vigorously defend my reputation against these cheap schemes,” he added.
In a statement issued yesterday after Monday’s PAC hearing, Swazipharm said it had instituted civil proceedings against Funduzi over what it alleges were serious irregularities surrounding the firm’s appointment, methodology and conduct in compiling the first report.
The company said those matters were now before the courts and argued that the allegations contained in the forensic report should be tested through legal proceedings rather than public pronouncements.
Swazipharm also disputes several substantive findings contained in the second report, including its treatment of short-dated medicines, product recalls and allegations relating to medicine quality.
The company further claims that it conflates short-dated medicines with expired products, misunderstands standard pharmaceutical recall procedures and raises concerns about medicine efficacy without adequately explaining how samples were obtained or whether suppliers were afforded an opportunity to verify the chain of custody.
The dispute is the latest chapter in the long-running controversy surrounding Funduzi.
The company was initially awarded a forensic audit into medicine procurement at the ministry of health, for which it received more than E2 million before contract variations and subsequent payments increased the amount to nearly E4 million. An additional E1 million was later paid, according to the company, to cover legal costs arising from litigation linked to its appointment. The auditor-general’s office has declined to disclose how much Funduzi has been paid for its second forensic investigation.
