Fresh questions have emerged over the credibility of forensic audit firm Funduzi Forensic Services after an explanation given to Parliament this week regarding the absence of its lead investigator appeared inconsistent with publicly available information about South Africa’s Judicial Commission of Inquiry into criminality, political interference and corruption in the criminal justice system.
Appearing before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on Monday to present the firm’s extension investigation into the recall of drugs/medicines, including framework systems across Eswatini government health facilities, Funduzi Director Zakhele Dlamini informed MPs that Advocate Boyce Mkhize, the report’s Project Director, could not attend because he was engaged with South Africa’s Madlanga Commission.
The explanation went largely unchallenged. A review of information publicly released by the commission, however, raises questions about that claim.
Established by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and chaired by acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, the commission is investigating allegations of criminal syndicates infiltrating South Africa’s law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, prosecution authorities, the Judiciary and correctional services.
Its mandate includes probing political interference in the criminal justice system, reviewing oversight mechanisms and recommending reforms.
The commission has publicly identified the officials responsible for carrying out that work.
Justice Madlanga serves as chairperson, assisted by senior counsel Advocate Sesi Baloyi. Dr Nolitha Vukuza is the commission secretary, while forensic auditor and former South African Police Service detective Dr Peter Goss serves as chief investigator. Those officials, together with the commission’s management team, investigators and legal personnel, are publicly listed on the commission’s official website.
Advocate Mkhize’s name does not appear among any of the commission’s publicly identified commissioners, investigators, management officials or legal team.
The issue is significant because Mkhize was not merely another member of the Funduzi team. He signed the 98-page forensic report as project director, making him the senior official responsible for overseeing and endorsing its findings before they were presented to Parliament.
The report concludes that government suffered millions of Emalangeni in fruitless and wasteful expenditure arising from recalled medicines, raises concerns over procurement practices, product quality, mislabelling and short-dated medicines, and recommends legal and administrative action against those found responsible.
Questions surrounding Mkhize, however, are not new. His professional career has repeatedly attracted scrutiny from South African media long before his involvement in Eswatini through Funduzi.
In 2014, City Press reported that Mkhize resigned as chief executive officer of the Mpumalanga Economic Growth Agency (MEGA) after the provincial government dissolved the agency’s board for poor performance.
According to the newspaper, a forensic report prepared with the assistance of PricewaterhouseCoopers implicated him in irregular expenditure amounting to approximately R25.8 million and raised concerns over procurement practices, including companies sharing directors and contact details.
City Press reported that Mkhize denied wrongdoing and maintained that he stepped aside simply to allow an interim board a fresh start.
Two years later, City Press again reported on Mkhize after he resurfaced at the South African Broadcasting Corporation through forensic firm Sekela Xabiso. The newspaper said SABC insiders questioned his appointment because of his previous tenure at MEGA.
Mkhize rejected those concerns, saying the publication had inaccurately portrayed his history and that it had no bearing on the work he was undertaking at the broadcaster.
The scrutiny did not end there. In 2024, the Sunday Times published an investigation into Mkhize’s tenure as accounting officer at the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS), alleging procurement irregularities involving companies linked to individuals known to him.
The newspaper alleged that businesses associated with his acquaintances benefited from lucrative contracts and questioned procurement decisions made during his leadership.
According to the publication, evidence included social media posts showing Mkhize attending the wedding of one of the individuals at the centre of the controversy despite denials of any close relationship.
Mkhize denied wrongdoing. The Funduzi report presented to Parliament this week has already become the subject of legal and public challenge.
Following Monday’s hearing, Swazipharm Director Kareem Ashraff accused Auditor-General Timothy Matsebula of abusing the powers of his office by assuming ownership of reports produced by Funduzi.
Earlier in the hearing, Matsebula defended the appointment, telling MPs that Section 13 of the Audit Act empowered him to appoint specialist investigators and that, once approved, the reports became those of the auditor-general rather than Funduzi.
Ashraff rejected that reasoning. “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 said.
The latest questions surrounding Mkhize’s reported engagement with the Madlanga Commission add another chapter to the long-running controversy surrounding Funduzi.
Last year, this newspaper revealed documents suggesting that the forensic firm presented Cabinet with a corporate narrative that appeared inconsistent with official company records in South Africa and Eswatini.
The investigation found that Cabinet had been informed Funduzi was operating as the Eswatini extension of a South African company registered under number 2017/390767/07.
Corporate records obtained from South Africa’s Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC), however, showed that the registration number belonged to DW Wealth Consultants (Pty) Ltd when Funduzi secured the Eswatini tender in December 2022.
Documents further showed that the South African company only applied to change its name to DW Wealth Consultants Funduzi Forensic Services on August 1, 2023, the same day Funduzi representatives appeared before Cabinet to defend the firm’s credentials following public scrutiny.
The CIPC subsequently confirmed that it does not register trading names, contradicting documentation presented to Cabinet suggesting that DW Wealth Consultants was trading as Funduzi Forensic Services.
Taken together, those disclosures raised questions over how Funduzi presented its corporate identity to Cabinet. Nearly three years later, another explanation offered by the company in a high-profile public forum has itself become the subject of scrutiny.
He is working behind the scenes – Funduzi
Funduzi Forensic Services has defended its explanation for Advocate Boyce Mkhize’s absence from this week’s Public Accounts Committee hearing, insisting that the senior advocate is indeed engaged with South Africa’s Madlanga Commission, albeit in a capacity that is not reflected on the commission’s publicly available structures.
The clarification was in response to questions raised by this newspaper after Funduzi Director Zakhele Dlamini informed MPs on Monday that Mkhize, the Project Director behind the firm’s forensic report into recalled medicines, could not attend because he was engaged with the Judicial Commission of Inquiry chaired by acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga.
A review of the commission’s official website found no reference to Mkhize among its commissioners, investigators, management team or legal personnel.
“That’s his private engagement in whatever assistant or manner he is doing there. I don’t think it is necessary to furnish you with what he is doing,” Dlamini said.
He said Mkhize serves in numerous professional capacities beyond his work with Funduzi.
“He has many portfolios, even in legislation, serving various boards with his expertise. It doesn’t mean all have to list him there or on their website as he is not an official of the commission,” Dlamini said.
According to Dlamini, legal practitioners and senior investigators frequently provide professional assistance behind the scenes without forming part of an institution’s official establishment.
“As lawyers and leading investigators, they are allowed and they are engaging each other in professional ways,” he added.
Drawing a comparison with journalism, Dlamini said: “Same as you journalists, you have insiders and informants for the Observer, but they aren’t on your website.”
He argued that only officials and personnel formally engaged and remunerated by the commission appear on its published organisational structures.
