Special Tribunal Voids R14 Million Mpumalanga Health Department COVID-19 Contracts Following SIU Corruption Probe

The SIU probe into the Tark Group and Mpumalanga Health Department leads the Special Tribunal to void R14 million in corrupt COVID-19 mask and jumpsuit contracts.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 3, 2026, 5:36 AM EDT

Source: The information in this article was sourced from EWN

Systemic Procurement Failures Uncovered

The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) has achieved a significant breakthrough in its ongoing mission to recover public funds lost to pandemic-era corruption. A comprehensive investigation into the Mpumalanga Department of Health has exposed deep systemic flaws in the awarding of two specific contracts valued at a collective R14 million. The probe revealed that procurement laws were flagrantly violated, with departmental officials bypassing essential bid evaluation and adjudication committees. These findings led the Special Tribunal to officially declare the contracts unconstitutionally invalid, unlawful, and void, marking a victory for fiscal accountability in South Africa.

Unlawful Gains for the Tark Group

The primary beneficiary of these irregular tenders was identified as the Tark Group, a company owned by Katlego O’hara Mokonyane and lawyer Bonelela Mgudlwa. The SIU's findings indicated that the group was appointed to supply 60,000 surgical masks and 150,000 protective jumpsuits despite lacking the relevant licenses required for such medical supplies. The tribunal confirmed that the company effectively benefited from a process that ignored mandatory compliance checks, highlighting a pattern of favoritism that sidelined legitimate, licensed suppliers during a national health emergency.

Departmental Culpability and Premature Awards

The SIU's scrutiny extended beyond the private sector, placing the conduct of the Mpumalanga Health Department under the spotlight. SIU spokesperson Selby Makgotho confirmed that the Special Tribunal issued a judgment specifically addressing the actions of department officials. The tribunal noted that the department issued premature "promissory letters of award" and accepted non-compliant bids, actions that were deemed central to the overall irregularities. While the department chose not to contest the application, its administrative failures were characterized as the root cause of the illegal expenditure.