LETTER: How the NPA can get cracking on PPE theft
Loading player...
The auditor-general has said some corrupt suppliers of personal protective equipment (PPE) charged up to five times the market price for masks and other protective equipment (“Health and education paid up to five times more for PPE, says auditor-general” (, September 2). There have even been reports of eight times. This is not BEE — it is pure theft. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) talks bravely but appears paralysed by the fear of charging powerful, well-connected cadres. Who do they go for first?
There is a way out of this dilemma: use price multiples as the arbiter. It should be easy in the case of PPE, in which market prices are available and the Treasury has specified price guidelines for the procurement of supplies.
All the NPA has to do is inquire of the auditor-general which contract prices were inflated and by how much. It could then proceed “blind”. It need not initially even know the name of the tenderer. It would be better if it didn’t. If a company has charged, say, eight times the market price, start there, and work down.
The benefit of this approach is that the process would be depoliticised. No-one could say they were targeted because of a political vendetta. The public would also not be in any mood to give credence to cries of victimisation if the biggest price inflators were first in the dock.
There could also be a cost cut-off, to avoid clogging the NPA with minor cases. A cut-off of, say, a R5m total contract cost may be appropriate, at least initially. As the wheels of justice begin to turn, the cut-off could be lowered, keeping within the relevant price multiples.
Willem Cronje
Via e-mail
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail to letters@businesslive.co.za (mailto://letters@businesslive.co.za). Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
There is a way out of this dilemma: use price multiples as the arbiter. It should be easy in the case of PPE, in which market prices are available and the Treasury has specified price guidelines for the procurement of supplies.
All the NPA has to do is inquire of the auditor-general which contract prices were inflated and by how much. It could then proceed “blind”. It need not initially even know the name of the tenderer. It would be better if it didn’t. If a company has charged, say, eight times the market price, start there, and work down.
The benefit of this approach is that the process would be depoliticised. No-one could say they were targeted because of a political vendetta. The public would also not be in any mood to give credence to cries of victimisation if the biggest price inflators were first in the dock.
There could also be a cost cut-off, to avoid clogging the NPA with minor cases. A cut-off of, say, a R5m total contract cost may be appropriate, at least initially. As the wheels of justice begin to turn, the cut-off could be lowered, keeping within the relevant price multiples.
Willem Cronje
Via e-mail
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail to letters@businesslive.co.za (mailto://letters@businesslive.co.za). Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.