Makhura dismisses accusations of being guilty of wrongdoing over PPE contracts

Former Gauteng Health Department chief financial officer, Kabelo Lehloenya, stated in submissions to the Special Tribunal that Gauteng Premier David Makhura and the Gauteng government should be found liable for the losses incurred by the state.

Gauteng Premier David Makhura visited Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital on Saturday, 12 June 2021. Picture: Gauteng Province.

JOHANNESBURG - Gauteng Premier David Makhura has dismissed accusations that he was guilty of wrongdoing in the multi-billion rand personal protective equipment scandal.

Former Gauteng Health Department chief financial officer, Kabelo Lehloenya, stated in submissions to the Special Tribunal that Makhura and the Gauteng government should be found liable for the losses incurred by the state.

The Special Tribunal will be hearing arguments in the matter from Thursday morning.

The provincial government and Makhura said that the third-party notice filed by Lehloenya seeking to implicate them, among others, failed to comply with the requirements of the Special Tribunal rule read together with uniform rule 18.

In defending arguments, legal representatives for the provincial government and Makhura said that the move seeking to implicate them in the civil recovery proceedings was irregular as they were the plaintiff or were represented by the plaintiff – in this case, the Special Investigating Unit.

Lehloenya claimed that Makhura and the government were vicariously liable for her alleged breach of duty.

She also states that Makhura should be held personally liable as he allegedly “authorised, directed or caused or failed” to prevent officials of the Health Department in the province from acting unlawfully in awarding the controversial contracts and making payments thereafter.

She said that he did so with “reckless disregard” for the extent of his powers.

Makhura and the provincial government have hit back, arguing that Lehloenya’s invoking of vicarious liability against them would only be valid if an employee was acting within the course and scope of their employment or authority.

Download the Eyewitness News app to your iOS or Android device.