By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Constitutional Court has dismissed an appeal by Ledla Structural Development, which was challenging the powers of the Special Tribunal.
The company, which was involved in dodgy personal protective equipment tenders during the covid-19 pandemic turned to court after the special tribunal forfeited millions of rands that the company scored unlawfully.
While the Special Tribunal was not a “court”, it can adjudicate on, and set aside unlawful procurement contracts, the Constitutional Court has ruled.
“It is clear that the legislative intention was to cast a wide net over the scope of proceedings the Special Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate upon. Therefore a legality review is not excluded from the ambit of its jurisdiction,” said Justice Nonkosi Mhlantla, writing for the unanimous court, in her ruling on Friday.
The judgment means that the tribunal can continue with its work and can set aside government contracts it finds were awarded unlawfully or through corruption, and that its previous decisions stand.
The special tribunal ordered in December 2020 that the contract for PPE awarded to Ledla Structural Development by the Gauteng Health Department was unlawful.
The matter was taken to the tribunal in August by Special Investigative United (SIU) and involved 39 other companies that were contracted to deliver PPE to the department.
Ledla received R38.7 million from the department which was distributed to other companies involved in the tender.
Royal Bhaca Projects owned by the late Madzikane II Thandisiwe Diko, the husband of former President Cyril Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Khusela Diko has also been linked to the irregular tenders.
Ledla is allegedly a “proxy” for Royal Bhaca, the company owned by Diko.
The legal team representing Ledla approached the Supreme Court of Appeal to appeal the Special Tribunal’s decision, but that application was dismissed.
The company then escalated the matter to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal.
The apex court dismissed Ledla’s appeal with costs, arguing that the special tribunal is not a court. However, it has the power to adjudicate legality reviews.