The company awarded a E25 million single-source emergency tender to supply theatre consumables has not delivered a single item, more than a month after the procurement was approved, this newspaper can reveal.
This is despite the ministry of health’s justification that the contract was needed to secure urgent festive-season stock.
The sole supplier authorised under a November 5 Government Tender Board decision, Pride Oasis’ Director Sumoy Ghosh confirmed that the company had not yet made any deliveries. Asked to explain the delay and whether items were still being sourced internationally, he declined to answer further questions, saying he could not respond at this point.
In an interview last week, Principal Secretary Khanya Mabuza defended the E25 million single-source award as unavoidable due to imminent festive-season shortages and manufacturing shutdowns.
“The rationale behind an emergency single source was mainly the tight lines for delivery as we are approaching the festive season where these supplies are of utmost importance,” he said.
“Manufacturers also shutdown production over the festive season and open usually in February and this would not only mean we will not have supplies for the season, but also, be out of stock for a longer period yet most of these supplies are for theatre,” he added.
With no stock delivered by early December, more than four weeks after approval, insiders at the ministry claimed that a delay of this nature was not only unusual, but fundamentally contradicted the logic and purpose of emergency purchasing.
“Emergency procurement means you buy what a supplier already has on the floor.
“You do not approve an emergency contract only for the supplier to start ordering afterwards. That defeats the whole point,” an insider claimed, arguing that the absence of any delivery a month after approval is an anomaly that undermines the entire basis of the single-source justification.
Another added that even in urgent cases, the law allows for restricted tendering, which requires inviting at least three eligible suppliers to quote, except in rare situations where only one supplier can provide the required goods.
They argued that the concerns raised by the Eswatini Association of Pharmaceutical and Medical Suppliers (EAPMS) were, therefore, substantively valid, particularly around transparency, fairness and potential favouritism.
The EAPMS had escalated its complaint to the procurement regulator, alleging systemic failures and potential risks to public health.
The association argued that while the need for urgent supplies was not in dispute, the process leading to the award lacked transparency and risked distorting the market, particularly in a sector already under pressure due to ongoing medicine shortages.
It, therefore, asked the ministry to explain why no competitive processes were pursued, why other registered suppliers were not invited to participate, and what criteria were used to justify the selection of Pride Oasis as the sole provider.
In its correspondence, the association highlighted that the single-source approval appeared to have ‘adversely affected competition and the ability of local suppliers to participate in the procurement process’.
EAPMS further warned that repeated reliance on emergency procurement, particularly where not fully justified, could erode confidence in the system and create room for favouritism, inflated pricing and supply inconsistencies.
In this week’s correspondence directly written to ESPPRA Chief Executive Officer Vusi Matsebula, after reportedly receiving no response from the principal secretary to their earlier letter, the association accused the ministry of persistent procurement failures and asked ESPPRA to exercise its enforcement mandate across three issues: cross-border wholesaling concerns, unresolved matters previously escalated to ESPPRA and the recent E25 million emergency tender.
The letter stated that the ministry had not responded to a November 13 request for action on regulatory and quality assurance issues, despite multiple follow-ups.
It also called attention to the fact that ESPPRA itself convened a meeting earlier in the year to address procurement irregularities, but complained that no formal conclusions or corrective measures were ever communicated.
On the emergency tender, the association shone light on the fact that the absence of justification, supplier engagement and competitive consideration raised profound concerns about consistency and fairness.
It argued that Pride Oasis was widely known for pharmaceutical products, not medical consumables, making the basis for its selection unclear.
The association further warned that the halting of Tender No. 1 of 2025/2026, currently under re-evaluation following the IRC ruling, left compliant bidders disadvantaged and the supply chain in prolonged uncertainty, urging ESPPRA to ensure its timely completion.
The unfolding situation deepens scrutiny over the ministry’s procurement conduct during a period already marked by controversy, as the suppliers from this tender covers items that are meant to be supplied under Tender No. 1 of 2025/2026, which remained unresolved following the ministry’s loss of a high-stakes E400 million dispute brought by local supplier Top EMS Healthcare over its procurement practices.
After hearing both sides, the Independent Review Committee (IRC), a body established by ESPPRA to resolve disputes arising from public procurement processes, ruled that the ministry had applied its own rules inconsistently when evaluating bids for the supply of surgical dressings and sutures, ordering that the entire tender be re-evaluated by an independent expert.
It also found that tender security documents were inconsistently handled, with some suppliers permitted to submit missing documents after the deadline.
The ministry was ordered to conduct a full re-evaluation using an independent procurement specialist, rather than the original team.
