Businessman Kareem Ashraff’s appearance before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) depends on whether the committee requests a reopening of the audit query by the House of Assembly.
This can only happen if the PAC believes Ashraff was not given a sufficient opportunity to respond to the queries.
PAC Chairman Madala Mhlanga has disputed claims that Swazipharm Wholesale (Pty) Ltd Director Ashraff was denied a chance to appear before the committee.
Background of the dispute
Ashraff told the Editors’ Forum last Thursday that he had been trying in vain to appear before the PAC to clear his name and that of his business, following audit queries raised by the auditor general and the Funduzi Forensic report on drug requisitions in public health facilities.
The queries include:
-
Undelivered drugs valued at over E33 million.
-
E9 million allegedly paid to Avapharm for a COVID-19 drug that was claimed to be donated.
-
Duplicated invoices worth E68 million.
Suppliers have since produced documents disputing these audit queries.
PAC’s position
Mhlanga, who is also Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly, said that in 2024, the PAC had invited Swazipharm through the Ministry of Health.
He recalled that Ashraff responded by mandating former director David Melvin to represent the company since the queries related to transactions between 2021 and 2023 — before Ashraff became the majority shareholder and director in July 2023.
In July this year, the PAC received another letter from Ashraff requesting to appear. However, since Ashraff had already opened a defamation case against the PAC, the committee sought legal advice from the Attorney General (AG).
Legal advice
The AG’s memorandum, dated August 7, stated that the PAC’s report had already been adopted by the House, which makes the matter legally concluded.
“Reopening the inquiry will require an express resolution from the House, which would only be granted under exceptional circumstances,” Mhlanga explained.
The AG noted that while rare, inquiries may be reopened if new evidence emerges. In this case, the PAC must first determine whether it violated the audi alteram partem rule (the right to be heard) before requesting a resolution from the House.
Parliamentary protections
The AG further advised that parliamentary deliberations are protected by the Constitution and the Privileges Act, shielding PAC members from civil or criminal liability for their remarks during sittings.
However, while the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) may access the final PAC report as a public document, they are not entitled to the committee’s internal recordings.
For now, the matter remains closed unless the House of Assembly grants permission to reopen it under exceptional circumstances.
