Three key takeaways emerged from Swazipharm’s engagement with the media this week — insights many readers may not have previously considered.
From the outset, Swazipharm has rejected lies, misinformation and targeted attacks that rely on mischaracterisation rather than fact in the controversy surrounding the shortage of drugs in hospitals. The company insists this crisis is a corruption-stained scandal, built on a draft forensic audit report they describe as nothing short of a sham.
Their position has remained consistent, grounded in facts. What baffles them is why it has taken so long for others to recognise the truth, and why those responsible continue to walk free.
Voices from the Crisis
This week’s media briefing brought sobering testimonies from those directly affected. Victims of what Swazipharm calls a “manufactured narrative” against the company recounted their ongoing suffering while hospitals remain crippled by the drug shortage.
Swazipharm argues that targeting the company has only worsened the crisis, leaving the health sector in a deeper state of paralysis compared to three years ago, before Kareem Ashraff became majority shareholder.
Former Swazipharm director Dave Melvin recalled how the rot in the system predated his exit. Long before he sold his shares, the Ministry of Health and Central Medical Stores had already suspended officers under suspicion.
This, Swazipharm argues, proves the drug shortage was a long-standing issue entrenched well before the forensic audit began.
The Flawed Report
At the centre of the scandal is the Funduzi Forensic Services report, which Swazipharm says is riddled with inaccuracies, speculation, and a lack of forensic rigour.
Examples cited include:
-
The so-called “double payment” claim, which collapses under scrutiny.
-
A residential address used as a batch number, described as an absurd fabrication.
-
Claims about donated drugs, which Swazipharm says were proven to have been supplied.
Funduzi Forensic Services, awarded the tender just a month after its formation in December 2022, produced its first draft by April 2023 and a final draft in July.
Despite millions spent on the report, the shortage persists. Parliament has avoided debating the findings, raising questions about the report’s credibility and purpose.
A Misled Public
The second key takeaway from Swazipharm’s briefing is that the public has been misled.
The company argues that sidelining it from the supply chain has crippled government’s ability to manage delayed payments, while opening the door for “briefcase tenderpreneurs.”
Ashraff revealed that one small-time supplier was awarded an emergency tender worth E38 million but failed to supply drugs even three months later.
Fighting in the Court of Public Opinion
The third key takeaway is Swazipharm’s growing desperation to be heard.
Sidelined in the supply chain, vilified in public discourse, denied a fair hearing by auditors, and ignored by Parliament, the company has been reduced to a peripheral player. Attempts to challenge the Funduzi report — even via a South African consultancy — have been unsuccessful.
Chief Justice Bheki Maphalala’s recent ruling in a separate Anti-Corruption Commission matter struck a chord with Swazipharm. The judgment, they argue, highlights the need for a “court of last resort” — not only in the legal sense but also in leadership and justice.
Beyond Swazipharm
Ultimately, Swazipharm insists the crisis is bigger than the company itself.
They describe it as a tale of greed, captured institutions, and the arrogance of power, forces strong enough to shake even well-connected figures like Kareem Ashraff.
The Chief Justice’s ruling, they say, should serve as a wake-up call, revealing how precarious Eswatini’s path has become.
