The controversy over undelivered medicines worth E33.9 million has taken a new twist.
This is after five suppliers came forward with documents showing that they also delivered directly to hospitals rather than to the Central Medical Stores (CMS) under the same tender now being queried by the office of the auditor general (OAG).
| Eswatini Observer WhatsApp Channel
This is much against the OAG’s claim, in a strongly-worded press statement issued this week, that the procedure was irregular and that supplies were never delivered.
OAG: No Record of Deliveries
In the statement, the OAG insisted that its audit had established that medicines linked to several payment vouchers were not received at CMS.
It stated that all ministry of health procurements must be delivered at CMS before being dispatched to health facilities, and described any deviation as ‘an anomaly.’
“The officer (storekeeper) at CMS signed the delivery notes used to process payments. However, a physical inspection conducted by our officers at CMS proved the medical supplies were not received. Both manual and electronic stock management systems have no record of the goods being received or distributed,” the office said.
Suppliers Present Evidence
The OAG further argued that claims of direct hospital deliveries were ‘glaringly inaccurate’ because CMS alone had the mandate to receive and distribute medicines to facilities.
However, suppliers paint a different picture. Swazipharm has, in documents seen by this newspaper, invoices showing it delivered ICU and renal products directly to hospitals.
Five other companies awarded orders under Tender Number 2 of 2022/23 have stepped forward with similar evidence. Each has produced award letters, instructing them to deliver “to the ministry or department where the order originated.”
Orders were placed not by CMS, but by principal pharmacists at major hospitals such as Raleigh Fitkin Memorial (RFM) and Mbabane Government Hospital.
A representative of one of the suppliers described the OAG’s position as baffling:
“We were following the ministry’s own instructions. Our letters are clear as you can see in black and white. If the order came from a hospital, we delivered to that hospital. To now see one of us being accused of bypassing CMS is to accuse us all of ignoring instructions we were explicitly given.”
Ministry Sources Weigh In
Officials within the ministry of health confirmed that ICU and renal products are treated differently from ordinary pharmaceuticals.
Because of their short shelf lives, high cost, and urgent need, they are routinely supplied directly to the hospitals that request them.
“These are life-saving medicines often required within hours. Delivering them through CMS would introduce dangerous delays. For years, these products have gone straight to the hospitals. It is not an irregularity, it is the practice,” said one insider.
Another ministry source described the OAG’s statement as “outright embarrassing”:
“The auditor general’s office has made a categorical claim without recognising how this part of the system actually functions. Instead of addressing the genuine procurement crises we face, it has chosen to quarrel with a process that is both well established and necessary.”
The official added that invoices, delivery notes, and hospital records exist for the contested supplier, raising the question:
“If evidence exists that hospitals received the medicines, can it still classify them as ‘undelivered’ simply because they did not pass through CMS?”
Audit Office Responds
The office of the auditor general (OAG) says its findings on the E33.9 million medicine delivery dispute were based on information provided by the ministry of health.
It has advised Swazipharm and other suppliers to furnish additional documentation through the ministry.
Responding to the suppliers’ evidence, the OAG said its audits were confined to government ministries and departments.
“You will note that our audits are with government ministries and departments. The processes we check are with the ministry of health in this particular audit. When we did the audit, officials at the ministry gave us the information we have,” the office said.
The OAG further explained that any supplier wishing to challenge or supplement the evidence should do so through the ministry:
“Whoever has information pertaining to the matter should forward it to the ministry, and the ministry will inform the office of the auditor general,” said Communications Officer Bongile Mavuso.
Eswatini Observer Press Reader | View Here
