Markets remain concerned about the prospect of recession in the US and geopolitical risks with China
What is clear is that we need to grow the economy so everyone benefits.
Soldiers may only be deployed once ordered by Ramaphosa, who has to inform parliament first
Nomusa Dube-Ncube, Amanda Bani and Mbali Frazer were interviewed for the position of premier on Saturday
Companies will do what they can to increase market share in what is considered to still be a largely untapped market
Potentially disastrous effects of free inflow of dumped chicken leave small farmers at risk
Transnet, Telkom and Eskom estimate that thieves and vandals cost them a total of R7bn a year due to metal theft
Cairo-mediated truce comes after three days of violence which left at least 43 people dead
Every time All Black coach Ian Foster fronts the media, he presents it with denial, not truth and honest appraisal
Comprehensive report shows one in eight people had lingering symptoms
The UK government unlawfully used a so-called “VIP lane” to dish out contracts worth nearly £600m to supply personal-protective equipment at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, a London judge ruled.
The department of health and social care breached its obligation to treat potential suppliers equally by giving firms referred by legislators and senior officials preferential treatment in the procurement process, the judge said on Wednesday.
“The mere fact that an offer was sent to the priority email address from a senior referrer did not justify preferential treatment over a similar offer,” the judge said in her ruling.
The ruling shines a light on the health department, then headed up by Matt Hancock, and its procurement process of crucial safety equipment at the height of the first wave of the pandemic. Hancock quit his job as health secretary in June after it emerged he breached social distancing guidelines when he was photographed embracing a senior aide.
While the department broke the law by giving preferential treatment to two firms in April and May 2020, it’s unlikely the outcome would’ve been “substantially different,” because they would have probably secured the lucrative contracts on their own merits anyway, judge Finola O’Farrell said. As a result she refused to grant any remedies in the case.
“The ruling says it is highly likely these offers would have been awarded if they were processed through other channels also used to process offers,” a government spokesperson said. “All contracts underwent sufficient financial and technical due diligence.”
The judge ruled that although the operation of the fast track used unlawful criteria, “it did not play any material part in the award of the contracts” to the two winning bidders. She also ruled that the department didn’t have an obligation to be transparent about the procurement process.
“Never again should any government treat a public health crisis as an opportunity to enrich its associates and donors at public expense,” said Jo Maugham, director of Good Law Project which brought the case.
More stories like this available at bloomberg.com
Would you like to comment on this article? Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.