Masemola, 13 co-accused back in court over R228m SAPS tender

The corruption case against suspended national police commissioner General Fannie Masemola and his co-accused returns to the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court, with the State seeking to amend the charges against the accused.

Suspended national police commissioner General Fannie Masemola and his co-accused are due back in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court over charges linked to the controversial R228 million Medicare24 Tshwane tender.

Masemola and 13 co-accused appeared in court on June 26, when the state said it intended to amend the charges against them.

Their lawyers also requested access to additional information, including the case docket.

Most of the defence teams had handed over USB drives to receive copies of the documents, but not all had done so by the time of the hearing.

Masemola faces four counts of contravening the Public Finance Management Act over his alleged failure to fulfil his duties as an accounting officer.

His co-accused face charges including fraud, corruption and money laundering.

The charges relate to the alleged irregular awarding of a R228 million SA Police Service health-services tender to Vusimuzi "Cat" Matlala’s company, Medicare24 Tshwane District.

The contract was initially budgeted at about R360 million but was ultimately awarded for about R228 million.

The state alleges that at least R50 million was paid out before the contract was cancelled in May 2025 after an internal audit flagged irregularities.

Alleged crime boss and business tycoon Matlala, who is one of the accused in the case, was separated from the group after an earlier court appearance.

The following day, and after two months of negotiations, a plea and sentencing agreement between Matlala and the State was placed before the court.

Under the agreement, Matlala pleaded guilty to all seven charges against him, including fraud, corruption and money laundering, and was expected to testify for the State against his former co-accused.

The State and Matlala’s legal team proposed a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, with seven years suspended. However, the magistrate rejected the eight-year sentence as too lenient, recommending 12 years of direct imprisonment instead .