MEDICAL UNIVERSITY REMEDYING CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS AT SMU!

In what could arguably be debated as the fastest “corruption allegation scandal”, the Sefako Makgatho University (SMU) Vice-Chancellor Professor and Principal Tandi Matsha-Erasmus, who was formally inaugurated at the medical institution in November 2025, is now facing claims of tender manipulation and tampering with procurement policies.

This relates to the students’ transportation tender, believed to be worth well over R36 million, according to reports.

A detailed City Press report alleges that Matsha-Erasmus has been tampering with procurement processes, which the university, previously known MEDUNSA (Medical University of SA), negates.

In a media statement, the university explains all the processes and how they are conducted, in this case referring to the transportation tender.

Unfortunately, Matsha-Erasmus is hit with such allegations before earning her second salary, or even figuring out the security password.

The City reports that Matsha-Erasmus is facing allegations of corruotion and governance violations, with the Media24’s newspaper sources she undermined procurement processes.

It’s believed that she manipulated the university’s bid evaluation committee composition, “and her reported interference in a R36m student bus services contract set to expire” at the end of December.

“Matsha-Erasmus allegedly unilaterally altered the composition of the BEC without following established governance procedures, appointing internal audit director Tshepo Mofokeng as chairperson, a move that violates standard procurement protocols,” the City Press reports.

However, in a statement, SMU saw it important to clarify “the factual and procedural context” within which the matters referenced.

Procurement processes at SMU are governed by a comprehensive Supply Chain Management Policy and are conducted through clearly defined stages, each subject to specific governance requirements, internal controls, and oversight mechanisms, the university explained in a statement.

“In accordance with this framework, the Vice-Chancellor, as the Accounting Officer, considers recommendations on the composition of Bid Evaluation Committees and exercises discretion in approving appointments, guided by the best interests of the University and the principles of good governance. The Vice-Chancellor is not bound by recommendations and is required to apply independent judgment where appropriate,” read the statement.

“In the matter under reference, and mindful of findings arising from investigations previously commissioned by Council into transport-related services, the Vice-Chancellor determined that enhanced oversight would strengthen the integrity of the process. An independent senior manager was therefore appointed to chair the Bid Evaluation Committee after an executive manager was unable to assume the role due to other commitments.

“At the time of publication, the procurement process in question had not progressed beyond the initial compliance stage, during which mandatory documentation is assessed. No evaluation of functionality or pricing had taken place, no scoring or ranking of bidders had occurred, and no preferred service provider had been identified.

“Management further notes that, as the procurement process had not progressed beyond this initial stage at the time of publication, conclusions or assertions relating to interference, manipulation, or predetermined outcomes are not supported by the procedural status or factual record of the process.”

It carried on that the progression beyond the compliance stage was not possible due to concerns identified by the Bid Evaluation Committee, “including mandatory requirements not met by bidders and limitations under the applicable terms of reference”.

Accordingly, the statement continues, interpretations that suggest bidders had already been evaluated or ranked do not accurately reflect how procurement processes are formally conducted at the University.

The University further confirms that auditing of the procurement process will not be undertaken by the Internal Audit and Risk Management function or the Internal Audit Department.

“Any audit relating to the appointment of a transport service provider will be conducted by an independent external audit firm. As such, concerns regarding conflicts of interest in respect of audit functions do not arise.

“For completeness, the university notes that certain governance and disciplinary processes relating to senior management roles are currently underway. These processes arise from investigations commissioned and concluded before the current Vice-Chancellor’s appointment and are being implemented in accordance with Council decisions and established labour and governance procedures. They are separate from, and not determinative of, the procurement process currently underway.”

On the basis of the above, SMU affirms that the procurement process has been conducted within the university’s established governance framework and remains subject to appropriate oversight and assurance mechanisms.

“The University remains committed to ethical governance, transparency, and the responsible stewardship of public resources in support of its academic, research, and public mandate.”