Home | News | CHARGES WITHDRAWN AGAINST SENIOR OFFICER

CHARGES WITHDRAWN AGAINST SENIOR OFFICER

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

MBABANE – Charges have been withdrawn against a senior procurement officer, who was accused of causing government wasteful expenditure in excess of E83 million.
Thabani Dlamini was among the senior personnel who were charged at the Central Medical Stores (CMS) for a number of alleged misdemeanours.In the first count, Dlamini was charged with negligence. It was alleged that on February 8, 2023, he failed or neglected to report Yoliswa Zwane to his supervisor, about the purported collusion between herself and AMB Medicals to accept surgical blades, which had a seven-month shelf life, contrary to the established 18 months protocol for accepting drugs and medicines.

In count two, Dlamini was charged also with negligence. It was claimed that on February 8, 2023, he failed or neglected to report to his supervisor about an alleged collusion between Pholile Maphalala and ASD Medical, to accept the drugs and medicines, which had a 12, 14 and 15-month shelf life, contrary to the established 18 months protocol of accepting drugs and medicines. In the third count, Dlamini was accused of gross negligence. It was purported that in various occasions, between the years 2020 -2022, as the senior procurement officer, he failed, without proper cause, to perform care required in that he allowed or facilitated orders and deliveries of drugs and medicines with short shelf-life in complete disregard of the established 18 months protocol for accepting drugs and medicines.“This negligent conduct of accepting drugs and medicines with short shelf-life caused government to incur fruitless and wasteful expenditure, which amounted to E83 082 520.66,” reads in part the charge. Dlamini had the charges withdrawn against him on October 1, 2024. This was confirmed by his legal representative, Senior Counsel Ben J Simelane.

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

: WIFE SURNAME
Shoiuld husbands be allowed to assume their wives' surnames?