#Health4Sale: Tribunal orders controversial ambulance companies to pay back over half-a-billion rand
The Special Tribunal has ruled that companies owned by Thapelo Buthelezi must repay more than R532 million.
This is linked to improperly awarded contracts first exposed by Spotlight.
Buthelezi intends to appeal the tribunal's decision.
The Special Tribunal has ordered four ambulance companies run by Thapelo Buthelezi to pay back a total of over half-a-billion rand. The matter relates to contracts awarded by the Free State government, which were first reported on in Spotlight's #Health4Sale series of investigative articles in 2018.
In the order signed by Judge David Makhoba, Buthelezi One Stop Emergency Med was ordered to pay back R40.6 million, Buthelezi One Stop EMS to pay back R4.7 million, Buthelezi EMS R305.1 million, and B EMS R182.2 million. Together this amounts to over R532 million.
The payments from the Free State Health Department to these companies were declared to be 'unlawful, unprocedural and unconstitutional'. No reasons were given in the order seen by Spotlight and Daily Maverick.
The Special Tribunal's core function is to recover public funds. It is not empowered to conduct criminal prosecutions, although it can refer matters to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
'Buthelezi and associated companies have been ordered to submit audited statements for expenses incurred, income received, and profit made under the unlawful contracts,' the SIU said in a media statement released on Monday.
'Furthermore, the Tribunal ruling, dated 5 May 2025, ordered that Buthelezi pay the legal costs of the application and the SIU's legal representatives.'
Outsourcing ambulance services
As reported by Spotlight in 2018, the Free State Department of Health took the unusual decision to outsource its emergency medical and patient transport services in 2013.
The only other province to do so was the North West, in which one of Buthelezi's companies also won a large contract.
The decision to outsource was particularly puzzling in the Free State since the province's own ambulance service appeared to be doing well at the time.
Besides the questionable decision to outsource, there were several other red flags relating to the contracts in both the Free State and North West.
These include whether tenders were appropriately motivated, designed, advertised and adjudicated, and whether health departments were being overcharged once the services started – in the North West Spotlight was shown particularly compelling evidence of systematic overcharging.
At the time, Spotlight identified six companies with names that were variations of Buthelezi EMS – we found instances in which company names on invoices did not correspond to the company registration numbers on the same invoices.
Eye-brows were also raised over two back-dated price increases for Buthelezi EMS that were signed off while the province's health department was essentially taken out of administration for five days.
In both the Free State and North West healthcare workers interviewed by Spotlight reported that the services provided by Buthelezi EMS were not up to scratch.
Several Free State doctors alleged that Buthelezi EMS routinely overloaded ambulances and subsequently charged as if the patients were transported separately.
Questions were also raised over an alleged lack of equipment on the company's ambulances.
ALSO READ | Cadre enjoyment: 'Friend' of Gauteng health MEC lands R2.5m T-shirt tender
Figures shared by the Free State health department at the time showed that by mid-2018, it had paid Buthelezi EMS a total of over R1 billion.
After publication of Spotlight's first two articles on Buthelezi EMS, Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi told Spotlight in April 2018 that he had asked National Treasury to investigate the procurement of services from Buthelezi EMS and Mediosa in the Free State and North West.
At the time, the HAWKS were also investigating some of the contracts and the then North West Premier Supra Mahumapelo had instituted a forensic probe.
In June that year, Deputy Minister of Health Dr Joe Phaahla told Spotlight that B EMS had overcharged the North West health department by R62 million.
A year later, President Cyril Ramaphosa issued a proclamation empowering the SIU to investigate the contracts with Buthelezi's companies.
It is that proclamation that set in motion the series of events leading to this week's order from the Special Tribunal.
Intent to appeal
When Daily Maverick and Spotlight contacted Buthelezi on Monday, he said that he would not be commenting to any journalists at this time since they intend to appeal the tribunal's decision.
Spotlight asked the SIU whether it would refer the matter to the NPA for criminal prosecution.
The SIU did not provide a direct answer, but in its media statement said: 'The SIU is empowered to institute a civil action in the High Court or a Special Tribunal to correct any wrongdoing uncovered during investigations caused by corruption, fraud, or maladministration.
'In line with the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996, the SIU refers any evidence pointing to criminal conduct it uncovers to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for further action.'
READ MORE | EC health department mired in a R300m tender scandal
It is thus not yet clear whether any steps will be taken against the officials in the Free State Health Department who managed the tender process and signed off the payments that have now been found to be unlawful, unprocedural and unconstitutional.
Buthelezi has also been in court on other matters. In 2022, he appeared in the Bloemfontein Magistrate's Court regarding the alleged failure of his companies to pay tax on around R1 billion in income from the Free State Health Department from 2014 to 2019. The South African Revenue Service reportedly recovered close to R100 million from the company. Buthelezi also declined to comment when asked about that case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Carbon Border Taxes Put South Africa Exports at Risk, Study Says
South Africa's key export industries are becoming increasingly vulnerable as climate policies like cross-border carbon taxes take hold, according to a study by Net Zero Tracker. About 422,000 South African jobs are supported by exports to countries with active or incoming carbon border adjustment mechanisms, Net Zero Tracker's researchers wrote in the report, released Monday CET.
Forbes
6 hours ago
- Forbes
Why We Need Global Prosocial AI Governance — Now
Abstract image of a person's profile symbolically composed of dials of different sizes. Concept man, ... More time, space The artificial intelligence revolution isn't coming — it's here. But unlike previous technological waves, AI's transformative power is being concentrated in the hands of remarkably few players, creating global imbalances that threaten to entrench existing inequalities for generations. As AI systems increasingly shape our economies, societies, and daily lives, we face a critical choice: Will we allow narrow market forces and geopolitical power dynamics to dictate AI's development, or will we proactively steer this technology toward benefiting humanity as a whole? It is late to set the stage for global prosocial AI governance, but it is not too late – yet. Before examining governance frameworks, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: the AI revolution is built on a foundation of extreme market concentration that makes Big Tech's dominance look almost quaint by comparison. Nvidia controls approximately 80 percent of revenues and shipments for datacenter GPU computing, the essential infrastructure powering modern AI systems. This isn't just market leadership — it's approaching technological hegemony. The implications extend far beyond corporate balance sheets. Collectively, the global south is home to just over 1 percent of the world's top computers, and Africa just 0.04 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. government further restricts AI chip and technology exports, dividing up the world to keep advanced computing power in the United States and among its allies. This creates what development economists call a digital colonialism scenario — entire regions become structurally dependent on technology controlled by a handful of corporations and governments. The concentration isn't limited to hardware. Three cloud providers — Amazon, Microsoft, and Google — control over 65% of global cloud infrastructure, creating additional bottlenecks for AI access. When you need specialized chips from one company, hosted on infrastructure controlled by three others, and governed by regulations written primarily in wealthy nations, the barriers to entry become virtually insurmountable for most of the world's population. This hardware concentration translates into stark global inequalities that dwarf previous technological divides. The economic and social benefits of AI remain geographically concentrated, primarily in the Global North. But unlike the gradual rollout of previous technologies like the internet or mobile phones, AI's infrastructure requirements create immediate exclusion rather than delayed adoption. Consider the practical reality: training a state-of-the-art AI model requires computational resources that cost millions of dollars and consume as much electricity as entire cities. The rise of AI could exacerbate both within-country and between-country inequality, placing upward pressure on global inequality as high-income individuals and regions benefit disproportionately while resource-poor regions risk being left behind. This creates a vicious cycle. Countries and regions without access to AI infrastructure become less competitive economically, reducing their ability to invest in the very infrastructure they need to participate in the AI economy. Meanwhile, AI-enabled automation threatens to disrupt traditional export industries that many developing economies rely on, from manufacturing to service outsourcing. The result is what economists call premature deindustrialization — developing countries losing industrial competitiveness before achieving full industrialization. But now it's happening at digital speed, compressed from decades into years. Yet maybe the fundamental challenge with AI isn't the technology itself — it's the intention behind its development and deployment, now amplified by a sharpened concentration of control. Today's AI systems are predominantly designed to maximize engagement, extract value, or optimize narrow business metrics determined by a small number of actors. Social media algorithms amplify divisive content because controversy drives clicks. Hiring algorithms perpetuate bias because they're trained on historical data that reflects past discrimination. Financial AI systems may optimize for short-term profits while creating systemic risks. This is where prosocial AI governance becomes essential. Unlike traditional regulatory approaches that focus on constraining harmful outcomes, prosocial AI governance aims to actively incentivize beneficial behaviors from the outset. ProSocial AI can enhance access to essential services, improve efficiency in resource use, and promote sustainable practices across all levels of society — but only if we design governance systems that prioritize broad-based benefits over narrow optimization. The global AI regulation landscape is fragmented and rapidly evolving. Earlier optimism that global policymakers would enhance cooperation and interoperability within the regulatory landscape now seems distant. The European Union has pioneered comprehensive AI regulation through its AI Act, while other jurisdictions take vastly different approaches — from the United States' innovation-first philosophy to China's state-directed development model. This fragmentation creates several problems. First, it allows AI developers to engage in regulatory arbitrage, developing systems in jurisdictions with the most permissive rules. Second, it prevents the emergence of global standards that could ensure AI systems operate prosocially across borders. Third, it creates competitive disadvantages for companies that voluntarily adopt higher ethical standards. Given the borderless nature of this issue, an internationally coordinated response is necessary. AI systems don't respect national boundaries — a biased hiring algorithm developed in one country can perpetuate discrimination globally, while misinformation generated by AI can destabilize societies worldwide. Traditional regulatory approaches tend to prove inadequate for rapidly evolving technologies. By the time regulators identify and respond to harms, the damage has already been done. Prosocial AI governance offers a different approach: building beneficial outcomes into the DNA of AI systems from the beginning. This means designing AI systems that actively promote human flourishing rather than merely avoiding harm. Instead of social media algorithms that maximize engagement at all costs, we need systems that promote constructive dialogue and community building. Rather than AI systems that automate away human jobs without consideration for displaced workers, we need technologies that augment human capabilities and create new opportunities for meaningful work. Companies with strong environmental, social, and governance frameworks, enhanced by AI, outperform competitors financially and foster greater brand loyalty. This suggests that prosocial AI isn't just morally imperative — it's also economically advantageous for businesses that adopt it early. Forward-thinking business leaders are beginning to recognize that prosocial AI governance isn't a constraint on innovation—it's a competitive advantage. Organizations that proactively embed prosocial values into their AI systems build stronger relationships with customers, employees, and communities. They reduce regulatory risk, attract top talent who want to work on meaningful problems, and position themselves as leaders in an increasingly values-driven marketplace. Moreover, prosocial AI often leads to better technical outcomes. Systems designed with diverse stakeholders in mind tend to be more robust, adaptable, and effective across different contexts. AI systems built with fairness and transparency as core requirements often discover innovative solutions that benefit everyone. The economic argument becomes even stronger when considering systemic risks. AI systems that prioritize narrow optimization over broader social welfare can create negative externalities that ultimately harm the very markets they operate in. Financial AI that ignores systemic risk can contribute to market crashes. Recommendation systems that polarize societies can undermine the social cohesion that stable markets depend on. Establishing global prosocial AI governance requires coordinated action across multiple levels. International bodies need to develop frameworks that incentivize prosocial AI development while allowing for innovation and adaptation to local contexts. These frameworks should focus on outcomes rather than specific technologies, creating space for diverse approaches while ensuring consistent prosocial objectives. At the organizational level, companies need to move beyond compliance-based approaches to AI ethics. This means embedding prosocial considerations into product development processes, establishing clear accountability mechanisms, and investing in the technical infrastructure needed to build genuinely beneficial AI systems. Technical standards organizations should develop metrics and evaluation frameworks that measure prosocial outcomes, not just traditional performance metrics. We need ways to assess whether AI systems actually promote human flourishing, environmental sustainability, and social cohesion. The urgency cannot be overstated. As AI systems become more powerful and pervasive, the window for establishing prosocial governance frameworks is rapidly closing. Once entrenched systems and business models become established, changing them becomes exponentially more difficult and expensive. We're at a pivotal moment where the next generation of AI systems will be designed and deployed. The decisions we make now about how to govern these systems will shape society for decades to come. We can either allow narrow economic interests to drive AI development, or we can proactively steer this technology toward broadly beneficial outcomes. The challenge of prosocial AI governance isn't someone else's problem — it's a defining challenge of our time that requires leadership from every sector of society. Business leaders, policymakers, technologists, civil society organizations and ultimately each of us have roles in the AI-infused play that society has become. Prosocial AI governance isn't a constraint on innovation — it's the foundation for sustainable technological progress that benefits everyone. The time to act is now, before today's AI solutions become tomorrow's entrenched problems.
New York Times
7 hours ago
- New York Times
Trump's Feud With Musk Highlights His View of Government Power: It's Personal
Amid the fireworks of his spectacular breakup with Elon Musk last week was a striking admission by President Trump that once could have led to subpoenas. As he lashed out at Mr. Musk for disloyalty, Mr. Trump threatened to cut off the billionaire's federal contracts in retaliation, effectively acknowledging what his critics have long said, that he looks at the government as his personal instrument for dispensing favors to friends and penalizing those who cross him. In the old days, that might have been cause for a corruption investigation. In the modern era, it's just another Thursday. Mr. Trump has long since abandoned the kinds of rules and traditions that would constrain a president from employing the power of his office to personally steer federal contracts to allies and away from enemies. And even more remarkable, he has no hesitation about saying it out loud. 'The Musk quote is just further proof that Trump and the late King Louis share a common view of the world: The state, it is me,' said Trevor Potter, the president of the Campaign Legal Center and a former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission. 'And yes, this is an example of Trump publicly and improperly threatening to use the enormous contracting power of the federal government as a weapon to punish someone for criticizing him. It is a complete abuse of power.' Mr. Trump's second term so far has been a 139-day quest for 'retribution,' the word he used during his campaign, one that has bent, broke and busted through seemingly every boundary of the presidency. He has used the highest office in the land to take revenge against prosecutors, F.B.I. agents, law firms, news organizations, generals, Harvard University, former Biden administration officials and, yes, former Trump administration officials who have made it onto his enemies list. There has been little subtlety about it. He has sought to cripple law firms with executive orders that specifically explained that he was going after them because they employed, or used to employ, people who angered him. He has stripped security clearances and even security guards from former officials he deemed personally disloyal. Just last week, he ordered an investigation into former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s use of an autopen, never mind that Mr. Trump has used one too. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
