The Pretoria Magistrate’s Court has formally withdrawn the charges against Police Commissioner General Fannie Masemola in connection with a controversial SAPS health tender linked to businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala.
The National Prosecuting Authority concluded that the evidence did not meet the threshold required for a successful prosecution against Masemola on the Public Finance Management Act charges.
The decision ends the criminal case against the national commissioner for now, but it does not erase the procurement concerns that led to the investigation. Those concerns included alleged irregularities in the police healthcare procurement process and payments made before the contract was cancelled.
Masemola faced four counts of contravening Section 38 of the Public Finance Management Act. The charges related to his responsibilities as the accounting officer of the South African Police Service and allegations that he failed to exercise adequate oversight over the tender process.
The case arose from a police healthcare procurement process involving Medicare24 Tshwane District, a company linked to Matlala. The broader procurement was valued at about R360 million, while the contract at the centre of the court proceedings was valued at approximately R228 million.
Investigators found irregularities in the procurement process. At least R50 million was paid before SAPS cancelled the contract in May 2025.
Masemola was suspended after allegations that he had failed to exercise sufficient oversight. However, the charges did not allege that he had personally committed fraud or corruption. The prosecution focused on his alleged responsibilities as an accounting officer under the PFMA.
The NPA review was conducted to determine whether the evidence was strong enough to proceed. Acting under the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, National Director of Public Prosecutions Mothibi directed that the charges be withdrawn.
The NPA said Mothibi invoked Section 179(5)(c) of the Constitution, read with Section 22(2)(b) of the NPA Act, to give the direction.
“The NDPP is satisfied that there are no reasonable prospects of a successful prosecution against the National Commissioner on the PFMA charges,” the NPA said.
Mothibi said keeping the matter on the court roll without sufficient evidence would not serve the public interest.
“Enrolling a case for prosecution where evidence is not sufficient to sustain a successful prosecution is not in the public interest,” he said.
The withdrawal marks a major turn in a case that had placed the SAPS procurement system and Masemola’s oversight duties under intense scrutiny. It also removes the immediate criminal threat facing the police commissioner over the tender, although broader questions about the procurement process remain relevant to any administrative, disciplinary or investigative proceedings.
The case must be understood against the background of the contract awarded to Medicare24 Tshwane District. The company was associated with Matlala, who has separately been accused in a high-profile murder case. The murder allegations are not the same as the tender allegations, and the withdrawal of Masemola’s PFMA charges does not determine Matlala’s guilt or innocence in any separate criminal matter.
The police healthcare contract was intended to provide medical services, but concerns were raised about how the procurement process was handled. Investigators identified irregularities and SAPS later cancelled the contract in May 2025. By that stage, at least R50 million had reportedly already been paid.
Those facts formed part of the background to the charges against Masemola. As the accounting officer, he was alleged to have failed to provide adequate oversight. The prosecution did not claim that he personally benefited from the tender or that he had directly falsified documents, committed fraud or taken a bribe.
The distinction between an oversight charge and an allegation of personal corruption is important. A public official may face PFMA charges because of alleged failures in managing or supervising a procurement process, even where there is no allegation that the official personally received money or manipulated the award.
The NPA’s decision means that prosecutors do not believe the available evidence offers a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction on the four charges. It does not necessarily mean that every concern raised about the contract was unfounded or that no irregularity occurred in the procurement process.
The court withdrawal also does not amount to a finding that the R360 million procurement was properly handled. The tender was cancelled after irregularities were identified, and the payment of at least R50 million remains part of the public record surrounding the controversy.
Further questions may therefore remain about responsibility, internal controls, the decision-making process and the recovery or accounting of money paid before cancellation. Those questions could be addressed through separate administrative or investigative channels.
Masemola’s suspension had placed his position under additional pressure. The charges were connected to his official responsibilities, and the case raised concerns about whether senior SAPS officials were being held accountable for procurement decisions.
The withdrawal will now likely influence discussions about his position and the consequences of the tender controversy. Whether he returns to his duties or faces any separate internal process will depend on decisions outside the criminal case.
The NPA’s explanation focuses on the prospects of a successful prosecution. Prosecutors are not required to continue with a case merely because there are concerns or suspicions. They must assess whether admissible evidence is sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Mothibi’s decision reflects that principle. Continuing a case where the evidence cannot sustain a conviction could result in an unsuccessful prosecution and would not be a responsible use of public resources.
The withdrawal also illustrates the difference between an investigation, a charge and a conviction. Investigators may identify possible irregularities, prosecutors may authorise charges and a court may later hear the evidence. But a charge is not proof of guilt, and the withdrawal means Masemola will not face trial on these PFMA counts based on the NPA’s current assessment.
For SAPS, the case leaves a difficult procurement legacy. The organisation cancelled a substantial health contract after payments had been made, while the tender’s wider value and links to Matlala attracted significant attention.
The focus may now shift to whether procurement systems have been strengthened, whether officials responsible for the process faced internal consequences and whether public money was protected. The withdrawal of the charges against Masemola does not answer those questions.
For the police commissioner, however, the Pretoria court’s decision removes the immediate criminal proceedings. The NPA has determined that there are no reasonable prospects of a successful prosecution on the PFMA charges, and the court has formally withdrawn them.
The matter has closed one chapter in the SAPS tender controversy, but the wider questions about procurement, accountability and oversight are likely to continue.
