Medscheme provides evidence Bonitas tender process was compromised

Medscheme, South Africa’s largest health risk management services provider and second largest medical aid administrator, has filed its replying affidavit in its application to interdict the implementation of certain Requests for Proposals (RFPs) issued by Bonitas Medical Fund in July 2025.

The application seeks urgent interdictory relief to prevent further implementation of the RFP outcomes pending ongoing regulatory scrutiny on the basis of alleged unlawful procurement processes, breaches of fiduciary duties by Bonitas’ trustees and the risk of irreversible prejudice to the scheme and its members.

These concerns have been heightened by the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS) announcement of a forensic investigation into Bonitas in November 2025 in terms of Section 44 of the Medical Schemes Act following media reports alleging governance failures and procurement improprieties involving senior Bonitas executives and trustees on previous RFPs.

The CMS, as the statutory regulator of medical schemes, has instituted a section 44 investigation with extensive powers to investigate governance, procurement and compliance failures. A section 44 investigation is an extraordinary regulatory intervention triggered only where serious governance, procurement and fiduciary failures are suspected and allowing implementation of the RFP outcomes while such an investigation is underway is irrational.

On 29 January 2026, Bonitas announced it had awarded the contracts for Administration and Managed Care under the July 2025 RFP to Momentum and Private Health Administrators (PHA). Medscheme contention is that the composition of the Board of Trustees that adjudicated the RFPs that are a subject of CMS investigation is largely the same as the one that has adjudicated the July 2025 RFPs, and so is the Principal Officer.

As stated in the affidavit by Gerald van Wyk, the CEO of AfroCentric and a member of the Board of Directors of Medscheme:

“Where credible allegations of unlawfulness exist, and where regulatory scrutiny has been triggered, prudence, legality and fairness demand that implementation pauses until those processes have run their course.”

Further van Wyk states:

“Once the new contracts are implemented, the prejudice to Bonitas and its members flowing from a fatally flawed procurement process becomes irreversible. A claim for damages cannot retrospectively restore the integrity of a compromised tender process, nor can it unwind the operational disruption and instability that will result.”

In its replying affidavit, Medscheme outlined that:

  1. Whistleblowers have provided corroborating documentary evidence that supports the Medscheme argument that the awarding of the Bonitas contract to Agile in 2024 was unlawful and procedurally tainted.
  2. Whistleblowers have consented to use of evidence provided, subject to protection of their identities owing to concerns for their personal safety.
  3. The whistleblower evidence includes extensive email trails and supporting documents which Medscheme alleges show predetermination of outcomes and efforts by scheme insiders to exclude Medscheme from Bonitas procurement processes.
  4. The documents provided by whistleblowers significantly bolster Medscheme’s contention that the Bonitas RFP processes were intentionally compromised from the outset.
  5. The documentary evidence show that procurement outcomes were predetermined prior to the issuance of certain RFPs and aligned to preferred bidders and their associated entities
  6. Trustees with direct financial and relational conflicts were involved in the awarding of the tenders to companies they are associated with
  7. Cyber-forensic analysis confirms that documents relied upon by PHA and provided to the court were altered and fraudulent.
  8. The replying affidavit sets out detailed evidence alleging breaches of fiduciary duties by certain members of the Bonitas Board of Trustees, Executives and Scheme attorney in relation to these RFPs
  9. The replying affidavit records that Medscheme was informed of a CMS communication containing interim observations and recommendations regarding the suitability of certain trustees to continue servicing, which Bonitas has not disclosed and is challenged to produce.
  10. The replying affidavit shows a deliberate and coordinated initiative by certain individuals and related entities to manage and manipulate procurement processes in favour of predetermined outcomes.
  11. All claims by Bonitas about poor performance of Medscheme are contradicted by the Scheme’s own reporting as well as verifiable data that demonstrates Medscheme has delivered substantial value to the Scheme.
  12. On awarding a tender to Agile, the successful bidder promptly employed or offered to employ all of the 23 existing staff members of AfroCentric Distribution in spite of Bonitas’ claims of their poor performance.
  13. The evidence shows that certain former executives of Afrocentric and/or Medscheme were involved in establishing competing initiatives while still employed, constituting alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
  14. Medscheme pleads that Bonitas has failed to produce a coherent, detailed and credible transition or wind-down plan and that any attempted handover within the contemplated timelines would materially prejudice members, providers, data integrity and scheme administration.
  15. The replying affidavit further contends that the July 2025 RFPs cannot be viewed in isolation but form part of a connected sequence of procurement processes involving the same decision-makers, the same governance failures, and the same alleged conflicts and that it would be artificial and misleading to treat them as discrete or unrelated events.
  16. Given the length of the replying affidavit, we would like to draw your attention to particular paragraphs of the Medscheme replying affidavit that are more or less self-contained and particularly pertinent to these issues:
    • Paragraphs 53 and 54, page 18;
    • Paragraph 88 and sub-points from page 34;
    • Paragraph 89 on page 35;
    • Paragraph 112 on page 42;
    • Paragraph 153 on page 52;
    • Paragraph 156 on page 53;
    • Paragraph 182.8 on page 60;
    • Paragraph 188 on page 61;
    • Paragraph 197.2.2 on page 64