Bonitas Medical Scheme has confirmed it will co-operate fully with an inspection by the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS), while emphasising that it does not consider the process a “forensic investigation”.
Earlier this week, the CMS announced it will launch a forensic investigation into Bonitas following a review of matters raised during a section 43 inquiry initiated in February 2025.
Section 43 of the Medical Schemes Act (MSA) empowers the Registrar of Medical Schemes to inquire into a scheme’s business. It is considered a “softer option” compared with a section 44 inspection, which involves a more intensive investigation where the scheme must open all its books, documents, and financial records for scrutiny.
In a statement, the regulator said the information provided by Bonitas indicated the allegations warranted further examination. The CMS emphasised the decision does not imply any predetermined outcome, and the investigation will be conducted objectively and transparently.
“The Registrar has resolved to initiate a forensic investigation to examine the full scope of the claims and to formulate appropriate recommendations,” the CMS said.
Bonitas noted that the Registrar of Medical Schemes is acting within his rights under the MSA and reiterated the scheme’s commitment to full co-operation.
“We are yet to see the terms of reference and will only be able to provide detailed comments once they are made available. However, the scheme distances itself from the characterisation of the inspection as a ‘forensic investigation’,” it added.
The scheme also highlighted its ongoing engagement with the regulator, stating it has provided responses and additional information to all questions and requests.
“We trust this process will help put these unfounded allegations to rest,” Bonitas said.
“Bonitas has and continues to operate in full compliance with the Medical Schemes Act, its rules and governance protocols. The scheme remains committed to the highest standards of governance and accountability, with the board of trustees discharging their fiduciary responsibilities and acting in the best interests of its members,” it added.
Investigation follows questions over Bonitas’ governance
The investigation follows heightened public scrutiny of Bonitas’ governance, partly prompted by opinion pieces in Business Day by columnist Michael Avery.
In October 2024, Avery questioned certain board decisions and service provider appointments at Bonitas. A follow-up column in October 2025 raised additional governance concerns and called for closer regulatory oversight.
Although the columns make serious allegations, the CMS said its investigation is independent and regulatory in nature.
Bonitas has described the October 2024 column as “biased”.
“And then with no further new developments, a further column was published by the same columnist again in October this year, dealing with the same subject matter,” Bonitas said, adding that “the broad allegations revolve around alleged irregularities in the Bonitas tender and procurement processes related to its marketing and distribution contract”.
Bonitas stated that it strongly denies these claims, “which are sensationalistic and fraught with inaccuracies”.
The scheme said that since the last column published on 21 October 2025, its attorneys have brought the “factual inaccuracies” to Avery’s attention and asked for a retraction and an apology.
“To date, none has been forthcoming. Further engagement with the Business Day confirmed that the aforementioned column is based on the opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the publication.”
Bonitas said that when the first articles appeared last year, the scheme engaged with the Registrar and his officials to explain matters to him.
“The Registrar then initiated a section 43 inquiry in February 2025, and the scheme fully co-operated with that process and provided him with all relevant information already in March 2025. We furthermore engaged with him this last week in person, and on further request, provided him with additional information as recently as this past Friday.”
The CMS said the investigation aims to safeguard members’ contributions and ensure transparency and accountability within the scheme.
Sanlam-Bonitas split: governance and strategic differences
The CMS has previously commented on some issues raised in Avery’s October 2024 article.
In its response, Bonitas: the real anatomy of a scandal is lack of competition (18 October 2024), the CMS confirmed that Bonitas had appointed Private Health Administrators (PHA) to manage its BonCap option. The other options continue to be administered by Medscheme, the CMS stated.
At the time, the CMS argued that “if evergreen contracts persist, it will continue to stifle competition and transformation and ultimately harm the interests of medical scheme members”.
In February 2025, Moonstone reported on developments in the Sanlam-Bonitas relationship, following months of speculation about a possible split. At that time, Sanlam had officially announced Fedhealth as its exclusive open medical scheme partner, effectively ending its long-standing association with Bonitas.
Read: Sanlam’s split with Bonitas paves the way for exclusive Fedhealth partnership
Speculation of cracks in the Sanlam-Bonitas relationship first surfaced in October 2024, reportedly linked to Bonitas’ dealings with AfroCentric, in which Sanlam holds a majority stake. AfroCentric owns Medscheme, which had administered Bonitas’ options – including BonCap – until PHA took over in January 2023.
As previously reported in February 2025, Moonstone asked Sanlam whether its exclusive partnership with Fedhealth marked the end of its 2018 collaboration with Bonitas, and whether Bonitas’ decision to appoint PHA for BonCap, rather than Medscheme, contributed to the change, or whether a separate declined tender played a role.
At the time, Primrose Mkwanazi, health marketing manager at Sanlam Corporate, told Moonstone that “Bonitas remains a valued client of AfroCentric Group, which continues to provide Bonitas with core administration and managed care services”. She added, “Sanlam is not in a position to comment on the company that was awarded a Bonitas tender or on the decision-making process of the Bonitas board. The appointment of service providers falls under Bonitas’ sovereign governance.”
Moonstone also approached Bonitas in February 2025 with similar questions. Lee Callakoppen, the principal officer of Bonitas, responded: “As confirmed by the Council for Medical Schemes, Medscheme remains the administrator of all Bonitas benefit options, except BonCap (which has been administered by PHA since January 2023). Medscheme is a subsidiary of AfroCentric. We are unable to answer for Santam on why they have chosen Fedhealth as their sole medical aid provider.”
