The legal battle between Bonitas Medical Fund, AfroCentric, and Medscheme is intensifying, with Bonitas hitting back at a media statement in which Medscheme claims to have evidence that the scheme’s tender processes were compromised – calling the statement “a desperate attempt” to tarnish Bonitas’ reputation.
In a statement issued on 18 February, Medscheme said its urgent High Court application is not an attempt to cling to its 44-year administration contract – as alleged by Bonitas – but an effort to halt what it calls a flawed procurement process while the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS) investigates Bonitas’ trustees.
It argues the contracts under scrutiny are not isolated decisions but part of what it describes as a broader co-ordinated effort to shape control of the scheme from within.
The administrator approached the High Court on 15 December 2025 seeking to stop the implementation of Bonitas’ July 2025 Request for Proposal (RFP) awards pending the outcome of a section 44 CMS probe. That investigation relates to earlier procurement decisions, including Bonitas’ 2022 agreement with Private Health Administrators (PHA) for its BonCap option and the 2024 appointment of Agile Business Solutions for marketing and distribution.
Despite the litigation, Bonitas announced in January it had awarded the administration of the scheme to Momentum Health and the managed-care contracts to PHA, respectively. The move from Medscheme to Momentum Health is set for 1 June.
Read: Bonitas’ dispute with Medscheme heads to court
Medscheme contends the trustees who adjudicated the earlier tenders under investigation are largely the same board that decided the latest RFPs, with the same principal officer, Lee Callakoppen, still in place.
In a replying affidavit, Gerald van Wyk, the chief executive of AfroCentric and a member of the board of directors of Medscheme, argued the July 2025 tenders should not be viewed in isolation but as part of a sequence involving the same decision-makers, governance concerns, and alleged conflicts.
He said the case raises a single question: whether a tender decided by trustees under regulatory investigation for alleged procurement impropriety and undisclosed conflicts “can be lawfully upheld without scrutiny”.
Van Wyk rejected suggestions that Medscheme is simply challenging an unfavourable outcome, saying the application seeks only to pause implementation while regulatory scrutiny runs its course.
“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,” he said.
He warned that once the new contracts are implemented, any damage caused by a flawed process would be difficult to reverse and argued that damages would not restore the integrity of a compromised tender or undo operational disruption.
Van Wyk also stated that Bonitas had failed to produce a coherent transition or wind-down plan and implementing handovers within the current timelines could prejudice members, providers, data integrity, and administration.
Bonitas has previously said the section 44 investigation “has nothing to do with the current procurement processes, which have been finalised”, including the appointment of Momentum Health as administrator and PHA for managed care.
The CMS has indicated it would be unreasonable to expect a scheme to delay key appointments indefinitely while an investigation runs, noting such processes can take time.
Read: Bonitas-Medscheme split: what the CMS probe means for members
The Council has also said proceeding with RFP awards does not, in its view, undermine the probe, although it acknowledged concerns about the dispute’s potential impact on members and scheme stability and confirmed it is monitoring the situation and engaging with Bonitas.
Affidavit claims pattern behind Bonitas tender decisions
Public scrutiny of Bonitas intensified after Business Day columnist Michael Avery questioned the Bonitas board decisions and service-provider appointments in October 2024 and again in October 2025, urging closer regulatory oversight. He pointed to the 2024 marketing tender awarded to Agile, led by former AfroCentric executive Tobie du Preez, and the 2022 appointment of PHA to run the BonCap option.
Bonitas has dismissed the claims as “sensationalistic and fraught with inaccuracies”.
In the statement released on 18 February, AfroCentric and Medscheme say whistleblowers have since supplied documents they claim show the two procurement processes concluded in 2022 and 2024 were compromised.
In court papers, Medscheme alleges email trails indicate predetermined outcomes, attempts to exclude it from bids, undisclosed conflicts involving trustees, and altered documents linked to PHA. It also accuses trustees, executives, and the scheme’s attorney of breaching fiduciary duties.
In the replying affidavit, Van Wyk notes the whistleblowers have agreed to the use of their evidence if their identities are protected.
Medscheme argues the Agile and PHA contracts form part of what it calls a co-ordinated effort by entities linked to Marara Group Holdings (Pty) Ltd to gain influence over the scheme. It says the tenders should not be viewed in isolation but as part of a broader pattern involving the same individuals and decision-makers.
Marara has holdings in healthcare delivery, pharmacy services, and healthcare technology. Agile is majority-owned by Marara, and PHA is a subsidiary of Marara.
The affidavit also questions Marara-linked relationships and possible undisclosed trustee interests.
These claims have not been tested in court.
Start-up bidder or strategic front-runner?
In his replying affidavit, Van Wyk alleges that Agile was still a start-up when Bonitas awarded the disputed tender and did not have the experience or operational capacity normally expected of a bidder for a contract of that size.
He says documents show the company had no track record in similar work and lacked key features of an established provider. He also claims internal emails indicate Agile planned to build its systems, staff, and infrastructure only after winning the contract, and financial records suggest it expected to rely on future funding and outside support to become fully operational. In his view, this calls into question whether the company could have met the required standards at the time bids were evaluated.
Van Wyk links these claims to a strategy initiative called Project StepAhead, which he says was developed while Du Preez was advising Bonitas in a consulting role.
According to the affidavit, documents show the project proposed creating a “new entity” to carry out parts of Bonitas’ strategy – an entity Van Wyk identifies as the company that became Agile. He alleges Du Preez helped to design the plan using information he describes as confidential, and says the strategy ultimately led to the tender process that resulted in Agile being awarded the contract.
Van Wyk holds that StepAhead shaped both the decision to issue the tender and what it required, raising questions, he argues, about whether Agile’s later role had effectively been anticipated.
Costs after award raise capacity doubts
Van Wyk also questions the fairness of the tender involving PHA, saying parts of the process suggest it may not have been truly competitive. He points to statements in PHA’s affidavit that indicate the company incurred major implementation costs only after it won the contract. In his view, that timing makes it unlikely PHA could have shown the required operational capacity during the evaluation stage, and he argues that a bidder in that position would normally have been disqualified on technical grounds.
He adds that if those costs were indeed incurred shortly after the award, their size and nature should be examined because they do not, in his opinion, match what would be expected from a service provider ready to operate. He says the fact that PHA still won the contract raises questions about how rigorous the evaluation process was and, in a more serious interpretation, could support allegations of possible collusion.
Van Wyk also states that Medscheme disputes that the tender was a genuine request-for-proposal process at all, citing information he attributes to a former AfroCentric executive suggesting there were internal expectations about how the process would unfold and which bidders would succeed. Taken together, he argues that issues around capacity, spending timelines and prior assumptions about the outcome mean the tender should be closely scrutinised.
Bonitas disputes ‘co-ordinated control’ claim
In response to the latest allegations made in Medscheme’s replying affidavit, Bonitas confirmed it is a respondent in legal proceedings relating to its procurement and appointment processes for administration and managed-care services.
“The scheme has opposed the legal proceedings instituted by Medscheme and has filed a detailed affidavit setting out its position. Any issues raised will be addressed through the court process in the appropriate forum,” the scheme said.
Bonitas told Moonstone that the latest media statement issued by Afrocentric is improper because its subsidiary is involved in a matter that is sub judice. Bonitas described it as a desperate attempt “that seeks to influence the regulator and the public and tarnish the reputation of the scheme in an underhanded manner”.
“Bonitas remains financially sound and choses to focus on its operational transition to ensure continued stability and acting in the best interests of its members.”
In its answering affidavit, Bonitas rejects Medscheme’s characterisation of the disputed tenders as part of a co-ordinated effort to influence control of the scheme, saying the processes are unrelated and were conducted properly.
Bonitas states the earlier tenders (Agile and PHA) cited by Medscheme “are completely unrelated” to the later ones (Momentum and PHA) it seeks to interdict and says the procurement processes for the latter were independently verified and lawfully concluded.
The scheme says contracts for the latest tenders have already been signed with the successful bidders and argues the relief sought is therefore moot.
Bonitas further contends that Medscheme’s application is commercially motivated, alleging it forms part of a strategy to delay the appointment of new service providers and remain in place as administrator. It says any potential prejudice to Medscheme would be commercial, whereas members could be adversely affected if the implementation of the new contracts is blocked.
The affidavit also challenges the urgency of the court application, stating any urgency is “self-created” and noting that Medscheme waited months after the earlier allegations surfaced before launching proceedings.
In addition, Bonitas argues that Medscheme has no legal basis for interim relief because it has not established a reviewable decision or a prima facie right and points out that Medscheme did not submit bids for some of the tenders it now challenges.
Bonitas characterises several of Medscheme’s claims as speculative or hearsay and maintains its procurement and governance processes were compliant and properly conducted.
PHA rejects allegations and attacks legal basis of case
PHA, in its answering affidavit, disputes both the facts and legal foundation of Medscheme’s application. It argues that Medscheme has no enforceable legal right capable of protection by interdict and cannot identify any law or contract entitling it to halt Bonitas’ procurement processes.
PHA contends Bonitas is not an organ of state and its tender processes are private contractual matters, not administrative action subject to judicial review. It further argues that the CMS’s section 44 investigation is supervisory in nature and does not suspend a medical scheme’s powers or invalidate contracts.
The affidavit also challenges the urgency of the application, stating Medscheme was aware of the allegations long before approaching court and did so only once it became clear it would not secure the contracts. PHA alleges Medscheme is attempting to protect its position as a long-standing administrator rather than raising legitimate governance concerns.
PHA further disputes the reliability of Medscheme’s evidence, describing the material relied upon in the founding papers as “textbook examples of hearsay evidence” and asking the court to disregard it.
It warns that halting implementation of the new contracts would harm members by disrupting essential managed-care services. PHA says it has already incurred more than R80 million in preparation costs following notification that it had been awarded the tender.
The matter is due to be heard in the High Court in Johannesburg on 3 March.
