Behind the Bonitas outrage

It seems that “Die Koffer”, as I last referred to it when writing about the ongoing attempt to capture Bonitas Medical Scheme, has been partially opened in the legal dust-up between Medscheme and Bonitas, which was supposed to be heard last week but was postponed to a later date again.

Obviously, it is never ideal for a columnist to be drawn into legal proceedings relating to a story they are observing and writing about. Yet it has become par for the course in South Africa for those caught in uncomfortable circumstances to train their guns on the messenger rather than engage with the substance of what has been reported.

And so I found myself placing on record, via a commissioned affidavit in the Medscheme case, that defamatory claims against me by Bonitas and Private Health Administrators (PHA) amount to little more than an attempt to deflect attention from the evidence that has emerged over the past two years.

The court fight centres on four tenders that collectively transferred the operational nerve centre of South Africa’s second-largest open medical scheme. The first was the award of the BonCap administration contract to PHA. The second moved the marketing and distribution mandate to Agile Alternative Business Solutions. The third transferred administration of the entire scheme to Momentum Health Solutions. The fourth shifted managed-care responsibilities to PHA.

Medscheme argues these were not isolated procurement decisions but a continuum overseen by the same board whose independence it challenges.

Conflict of interest

At the heart of that challenge sits one of the most forensic sections in Medscheme’s replying affidavit, pointing to an alleged conflict involving Bonitas trustee Pierre Ribbens.

The affidavit records that Ribbens has served as a Bonitas trustee since July 1 2019 and was re-elected for a further term from July 2024. In other words, he sat on the board throughout the period in which the four contested procurement processes were undertaken.

The affidavit then turns from chronology to paper trail.

It states that Ribbens is a director of Ribbens Office Solutions, attaching a Companies and Intellectual Property Commission report in support. It then links that company to Marara Pharmacy, a subsidiary of the Marara Group – the majority shareholder of PHA – which won the BonCap administration contract and later the managed-care contract.

Medscheme says a Marara Pharmacy bank statement for November to December 2022 reflects a payment of R53,429.25 on November 25 2022 with the reference “Ribbens Office Fur WKF05”. It also refers to e-mail correspondence in which Ribbens, acting as marketing director of Ribbens Office Solutions, quoted and invoiced Marara Pharmacy in September 2023 for alterations to its offices.

‘Financial impropriety’

The affidavit then draws a second line, this time to Agile, the company awarded the marketing and distribution contract in 2024.

Medscheme says documents obtained from another whistleblower show that Ribbens Office Solutions was a supplier to Agile. On March 15 2024, according to the affidavit, Desere Ribbens of Ribbens Office National, acting on Ribbens’s instruction, e-mailed Tobie du Preez with Ribbens Office National’s BEE certificate. Then, on March 28 2024, two days after the request for proposal for the marketing and distribution tender was issued, Marara Group’s BEE consultant allegedly listed Ribbens Office National as one of Agile’s BEE suppliers, with an annual spend of R3m.

That is the factual core of the conflict allegation.

Medscheme’s case is that, while Ribbens was a trustee responsible for adjudicating tender two, he actively assisted Agile to comply with tender requirements by making available his BEE certificate and stood to benefit from Agile through procurement spend.

The affidavit’s conclusion is blunt: “There can be no denying that Mr Ribbens is conflicted and that his conduct constitutes financial impropriety.”

Bonitas disputes the allegations and maintains that its governance processes were sound.

A migration nightmare?

The courts will ultimately determine whether those procurement decisions satisfy the requirements of lawfulness, reasonableness and procedural fairness.

But while the legal process unfolds, the future envisioned by tenders three and four has arrived.

On June 1, Bonitas completed its migration from Medscheme to Momentum Health Solutions and PHA. Members had been assured that extensive testing, contingency planning and governance oversight had been undertaken to ensure a seamless transition.

Instead, members have flooded Bonitas social media pages, reporting difficulties obtaining authorisations, accessing chronic medication, confirming benefits and reaching support services. Bonitas has acknowledged that approximately 10,000 outstanding matters affected the transition, though it maintains that most represented historical issues inherited from the previous administrator and that the vast majority have now been resolved.

Momentum Health, despite publicly expressing confidence in its operational readiness before go-live, has declined to comment beyond referring queries back to Bonitas.

CMS must account

In response to 13 questions from Currency sister publication the Financial Mail, the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS) revealed that the section 44 inquiry into Bonitas’s governance concerns announced on November 3 2025 kicked off only in February this year and is ongoing.

Nonetheless, the distinct lack of urgency lies in stark contrast to the situation Bonitas members, struggling to obtain authorisation for urgent medical care, now face.

This is what makes the Bonitas story so important. Medical schemes are not ordinary companies. Their stakeholders are not investors who can simply sell their shares when confidence deteriorates.

The courts will decide whether the procurement processes were lawful and the forensic investigators, if they are still working, will determine whether conflicts existed. But members are already delivering their own verdict as they are living with the consequences. The desperation and outrage shared on the Bonitas Facebook page make for grim reading.

Attempts to defame me aside, the evidence first produced and handed to me by a whistleblower foresaw this mess 18 months ago. The CMS must account for why it has taken so long to conclude its investigation.

This story was first publishing by the Financial Mail. Currency and the Financial Mail are part of the Financial Mail Group.

ALSO READ:

• R135bn later, members still face huge medical bills
• Discovery, fit and flexing, defies market rout
• The contradictions driving the ANC’s NHI lie

_{Top image collage: Rawpixel; Currency.}