The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

SAPS deny receiving particulars of case DA opened against Ubhejane seller in 2006 when details were clearly provided
Ubhejane ‘cure' still being sold to the detriment of vulnerable members of society
DA submitting further questions to pursue matter





A reply to a Democratic Alliance (DA) question has revealed that the South African Police Service (SAPS) claim that they cannot find the records of a case that the DA laid in 2006 of fraud and contravention in terms of the Medicines Act against Zeblon Gwala, purveyor of the unlicensed AIDS ‘cure' Ubhejane. SAPS has tried to justify this by alleging that we did not submit the particulars of the case to them. This is erroneous. We did in fact submit the details to them four years ago. The reply shows that nothing has in fact been done about this matter and that Mr. Gwala is continuing to sell unlicensed and potentially dangerous medications.

A copy of both the question and reply follows below. Where the question sent back with the reply reads ‘against a certain person (name furnished)' our original question read ‘against Zeblon Gwala.'

Four years ago, my colleague, Dianne Kohler Barnard, laid a charge against Mr. Gwala for selling unlicensed AIDS ‘cures' to desperate people infected with HIV, and was additionally reported to have been discouraging patients from taking the medication, antiretrovirals, that has actually been proven to have efficacy in making HIV/AIDS a manageable illness.

Since then, the case has not moved along and during that time, Mr. Gwala has been plying his trade, offering misleading false alternatives to antiretroviral treatment to people, with real lives at stake. As such, I submitted a question to the Minister of Health, asking for details on the progress of the case. In his reply yesterday, the Minister said that the SAPS claim that they could not supply any information because the DA did not provide ‘the particulars of the person in question.'

There are two problems here. The first and most immediate is that this is simply false as our question provided not only the name of the person but the date on which we laid the charge. Indeed, had we been asked, we could have provided further both a copy of the charge laid by Ms. Kohler Barnard, MP on the 22nd of March 2006 at the Pinetown station or the response from the Public Prosecutor in KwaZulu Natal, dated 4th of April 2006, stating that ‘the above mentioned docket was received by me on Monday the 3rd of April 2006, and after a through perusal thereof, I will revert to you shortly.'

But we were not asked for that information and this speaks to the heart of the second, far larger problem here .That is the level of concern, or rather lack thereof, displayed by the SAPS regarding this most serious of matters, suggesting a level of cold detachment that our country can ill afford.

That there should be necessary follow-ups after the reporting of any crime is common cause. In this instance, where South Africans are being misled with potentially fatal consequences, it is beyond dispute. I shall be submitting further questions pursuing this matter.