Last week, I spoke to @Freedland who asked me whether I thought the Ayanda contract was corrupt. That was not then a word I was prepared to use ( https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/07/its-taken-just-12-months-for-boris-johnson-to-create-a-government-of-sleaze).

But here's why I now think, on the available evidence, the Ayanda contract was corrupt. THREAD

To understand the point you need to know a little bit about how the market in PPE was functioning. Here's what Government lawyers have said to us in the Pestfix case: prices were volatile and rising and there was a huge increase in demand.

The price rises were substantial. Private data produced by Govt shows that the average price it paid for a FFP2 face mask rose from 16p in Q4 2019 to £2.38 during the six weeks at the height of the pandemic.

As at the end of May they had fallen back to about 90p.

Moreover, we needed PPE urgently - which was of course why Government says the right thing to do was to place orders without taking the time to invite tenders.

One more piece of background before I get onto the new evidence. The law says - very clearly - that Government must publish contract award notices within 30 days. Moreover, internal guidance ( https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/666728/Guidance_Publication_of_New_Central_Government_Tender_documents__and_Contracts_2017__1___1_.pdf) says it should publish the contracts themselves within 20 days.

But Government is ignoring the law and guidance. The loss of transparency means it is impossible to scrutinise vast (£15bn on PPE) and sometimes dubious spending.

We have a petition ( https://actionnetwork.org/forms/ppe-procurement?source=twitter&) and are also contemplating further judicial review proceedings.

Did I say "impossible" to scrutinise? I meant "almost impossible". Our three judicial review proceedings means we can see three procurement contracts that Government has entered into (it ought to have published all of them, of course).

What you would expect in a market with fluctuating/rising prices and an immediate need for product is that the supplier should have to deliver now. Not when it likes - but now. For two of the three contracts - Pestfix and Clandeboye - that is what Government required.

You'll note those two clauses are identical, standard terms, "boilerplate" as lawyers call it. And exactly what you would expect: 'We're paying very high prices because we need the product urgently but if you don't deliver on time we will sue you.'

But what about Ayanda?

Ayanda got something different, a sweetheart deal: "the Supplier will not be responsible for any delays".

No boilerplate for it: it has no obligation to make urgent delivery. It gets to sell at 'height of the pandemic' prices but to deliver when it likes.

I can see no proper reason to give Ayanda different terms to suppliers without its political connections. And no proper basis for Govt, which is bypassing normal procurement rules because it needs PPE urgently, to allow Ayanda to make delivery late without sanction.

There are further questions to answer too.

Last night I asked why Government had not exercised the right to reject the c. £160m of masks Ayanda supplied which do not seem to me (for reasons I explained) to comply with the contractual specification. https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1293276659391565825

An answer to these questions - I do not say it is right but it seems to me plausible - is that there is an intention to give a financial benefit to Ayanda/Prospermill/Andrew Mills.

And I have been approached by someone sensible who says they have evidence of exactly this. /ENDS

(Oh, if you want to support the work done by @GoodLawProject you can do so here https://goodlawproject.org/membership/  and if you want to support our litigation against Ayanda/Clandeboye/Pestfix you can do so here https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/108million/).