11 October 2026 · Reporting checked against the primary and independent sources below.
The referral, not a verdict
South Africa’s Competition Commission has referred four medical-imaging suppliers to the Competition Tribunal for prosecution over alleged anti-competitive conduct in the servicing, repair and maintenance of diagnostic equipment. Its statement, dated 8 October 2026, names GE South Africa, GE Medical Systems South Africa, Siemens Healthcare and Philips South Africa Commercial.
The Commission alleges that the companies restricted independent clinical engineers’ access to spare parts, diagnostic software, service keys, technical information and specialised training. These are allegations that the Tribunal must still test. A referral is not a finding that the suppliers broke the law.
Why a service key matters
Modern scanners are not maintained with a spanner alone. X-ray, MRI, CT, ultrasound and PET/CT systems require technical knowledge, approved parts, software and diagnostic access to remain operational. According to the Commission, restrictions on these inputs can limit the number of firms able to compete for repair and maintenance work.
The regulator says that fewer repair choices can mean higher costs and longer downtime, particularly for rural and public hospitals. Its statement notes that diagnostic imaging equipment can cost millions of rand and remain in service for a decade or longer. When an essential scanner cannot be repaired promptly, delays can affect diagnosis and treatment.
The legal test ahead
The referral cites section 8(1)(c), or alternatively section 8(1)(d)(ii), of the Competition Act. The Tribunal will decide whether the respondents engaged in prohibited exclusionary conduct and whether any remedy is warranted. The Commission’s investigation followed a market-scoping exercise and began in 2021.
GE HealthCare told Business Day that it had cooperated with the investigation and would participate in the proceedings, saying it was committed to compliance with the law. Business Day reported that Siemens and Philips had not responded to its requests for comment at publication. The companies must have an opportunity to answer the case before conclusions about liability are drawn.
What is at stake
Beyond the immediate respondents, the case asks who can maintain the equipment on which hospitals rely. A more competitive servicing market could create options for independent engineers, but the Commission still has to prove its allegations. For patients, the practical question is whether scanners can be kept working, safely and affordably, when repairs are needed.
