Spahn Under Fire Over Pandemic Mask Contracts

Widening Scandal Over Mask Procurement

Former German Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU) is facing renewed political and legal pressure over his role in the procurement of face masks during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. A recently unredacted report by special investigator Margaretha Sudhof, commissioned by the Bundestag, has revealed details that opposition parties claim point to systematic wrongdoing, attempts to conceal responsibility, and questionable financial decisions at the expense of taxpayers.

While Spahn rejects the accusations and denies any wrongdoing, calls for a parliamentary inquiry are growing louder, particularly from the Greens and the Left Party. The report, which had initially been presented in a heavily redacted version, is now causing controversy after several German media outlets obtained and published the full, unedited content.

Redacted Report Concealed Key Details

The Sudhof report was originally released in a form that masked critical details. According to the Federal Health Ministry, the redactions were made to protect personal data and trade secrets. However, the now-revealed sections suggest that the redactions served a different purpose: concealing the direct involvement of Spahn and his ministry in high-priced and potentially unethical procurement contracts.

Pages 45 to 48 of the report, previously blacked out, reportedly describe a confidential settlement with the Swiss supplier Emix. The company, which has also come under investigation by Swiss authorities for price gouging, supplied FFP2 masks to Germany at an average price of €5.58 per mask—some units even exceeded €7, which Sudhof labeled “difficult to justify.”

The report also reveals that nearly half of the Emix masks had been flagged by TÜV Nord as defective, yet Spahn’s ministry signed an agreement recognizing most of them as acceptable and proceeded with payment. The settlement details were not disclosed publicly until the leak of the unredacted report.

Accusations of Favoritism and Concealment

Further scrutiny is directed at an alleged payment of nearly €18 million to a company tied to Niels Korte, a former CDU candidate and known associate of Spahn. Korte’s firm, Areal Invest, reportedly received this sum as an “abgeltungsbetrag”—a compensation payment—under conditions that remain unclear. Sudhof explicitly stated in her report that the justification for this payment could not be determined.

In another section of the report, footnotes linking Spahn directly to procurement decisions were found to be systematically removed during the redaction process. Opposition parties argue that this suggests an intentional attempt to cover up personal involvement and shield party affiliates from public and legal accountability.

Opposition Demands Full Inquiry

Green Party health spokesperson Janosch Dahmen did not hold back in his assessment of the revelations. He accused Spahn of lying “repeatedly, systematically, and with the aim of protecting himself and his network.” According to Dahmen, the waste of public money during the pandemic was unprecedented in Europe, both in scale and in the number of masks that were never delivered or were destroyed due to poor quality.

The Left Party joined the Greens in calling for a formal parliamentary investigation. Health policy spokesperson Ates Gürpinar stated that the Union had done everything possible to shield Spahn from consequences. He described the affair as involving “highly questionable interference” and called for Spahn to be held accountable.

Both parties stress that the available evidence warrants more than an internal review or an advisory committee. They argue that a full investigation is the only way to restore public trust and clarify the chain of decisions during one of the most critical moments in recent German history.

Spahn Responds with Defiance

In televised interviews, Spahn denied any intentional misconduct. He emphasized that procurement decisions were made by legal departments and procurement specialists, not personally by him. Speaking to Bild am Sonntag and ZDF, he rejected the notion that the redactions were meant to protect him and dismissed the accusations as politically motivated.

“I have nothing to hide,” Spahn said, adding that he had preferred the report be made fully public from the beginning. “Yes, we made mistakes. But we acted in good faith, trying to protect the country in an emergency.”

He also criticized the Greens for engaging in what he called “almost defamatory tactics,” comparing their conduct to methods used by the far-right AfD—a statement that immediately drew backlash.

Parliament Prepares for Hearings

The Bundestag’s Budget Committee is set to question Margaretha Sudhof this week in a special session. Lawmakers expect to clarify several points related to procurement oversight, contractual irregularities, and whether sufficient internal checks were in place at the Ministry of Health during Spahn’s leadership.

Meanwhile, the debate over the need for a full parliamentary inquiry continues. The Greens and Left do not hold enough seats to initiate an investigation on their own and have ruled out cooperating with the AfD. They are now urging either the SPD or the CDU itself to allow the process to move forward.

While the CDU leadership remains supportive of Spahn, critics argue that delaying a full investigation could further damage public trust and prevent accountability for the management of billions in taxpayer funds.

Legacy of the Pandemic Procurement Decisions

The fallout from the mask affair extends beyond politics. Germany still faces ongoing legal battles over contracts signed in haste during the early days of the pandemic. These cases could result in financial liabilities amounting to billions of euros.

Though many Germans credit the government’s pandemic response for averting worse outcomes, the latest revelations have reopened uncomfortable questions about transparency, oversight, and political responsibility during crises. With Sudhof’s testimony looming and pressure mounting in parliament, the issue is unlikely to disappear from public debate any time soon.