Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) head Adv Andrea Johnson came under fresh pressure at the Madlanga commission on Thursday after commissioners confronted her with evidence showing she had provided materially incorrect information to Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee investigating allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
The Madlanga commission did not accuse Johnson of deliberately lying to Parliament, nor did it make a finding that she intentionally misled legislators. Instead, commissioners repeatedly confronted her with documentary evidence showing that key aspects of her testimony before Parliament were incorrect. The distinction is significant because Parliament is South Africa’s highest constitutional oversight body, and knowingly providing false or misleading information to one of its committees can constitute a criminal offence under the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act.
The parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee was established by the National Assembly to investigate Mkhwanazi’s explosive allegations surrounding the investigation and arrest of senior Crime Intelligence officers, alleged political interference in policing and the conduct of law enforcement agencies. Johnson appeared before the committee as one of its key witnesses.
At the Madlanga commission, evidence leader Adv Mahlape Sello compared Johnson’s parliamentary evidence with documents before the commission and her own testimony this week.
Sello pointed out that, when questioned by the Ad Hoc Committee’s evidence leader, Adv Norman Arendse, Johnson denied that MP Fadiel Adams had first approached suspended police minister Senzo Mchunu before Idac became involved.
According to the transcript, Johnson stated that she had not received anything from the minister’s office.
That version directly contradicted her evidence before the Madlanga commission, where she confirmed that Mchunu’s chief of staff, Cedric Nkabinde, wrote to Idac requesting that the directorate investigate Adams’ allegations that his criminal dockets had been intercepted.
The letter also requested feedback because Adams was expecting intervention.
“It can’t be correct that you wouldn’t have known that he had complained to the minister because we know our Annexure MK16 tells us otherwise,” Sello said.
‘Failure of memory’
Johnson attributed the discrepancy to a failure of memory.
“At the time I did not recall receiving anything from the office of the minister,” she replied.
Sello challenged that explanation.
“So, why didn’t you say, ‘I don’t recall?’ You definitely say, ‘No, not at all.’ What if the Ad Hoc Committee believed that statement? You intended for the Ad Hoc Committee to rely on that statement.”
“That is correct. I did not recall receiving that from the office of the minister,” Johnson responded.
Commissioner Adv Sandile Khumalo then highlighted a second contradiction.
“The impression you are creating here is that it is Adams who came to Idac. Yesterday we agreed that, based on the letter that came from the minister’s office, it is Idac that reached out to Adams. So, which is which now?” he asked.
Johnson faced further questioning over another incorrect statement she had made to Parliament.
The commission referred her to evidence in which she told the Ad Hoc Committee that Adams’ Section 27 affidavit reached her desk in the middle of December 2024.
Commission records, however, show the affidavit was received on November 21 2024, while Johnson only approved a Section 28 application authorising the investigation on December 6 2024.
‘Evidence to Parliament was wrong’
Asked whether her evidence to Parliament was wrong, Johnson conceded it was.
“This is incorrect, yes,” she admitted.
Commissioner Adv Sesi Baloyi questioned Johnson’s explanation that she had simply prepared more thoroughly for the Madlanga commission than she had for Parliament.
“In coming to this commission, I had to acquaint myself properly with all of the facts. I’m not saying that the Ad Hoc Committee was not important. I didn’t go through all this detail with my team when I went to the Ad Hoc Committee,” Johnson said.
Baloyi rejected the explanation.
“But you would have prepared to go to the Ad Hoc Committee. I suspect they would be deeply offended if they are to understand you to mean you went to that committee without preparing and looking at your records on this matter.
“I assume, I must assume, that you prepared when you went there. You knew what the issues were. Their terms of reference… are not different to what we are dealing with here. You knew that your referral, your investigation and your arrest of Gen Khumalo… were at the heart of what they were investigating.”
Baloyi described it as improbable that Johnson simply could not remember such fundamental facts.
“It’s difficult to accept you saying, ‘I did not remember.’ It’s improbable that you did not remember… It’s just unbelievable that you did not remember when you answered that question,” she said.
Johnson accepted the criticism.
The exchange concluded with Sello putting one final proposition to Johnson, namely that the evidence now established Adams never approached Idac on his own initiative.
“Mr Adams never came to Idac. Idac approached him. We know that for a fact,” Sello said.
Johnson’s testimony before the commission is continuing as it examines whether Idac lawfully initiated and conducted its investigation into senior Crime Intelligence officials.
- Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) head Andrea Johnson was challenged at the Madlanga commission for providing incorrect testimony to Parliament's Ad Hoc Committee investigating allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
- Johnson denied receiving information from the minister's office before Idac became involved, but documentary evidence contradicted this, showing a request from the suspended police minister’s office to investigate MP Fadiel Adams’ allegations.
- Johnson admitted errors in her parliamentary testimony regarding the timing of receiving Adams’ affidavit and initiating investigations, attributing discrepancies to “failure of memory,” which commissioners found improbable.
- Commissioners emphasized the significance of accurate testimony to Parliament, noting false or misleading statements can be criminal offenses, and criticized Johnson’s explanations and preparation for the Ad Hoc Committee hearings.
- The commission is continuing to investigate whether Idac lawfully initiated and conducted its investigation into senior Crime Intelligence officials, with Johnson's further testimony pending.
At the
Sello pointed out that, when questioned by the Ad Hoc Committee's evidence leader, Adv Norman
"It can't be correct that you wouldn't have known that he had complained to the minister because we know our Annexure MK16 tells us otherwise," Sello said.
Johnson attributed the discrepancy to a failure of memory.
"At the time I did not recall receiving anything from the office of the minister," she replied.
Sello challenged that explanation.
"So, why didn't you say, 'I don't recall?' You definitely say, 'No, not at all.' What if the Ad Hoc Committee believed that statement? You intended for the Ad Hoc Committee to rely on that statement."
"
Commissioner Adv
"
Johnson faced further questioning over another incorrect statement she had made to Parliament.
Commission records, however, show the affidavit was received on
Asked whether her evidence to Parliament was wrong, Johnson conceded it was.
"
Commissioner Adv Sesi Baloyi questioned Johnson's explanation that she had simply prepared more thoroughly for the
"In coming to this commission, I had to acquaint myself properly with all of the facts. I'm not saying that the Ad Hoc Committee was not important. I didn't go through all this detail with my team when I went to the Ad Hoc Committee," Johnson said.
Baloyi rejected the explanation.
"But you would have prepared to go to the Ad Hoc Committee. I suspect they would be deeply offended if they are to understand you to mean you went to that committee without preparing and looking at your records on this matter.
"I assume, I must assume, that you prepared when you went there. You knew what the issues were.
Baloyi described it as improbable that Johnson simply could not remember such fundamental facts.
"It's difficult to accept you saying, 'I did not remember.' It's improbable that you did not remember... It's just unbelievable that you did not remember when you answered that question," she said.
Johnson accepted the criticism.
"Mr Adams never came to Idac. Idac approached him. We know that for a fact," Sello said.
Johnson's testimony before the commission is continuing as it examines whether Idac lawfully initiated and conducted its investigation into senior Crime Intelligence officials.
