Former Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) boss Advocate Andrea Johnson has conceded that her reliance on investigators may have left her vulnerable to undue influence as she continued her testimony before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry on Monday.
Johnson faced severe grilling by evidence leader Advocate Mahlape Sello about the legal basis for summonses issued during investigations into alleged manipulation of security vetting processes and the granting of security clearances within South African Police Service (SAPS) Crime Intelligence.
Her evidence follows an earlier admission that parts of her testimony before Parliament’s ad hoc committee were incorrect, with Johnson acknowledging significant errors in her previous account.
Section 27 affidavit allegations
The commission scrutinised summonses issued in relation to allegations contained in a Section 27 affidavit. Sello questioned Johnson about the process followed before she signed the documents, including the role of Brigadier D. Bobbie.
Johnson explained that investigators were required to brief the IDAC executive before the summonses were authorised.
“I received a briefing from the investigators before signing the summons,” she said, adding that she had no reason at the time to doubt the information presented to her or the inclusion of the names listed in the summonses.
Sello further questioned whether there were sufficient legal grounds to investigate allegations that the security vetting process leading to Crime Intelligence head, Dumisani Khumalo’s security clearance had been manipulated.
Johnson maintained that there was a basis to request relevant documentation.
However, commissioner Sandile Khumalo challenged her evidence, saying he could not recall seeing anything in the referral documents suggesting that Major General Philani Lushaba’s security clearance had been tainted by corruption.
“The referral dealt with (Dineo) Mokwele. There is no mention of Lushaba’s vetting process. What was the legal basis for investigating that?” Khumalo asked.
Johnson responded that investigators would have had discussions with Adams and that she was aware of a generalised Section 27 affidavit rather than one directed specifically at Lushaba.
Section 28 summons issuing procedure
The commission also heard that a Section 28 summons should only be issued if it is properly supported by the underlying Section 27 affidavit and witness statements.
Johnson acknowledged shortcomings in the investigative process, describing the investigation as “problematic” due to the limited detail provided by investigators.
“There has to be a legitimate investigation,” she told the commission, adding that this matter was no exception.
Sello revealed that there had been two referrals, contrary to Johnson’s understanding that only one Section 27 affidavit submitted by Member of Parliament, Fadiel Adams existed.
Johnson also accepted that she had placed considerable trust in investigators, a practice she admitted may have exposed her to improper influence.
She further acknowledged signing summonses relating to investigations into alleged irregularities in Crime Intelligence security vetting and security clearances based largely on investigators’ briefings.
Sello argued that concentrating excessive authority within the investigative body created a risk of compromising the institution’s integrity, a proposition with which Johnson agreed.
Investigators afforded excessive discretion
The commission also heard allegations that investigators were afforded excessive discretion during investigations involving Mokwele and Khumalo.
During questioning, Johnson was asked which tenders IDAC had investigated following the referral.
She replied that those details would be contained in the investigation file, explaining that part of the file originated from complaints submitted by Adams, which formed the basis of the investigation.
Johnson said the file would need to be located.
Asked what would happen if it could not be found, she conceded that its absence would be a major obstacle to establishing the full scope of the investigation.
She also clarified that the Medicare matter had been treated as a separate Section 26 investigation.
Proceedings were briefly adjourned after Johnson submitted documentation that appeared to contradict aspects of her earlier evidence. The commission granted her time to consult with her legal team before testimony resumed.
When proceedings continued, Johnson conceded that certain investigations conducted by IDAC were outside the unit’s mandate, a significant acknowledgement as the commission probes the legality of several high-profile investigations.
Madondo and Khumalo
The commission also turned its attention to the investigation involving Crime Intelligence Major General Nosipho “Precious” Madondo and Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo.
A few weeks ago, IDAC instructed the pair to report to Brooklyn Police Station, claiming warrants had been obtained in relation to an investigation concerning security clearances. The arrests did not proceed after IDAC indicated that Khumalo was involved in national operations linked to the stay-away protest.
Johnson told the commission that the matter is currently under review and declined to comment in detail, saying she did not wish to prejudice the process.
She confirmed, however, that allegations of fraud had been made against Madondo. Questioned about allegations that Lieutenant-General Khumalo was involved in covering up the Lushaba house-breaking incident, Johnson said there was no official statement dealing with the matter and that she was unable to verify the allegations.
She added that investigator Brian Padayachee had reportedly been handling that investigation.
Sello challenged Johnson on statements made by Adams, arguing that Adams did not implicate Madondo, Khumalo or Major General Josias Lekalakala in the manner suggested by investigators.
Johnson responded by reading portions of a statement that she said implicated those individuals. Pressed on what criminal offence had allegedly been committed, Johnson maintained that the investigation centred on irregular security vetting procedures.
When asked by Sello to identify the specific crime arising from expedited vetting, Johnson said the offence under investigation was fraud. Commissioner Sandile Khumalo questioned how expedited security vetting, on its own, amounted to fraud.
Johnson maintained that there was a fraud investigation involving Madondo. Baloyi then asked whether there was sufficient factual basis for such a case, particularly if it rested solely on Adams’ allegations.
Madondo’s exact fraudulent conduct?
Johnson replied that she understood the nature of the investigation and maintained that Madondo had committed fraud, referring to other investigations initiated by Adams. However, when repeatedly asked to specify exactly what fraudulent conduct Madondo had allegedly committed, Johnson declined to elaborate, saying the matter remained under review and she could not comment further without risking prejudice to the process.
Baloyi also raised concerns about Adams’ possession of Crime Intelligence documents, questioning whether investigators had considered taking action against him if the documents were classified.
Commissioner Khumalo further questioned how IDAC safeguards itself against investigators pursuing personal agendas, particularly in circumstances where an investigator obtains affidavits before seeking formal authorisation for investigations.
The commission also heard that controversial IDAC investigator Dylan Perumal is currently hospitalised and is not at work.
Johnson’s testimony is expected to continue as the commission examines whether IDAC’s investigations were lawfully authorised and whether proper oversight mechanisms existed within the directorate.
ALSO READ: Cyril Ramaphosa accepts IDAC boss Andrea Johnson’s resignation
- Former IDAC head Andrea Johnson admitted her heavy reliance on investigators may have exposed her to undue influence during probes into SAPS Crime Intelligence security vetting.
- Johnson acknowledged errors in her previous testimony and described the investigation process as problematic, citing insufficient legal basis and limited investigative detail.
- She conceded some investigations, including those involving key figures like Madondo and Khumalo, operated beyond IDAC’s mandate and were based mostly on affidavits without clear evidence of fraud.
- The commission highlighted concerns about excessive discretion granted to investigators and potential risks to institutional integrity due to lack of proper oversight.
- Johnson declined to specify fraud allegations in detail to avoid prejudicing ongoing reviews, with the commission continuing to scrutinize IDAC’s investigative legality and internal controls.
Former
Johnson faced severe grilling by evidence leader Advocate
Her evidence follows an earlier admission that parts of her testimony before Parliament’s ad hoc committee were incorrect, with Johnson acknowledging significant errors in her previous account.
Johnson explained that investigators were required to brief the IDAC executive before the summonses were authorised.
“I received a briefing from the investigators before signing the summons,” she said, adding that she had no reason at the time to doubt the information presented to her or the inclusion of the names listed in the summonses.
Sello further questioned whether there were sufficient legal grounds to investigate allegations that the security vetting process leading to Crime Intelligence head, Dumisani
Johnson maintained that there was a basis to request relevant documentation.
However, commissioner
“
Johnson responded that investigators would have had discussions with Adams and that she was aware of a generalised Section 27 affidavit rather than one directed specifically at
Johnson acknowledged shortcomings in the investigative process, describing the investigation as “problematic” due to the limited detail provided by investigators.
“
Sello revealed that there had been two referrals, contrary to Johnson’s understanding that only one Section 27 affidavit submitted by
Johnson also accepted that she had placed considerable trust in investigators, a practice she admitted may have exposed her to improper influence.
Sello argued that concentrating excessive authority within the investigative body created a risk of compromising the institution’s integrity, a proposition with which Johnson agreed.
Johnson said the file would need to be located.
Asked what would happen if it could not be found, she conceded that its absence would be a major obstacle to establishing the full scope of the investigation.
When proceedings continued, Johnson conceded that certain investigations conducted by IDAC were outside the unit’s mandate, a significant acknowledgement as the commission probes the legality of several high-profile investigations.
A few weeks ago, IDAC instructed the pair to report to Brooklyn Police Station, claiming warrants had been obtained in relation to an investigation concerning security clearances.
Johnson told the commission that the matter is currently under review and declined to comment in detail, saying she did not wish to prejudice the process.
Sello challenged Johnson on statements made by Adams, arguing that Adams did not implicate
Johnson responded by reading portions of a statement that she said implicated those individuals. Pressed on what criminal offence had allegedly been committed, Johnson maintained that the investigation centred on irregular security vetting procedures.
When asked by Sello to identify the specific crime arising from expedited vetting, Johnson said the offence under investigation was fraud. Commissioner
Johnson maintained that there was a fraud investigation involving
Johnson replied that she understood the nature of the investigation and maintained that
Baloyi also raised concerns about Adams’ possession of Crime Intelligence documents, questioning whether investigators had considered taking action against him if the documents were classified.
Commissioner
Johnson’s testimony is expected to continue as the commission examines whether IDAC’s investigations were lawfully authorised and whether proper oversight mechanisms existed within the directorate.
ALSO READ: Cyril Ramaphosa accepts IDAC boss
