The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry resumed proceedings after the lunch adjournment on Monday, with Chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga issuing a stern warning about the disclosure of an anonymous witness as commissioners intensified their scrutiny of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC)’s handling of several high-profile investigations.
Criminal charges against leaker
Madlanga revealed that the identity of a protected witness, known only as “Witness K”, had been unlawfully disclosed.
He described the incident as a criminal offence that threatens the integrity of the commission.
He said the commission intends pursuing criminal charges against the individual responsible for revealing the witness’s identity.
Johnson makes significant concessions
The afternoon session then returned to the testimony of recently-resigned IDAC head, Advocate Andrea Johnson, who continued making significant concessions under questioning.
Johnson disclosed that a laptop stolen while she was in Windhoek contained documents dating back to 2007, including records requested by the commission.
She said an assessment of IDAC’s backup systems failed to recover the missing documents, leaving the commission without some of the material it had sought.
Commissioners also questioned why several criminal matters linked to Member of Parliament (MP) Fadiel Adams had been registered at the Langlaagte Police Station despite appearing to relate to incidents elsewhere, including Silverton.
Johnson explained that the South African Police Service (SAPS) case management system allows matters to be cross-referenced between police stations.
“The police tend to have those cross-references and are able to account for them on the case system,” she said.
The commission heard that Adams opened a series of high-profile criminal cases at the Langlaagte and Orlando police stations, resulting in investigations into several senior South African Police Service (SAPS) officials.
Commissioner Sesi Baloyi suggested that both Adams and the investigating officer would be better placed to explain the circumstances surrounding those cases.
Section 27 referral
Fresh questions also emerged over the authenticity of the Section 27 referral affidavits that formed the foundation of several IDAC investigations.
Advocate Mahlape Sello questioned whether the commission had been presented with a fraudulent Section 27 referral affidavit after investigator Mantsha Raphesu and prosecutor Tyron Ramsamy stated in sworn affidavits that they were unfamiliar with the Section 27 referral affidavit allegedly obtained by IDAC chief investigator Dylan Perumal.
Referring to events of January 6 2025, Sello noted that Johnson had previously indicated Adams ought to have been engaged regarding the referral. He pressed Johnson on whether IDAC had relied on a fraudulent Section 27 affidavit and sought clarity on who had commissioned both Section 27 affidavits, particularly the version that has not been disclosed to the commission.
The commission repeatedly asked Johnson to identify the specific Section 27 referral affidavit she had considered.
Johnson maintained that she had reviewed a Section 27 affidavit in December 2024 but could not say with certainty which version it was.
Commissioner Sandile Khumalo further asked whether the affidavit she reviewed contained any reference to Political Killings Task Team (PKTT) or the forklift procurement that later became central to the investigation.
Johnson said she did not recall seeing any reference to either PKTT or forklifts.
She also confirmed that no one had ever informed her that the Section 27 affidavit she relied upon was incorrect.
The exchanges heightened concerns over whether IDAC investigations were authorised using a properly authenticated referral affidavit.
Procurement of a forklift
Attention then shifted to IDAC’s investigation into the procurement of a forklift by Crime Intelligence.
Johnson confirmed that the matter remains under investigation.
Commissioner Khumalo questioned the legal basis for the probe, telling the commission that the evidence suggested SAPS had issued a requisition and paid the supplier, but the supplier failed to deliver the forklift.
He asked how such circumstances amounted to fraud, corruption or manipulation by SAPS officials.
Johnson replied that, on those facts, they did not. Justice Madlanga agreed, observing that the matter appeared to be a breach of contract rather than a criminal offence.
Johnson accepted the chairperson’s assessment. Sello then questioned why IDAC had investigated the awarding of the tender at all and whether the investigation should ever have been authorised.
Johnson responded that the matter ought to be closed and referred back to Crime Intelligence.
The commission heard that the disputed procurement was part of a broader investigation into the acquisition of heavy machinery and forklifts allegedly authorised by Crime Intelligence Chief Financial Officer Major General Philani Lushaba and Divisional Commissioner Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo.
Khumalo, Major General Nosipho “Precious” Madondo, Lushaba and several other senior SAPS officials are facing separate IDAC investigations into allegations of fraud, corruption and the alleged circumvention of procurement and security vetting processes.
However, Monday’s evidence cast further doubt on the legal basis for some of those investigations, with commissioners repeatedly questioning whether civil disputes had been improperly pursued as criminal matters and whether the investigations were founded on valid referral documents.
Proceedings were adjourned late on Monday.
Johnson is expected to continue her testimony before the Madlanga Commission on Tuesday, where further questioning is anticipated on the disputed Section 27 referral affidavits, IDAC’s investigative processes and the legal basis for several high-profile investigations involving senior Crime Intelligence officials.
ALSO READ: Madlanga hits Idac boss with ‘Law 101’ after admitting she acted on Adams hearsay
- The Madlanga Commission resumed with a warning about the unlawful disclosure of a protected witness, "Witness K," deemed a criminal offense threatening commission integrity.
- Former IDAC head Advocate Andrea Johnson revealed missing documents due to a stolen laptop and explained cross-referencing of criminal cases related to MP Fadiel Adams in different police stations.
- Questions arose over the authenticity of Section 27 referral affidavits underpinning several IDAC investigations, with doubts about whether investigations were based on properly authenticated documents.
- The commission scrutinized IDAC’s investigation into a Crime Intelligence forklift procurement, with concerns that the matter was a civil breach, not a criminal offense, and suggested it should be closed and referred back.
- Commissioners expressed ongoing doubts about the legal basis of high-profile IDAC investigations against senior SAPS officials, questioning whether civil disputes were improperly treated as criminal matters.
He described the incident as a criminal offence that threatens the integrity of the commission.
He said the commission intends pursuing criminal charges against the individual responsible for revealing the witness’s identity.
Johnson disclosed that a laptop stolen while she was in
Commissioners also questioned why several criminal matters linked to
Johnson explained that the
“
Commissioner Sesi Baloyi suggested that both Adams and the investigating officer would be better placed to explain the circumstances surrounding those cases.
Advocate
Johnson maintained that she had reviewed a Section 27 affidavit in
Commissioner
Johnson said she did not recall seeing any reference to either PKTT or forklifts.
Attention then shifted to IDAC’s investigation into the procurement of a forklift by Crime Intelligence.
Johnson confirmed that the matter remains under investigation.
Commissioner
He asked how such circumstances amounted to fraud, corruption or manipulation by SAPS officials.
Johnson replied that, on those facts, they did not. Justice
Johnson accepted the chairperson’s assessment. Sello then questioned why IDAC had investigated the awarding of the tender at all and whether the investigation should ever have been authorised.
Johnson responded that the matter ought to be closed and referred back to Crime Intelligence.
However,
Johnson is expected to continue her testimony before the
ALSO READ:
