The Madlanga commission’s tone towards Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) head Advocate Andrea Johnson noticeably hardened on Wednesday after commissioners repeatedly challenged her over whether the lead investigator in the Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo case had ever seen the affidavit that formed the foundation of the investigation before carrying out his work.
Johnson returned to the witness stand for a second day as commissioners continued probing whether Idac’s investigation into Khumalo, the crime intelligence boss, was conducted within the framework of the National Prosecuting Authority Act and whether investigators exercised their powers independently or under proper oversight.
Much of Wednesday morning centred on a November 2024 Section 27 complaint lodged by MP Fadiel Adams, the affidavit on which Idac relied to justify opening its investigation before proceeding to seek warrants of arrest against Khumalo and his co-accused.
Commissioners wanted to establish a seemingly simple but potentially significant fact: whether Idac Colonel Brian Padayachee, the lead investigator, had actually read the affidavit before investigating the matter.
The issue arose after the commission had instructed Johnson overnight to verify with her investigators whether Padayachee had seen the document.
Returning to the hearing, Johnson told the commission she had confirmed that Padayachee “had sight of the document”.
Commission head demands clarity
That answer immediately drew sharp intervention from commission chairperson Judge Mbuyiseni Madlanga.
“Thus far you have not explained. What do you mean when you say ‘he did have sight of it’?” Madlanga asked.
“He saw the document,” Johnson replied.
Madlanga remained unconvinced.
“I want to understand seeing. Do you mean it was given to him for him to peruse it for himself?”
Johnson answered that Padayachee had indeed been given the affidavit to read himself.
However, she then added that it had happened “much later on”, according to information she had received from the investigation team.
That qualification prompted a fresh round of questioning.
Madlanga sought clarity on whether “much later” meant before or after the investigation had commenced.
“Was it before he started investigating, or was it after he had commenced investigating? If it’s the latter, that would mean his investigation was not informed by the affidavit,” the chairperson said.
Johnson confirmed that Padayachee received the affidavit after the Section 28 investigation had commenced, following the team’s assessment of the matter.
“Now that answers me,” Madlanga responded.
But Commissioner Advocate Sandile Khumalo was not satisfied.
Grilled on when affidavit was received
He pressed Johnson to identify precisely when the investigator had received the affidavit.
“Did they say exactly when? In your response to the chair, you said ‘later in the year’. Now that worries me because the arrests were mid-year. So if later in the year is after the arrests, that is a problem. Do you mean before June or after June 2025?” he asked.
Johnson replied that she believed it must have been before June.
Commissioner Advocate Sesi Baloyi immediately challenged that response.
“I don’t think it’s an answer where you answer ‘it could have been’. You have had opportunity to ask and you were told he saw it later on. You either did ask, and were informed when later on, or you must still go back and find out when exactly did he see it,” Baloyi said.
“The way you’re answering, you don’t have personal knowledge of it. So you have to check with other people. We shouldn’t be left with the impression that yes, he saw it before the arrest because of how you have answered. I think it’s a question that you must verify and come back to us with a specific period.”
Johnson undertook to obtain the exact timeline. Advocate Khumalo then put a final question to her.
“Do you dispute his version when he says before this commission that he did not see the Section 27 affidavit? Do you dispute his version? Do you say he is not telling the truth?”
Johnson declined to do so.
“That is why I’m saying I have to ask the question after the fact. It’s not my place to say he lied.”
Earlier in the proceedings, Johnson outlined the composition of the Idac team that investigated the matter. She identified Dylan Perumal as chief investigator responsible for leading and coordinating investigators under the guidance of prosecutors.
The commission is continuing to examine whether Idac’s investigation and decision-making processes complied with the legislative framework governing the anti-corruption directorate.
- The Madlanga commission intensified its scrutiny of Advocate Andrea Johnson, head of Idac, regarding whether the lead investigator in the Lt-Gen Dumisani Khumalo case had seen the foundational affidavit before investigating.
- Johnson confirmed that Colonel Brian Padayachee, lead investigator, only reviewed the critical affidavit after the investigation had begun, raising questions about the legitimacy of the investigation's basis.
- Commissioners pressed Johnson repeatedly for a precise timeline about when Padayachee saw the affidavit, with Johnson committing to verify exact details after appearing uncertain.
- Johnson declined to dispute Padayachee’s testimony to the commission that he had not seen the affidavit before investigating, stating it was not her place to accuse him of lying.
- The commission continues to evaluate whether Idac’s investigation into Khumalo complied with the National Prosecuting Authority Act and proper oversight protocols, focusing on procedural and legislative adherence.
Johnson returned to the witness stand for a second day as commissioners continued probing whether Idac's investigation into
Much of Wednesday morning centred on a
Commissioners wanted to establish a seemingly simple but potentially significant fact: whether Idac Colonel Brian Padayachee, the lead investigator, had actually read the affidavit before investigating the matter.
"
"He saw the document," Johnson replied.
"I want to understand seeing. Do you mean it was given to him for him to peruse it for himself?"
Johnson answered that Padayachee had indeed been given the affidavit to read himself.
However, she then added that it had happened "much later on", according to information she had received from the investigation team.
"Was it before he started investigating, or was it after he had commenced investigating? If it's the latter, that would mean his investigation was not informed by the affidavit," the chairperson said.
Johnson confirmed that Padayachee received the affidavit after the Section 28 investigation had commenced, following the team's assessment of the matter.
"Now that answers me,"
But Commissioner Advocate
He pressed Johnson to identify precisely when the investigator had received the affidavit.
"Did they say exactly when? In your response to the chair, you said 'later in the year'. Now that worries me because the arrests were mid-year. So if later in the year is after the arrests, that is a problem. Do you mean before June or after June 2025?" he asked.
Johnson replied that she believed it must have been before June.
Commissioner Advocate Sesi Baloyi immediately challenged that response.
"I don't think it's an answer where you answer 'it could have been'. You have had opportunity to ask and you were told he saw it later on. You either did ask, and were informed when later on, or you must still go back and find out when exactly did he see it," Baloyi said.
"
Johnson undertook to obtain the exact timeline. Advocate
"Do you dispute his version when he says before this commission that he did not see the Section 27 affidavit? Do you dispute his version? Do you say he is not telling the truth?"
Johnson declined to do so.
"
Earlier in the proceedings, Johnson outlined the composition of the Idac team that investigated the matter.
