The Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) says no formal complaint has been lodged over explosive allegations by suspended Mpumalanga police commissioner Semakaleng Manamela that Kaizer Chiefs boss Bobby Motaung paid R5-million to senior police figures, including national commissioner Fannie Masemola, to block her return to office.
This means that, for now, one of the country’s key anti-corruption bodies has not yet been formally asked to investigate claims that have shaken policing circles and widened into a matter touching senior police leadership and prominent businessman Motaung.
Serious corruption accusations
Manamela used her Sunday media briefing to level serious accusations involving alleged corruption, interference and misconduct by senior members of the South African Police Service (SAPS).
Among the claims aired publicly were that concerns had previously been escalated internally to Masemola before she went public.
She also alleged that Maj-Gen Botsotso Moukangwe told her that he and Masemola had received R5-million from Motaung to prevent her return to office, claiming there were fears that old dockets linked to the late politician and whistleblower Jimmy Mohlala could be reopened. Mohlala was Mbombela municipality speaker when he was killed.
Those allegations have not been tested in court.
‘No report made to IDAC’
IDAC spokesperson Henry Mamothame confirmed to Sunday World that the body was aware of the developments.
“The matter formed part of a press briefing and IDAC has seen the media reports,” said Mamothame.
However, he made it clear that no direct complaint or referral had reached the directorate.
“No report was, however, made to IDAC.”
According to the IDAC standpoint, it is clear that public allegations, even when made before cameras, do not automatically become formal criminal matters before specialist agencies. In many cases, evidence, affidavits, dockets or official referrals are first required before investigators can assess jurisdiction and possible prosecution.
‘We cannot speculate’
Mamothame said the directorate would not be drawn into speculation.
“We cannot speculate about the allegations and its mandate,” he said.
He added that any future referral would be assessed fairly.
“Safe to say that, should a referral be made, it will be considered objectively, and if it falls within the mandate, the same will be considered.”
IDAC’s careful wording leaves the door open for future developments while avoiding comment on the merits of Manamela’s claims.
The directorate is already handling a high-profile matter involving police leadership.
This week, Masemola appeared in the Pretoria Magistrates’ Court on charges linked to the alleged irregular awarding of a R228 million contract to Medicare 24, owned by businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala.
That case was postponed to May 13 for further investigation and for Masemola to be joined with other accused persons.
- Suspended Mpumalanga police commissioner Semakaleng Manamela accused Kaizer Chiefs boss Bobby Motaung of paying R5-million to senior police officials, including national commissioner Fannie Masemola, to block her return to office.
- The Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) has not received any formal complaint regarding these explosive allegations and thus has not launched an investigation.
- Manamela alleges that Major General Botsotso Moukangwe and Masemola received the bribe to prevent reopening dockets related to the late whistleblower Jimmy Mohlala.
- IDAC emphasized that public allegations alone do not initiate formal investigations without official referrals, evidence, or complaints.
- Fannie Masemola is already involved in a separate legal case concerning alleged irregularities in the awarding of a R228 million contract to Medicare 24.
Manamela used her
IDAC spokesperson Henry
“
However, he made it clear that no direct complaint or referral had reached the directorate.
“No report was, however, made to IDAC.”
“We cannot speculate about the allegations and its mandate,” he said.
He added that any future referral would be assessed fairly.
“Safe to say that, should a referral be made, it will be considered objectively, and if it falls within the mandate, the same will be considered.”
IDAC’s careful wording leaves the door open for future developments while avoiding comment on the merits of Manamela’s claims.
