NATIONAL NEWS - Madlanga commission chair Mbuyiseli Madlanga has questioned whether the section 27 referral that led to the arrest of Crime Intelligence head Dumisani Khumalo and his co-accused met all the legal requirements for the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) to initiate an investigation.

Idac head Andrea Johnson returned to the Madlanga commission on Wednesday to respond to allegations that Idac unlawfully operates outside of its mandate and that it pursued a criminal case against Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence due to interference at the South African Police Service (Saps).

Khumalo was arrested on 26 June 2025 in connection with the alleged irregular appointment of a former BMW employee to the rank of brigadier.

On Tuesday, Johnson said the arrest resulted from a criminal complaint filed by National Coloured Congress (NCC) leader Fadiel Adams. She also defended her office from suggestions that Khumalo’s arrest was due to his involvement with the PKTT.

Adams and classified information

In September last year, KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi flagged MPs for “reckless” use of classified information.

One of these MPs was Adams, who opened three criminal cases based on the Crime Intelligence information he had accessed.

“This information involved personal information of individuals extracted by Crime Intelligence when conducting a vetting process for security clearance for individuals. It’s very sensitive information because it involves digging deeper into personal details. Adams does not serve on that committee; he serves on the portfolio committee of police. He made the information public,” Mkhwanazi told parliament’s ad hoc committee at the time.

Mkhwanazi said on 29 October 2024, Adams opened three cases at the Cape Town Police Station based on the Crime Intelligence information. Two days later, he opened the same cases at the Orlando Police Station.

On 1 November, Adams sent an email to suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu complaining that there were efforts to undermine the investigation of these cases and requested the minister to intervene.

Mchunu intervenes

Upon receipt of Adams’ complaint, Mchunu’s office sent a letter to Idac, dated 11 November, requesting Johnson and her team to investigate Adams’ complaint.

Johnson confirmed to the commission that the letter from Mchunu’s office did not have any attachments to it to support the complaint. In fact, the commissioners established that the letter did not contain enough information for Idac to institute an investigation.

When asked what action she took upon receipt of the letter from Mchunu’s office, Johnson initially told the commissioners she had no recollection of how she responded to the letter.

“The letter came to us by hand, and it didn’t have any attachments to it. I looked to see if we replied to it. I can see the letter come in, but we don’t have a response to the ministry acknowledging receipt of the letter,” explained Johnson.

“It was afterwards that we got an envelope that was delivered to the office with the section 27. I could not act on this letter because there were no attachments to it. In the acknowledgement of the receipt of the letter to the ministry, I’m not sure that I asked or indicated that there was nothing attached to this letter. Because, a few days later, by way of an envelope, we get the Section 27.”

Response deleted?

Commissioner Sandile Khumalo said Johnson’s response left the country with the impression that it was deleted.

“You use a laptop to draft a letter and your PA would have either printed it from that computer or emailed it to you, and if you are happy with it, you would have appended your signature, and it would have gone to the minister’s office. Now, if you say you have looked, and it’s not there, the question is: what would have happened to that draft, unless somebody deleted it so that it is no longer available,” said Khumalo.

Commissioner Sesi Baloyi reminded Johnson that she was not on suspension and still had her work laptop.

“You are able to check this and give us a copy of your response,” said Baloyi.

Adams’ section 27 affidavit

The commissioners took issue with the fact that Johnson’s office contacted Adams for his section 27 affidavit, instead of telling Mchunu’s office they could not take action due to the lack of the section 27.

This is because, at that point, Adams had not made any contact with Idac, only Mchunu’s office.

Johnson confirmed that she instructed Idac investigator Dylan Perumal to contact Adams about the absence of a section 27, which would have legalised their investigation into Adams’ complaints.

Adams submitted his section 27 affidavit, dated 21 November 2024.

“Effectively, Idac solicited a section 27 affidavit from Adams. You received a letter from the minister; you then directed Perumal to act on that and contact Adams and ask him for the referral, so you solicited a section 27 affidavit from a would-be complainant,” suggested evidence leader Mahlape Sello.

“I don’t agree with the ‘solicited’,” responded Johnson.

She later conceded that what Idac did could be viewed as soliciting an affidavit from a would-be complainant.

“Is it appropriate for Idac to be soliciting complaints from members of the public on the basis that Idac initiates an investigation?” asked Sello.

“No, we’re not supposed to solicit.”

Affidavit already prepared?

Johnson said when her office contacted Adams, they were not sure if his affidavit had already been prepared. However, Madlanga said evidence suggested the affidavit had not been prepared at that point.

“You say you do not know whether the affidavit had already been prepared at the time of your instruction to Perumal. That’s not a fact; the affidavit is dated 21 November 2024. There was no prepared affidavit,” said Madlanga.

“The upshot to all of this is that the referral to Idac was by the minister’s office and following that referral, Idac then decided to engage with Adams to obtain an affidavit from him,” added Khumalo.

“I suggest to you that you did that because you knew that the minister’s letter does not constitute a section 27 referral and Idac decided to cure that deficiency. So you knew the minister’s letter would not be enough to trigger your mandate, and you sought to cure that shortcoming,” added Sello.

Johnson conceded that nothing from the minister’s letter triggered Idac’s mandate to institute an investigation.

“Why didn’t you tell the minister you could not do it? Were you fearful of the minister?” Asked Madlanga.

Johnson said no.

Article: Caxton publication, The Citizen

‘We bring you the latest Garden Route, Hessequa, Karoo news’