NATIONAL NEWS - The Madlanga commission started on a rough note for the head of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac), Andrea Johnson, on Thursday, who made several concessions regarding matters in her office.

Johnson returned to the commission to respond to allegations that Idac unlawfully operates outside of its mandate and that it pursued a criminal case against Crime Intelligence head Dumisani Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence.

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

At the heart of the conversation is the Section 27 affidavit obtained from National Coloured Congress (NCC) leader Fadiel Adams. On Wednesday, Johnson conceded that it was Idac that solicited the affidavit from Adams and that this shouldn’t have happened.

Madlanga’s focus on 12 officials

On Thursday, proceedings continued with the focus on the names of the officials that were included in the application for an investigation into the Khumalo matter.

When Johnson instructed Idac investigator Dylan Perumal to contact Adams about the absence of a section 27 attached to his complaint, he came back with extra names to be included in the investigation.

The commission has established that of the 12 people who were investigated, only three or four were included in Adams’ affidavit. This means Idac had no legal mandate to investigate the other officials.

When asked how the extra names made it into the application for a preliminary investigation into the matter, Johnson said she could not recall.

“Advocate Ramsamy indicated last night that she had got the list of names from my office wherein I had indicated that this list had been provided by Mr Perumal after his having engaged with Mr Adams,” explained Johnson.

“If we accept what you say, before you authorised even a preliminary investigation, that suggests that Mr Perumal was already engaging with Mr Adams?” asked evidence leader Mahlape Sello.

Johnson agreed.

Process followed?

Sello asked Johnson what she thought of Perumal engaging a complainant before an investigation was instituted.

“Was he doing so within his mandate in circumstances where Idac itself had not even authorised an investigation, a preliminary investigation, let alone an investigation in terms of Section 28? Why, how could he do that and on what authority does he so do?” continued Sello.

“He would have to indicate why he engaged with Mr Adams over and beyond the initial indication of providing a Section 27 affidavit, in terms of the process we followed and after he engaged with Mr Adams, because I don’t have the direct knowledge of why,” responded Johnson.

“I have to get a response from him. If the response is outside of the framework and the legality, it must then be dealt with through the Idac judge.”

Idac officials a law unto themselves?

Sello suggested that Perumal’s conduct made it seem like “everybody in Idac is on a frolic of their own”.

“They don’t go on a frolic of their own. We do adhere to the processes and the prescripts. I’m not saying someone may not deviate. If there is a deviation and it comes to the fore, then we have to deal with it and understand why the deviation. But there isn’t a frolic of their own. They have to adhere to the internal processes,” responded Johnson.

“But if they have worked outside of the accepted framework, which is common knowledge in Idac, then I take the point that council makes.”

‘No factual basis’

However, Commissioner Sandile Khumalo asked Johnson about her reason to believe that the extra officials should be investigated while only three or four were listed in the Section 27 affidavit.

“If all Mr Adams gives Mr Perumal is a list of names, and it’s now 12 people, what is the factual basis for you coming to a conclusion as you do that you have reason to believe that the persons in the annexure have committed the offences you mentioned on page one of the same authorisation?” 

“I hear the point that you are making, commissioner. What I have to concede, Commissioner Khumalo, is that in the absence of there being a link between what is said in the Section 27 and the list of names, that should be the only link.”

“Then they shouldn’t be included. They should not have been included in this annexure because even you, as you got that application, you would say to her, but these people are not in the affidavit. No allegation is made against them. So where would you have got this link for you to include these people in the application that you give to me?” responded Khumalo.

“For you to form the view that these people have committed fraud, defeating the ends of justice, breach of these various statutes, there has to be a factual basis. It cannot just be made in the dark. And then Idac uses its powers to attack, or to attack is a strong word, to target South African citizens without any factual basis and without any legal basis and decide that it’s going to conduct an investigation against them.”

Ad hoc committee vs Madlanga commission testimony

The commission further established that Johnson provided contradictory statements at the ad hoc committee and the Madlanga commission.

Johnson told the ad hoc committee that she did not receive Adams’ referral herself when it was addressed to Idac. However, on Wednesday, she told the Madlanga commission that she received the complaint from Senzo Mchunu’s office, and then her office contacted Adams for an affidavit.

“The two are contradictory, which is the true position? Is it what you stated to the Ad Hoc Committee or what you are stating to this commission?” Asked Sello.

“I took the question at the time to mean that I received it from Mr Adams [personally]. My office did receive the Section 27. That is the position. I received a Section 27 deposed to by Mr Adams and dated 21 November 2024,” explained Johnson.

Johnson tells Madlanga: ‘I did not recall’

Johnson also told the ad hoc committee that she was not aware that Adams had referred his complaint to the police minister.

“But we know after engagement yesterday that tells us otherwise. Your entire basis for being persuaded by the referral is precisely because you said these issues have been raised with the minister. The minister or the minister’s office had purported to refer this matter to you in terms of Section 27,” said Sello.

“At the time, I did not recall receiving anything from the office of the minister,” responded Johnson.

However, Sello took issue with the fact that Johnson’s response was a definite “no”, knowing the ad hoc committee would rely on her answers to come to a conclusion.

“Advocate Johnson, your testimony yesterday was that Idac received the minister’s letter and the minister’s letter was unhelpful, and you instructed Perumal to get an affidavit from Adams.

“Now, that’s completely different to what you said to the ad hoc because the impression you are creating here is that it is Adams who came to Idac and this thing landed on Idac’s desk, when in fact, yesterday we agreed that based on the minister’s letter or rather the letter from the minister’s office, it is Idac that reached out to Mr Adams.

“So which is which now? Because here it’s Mr Adams who’s coming to Idac, but yesterday you were quite clear that it’s the minister who came to Idac,” said Sello.

‘I did not prepare’

Johnson also told the ad hoc committee that Adams’ affidavit reached Idac in mid-December 2024. However, Johnson gave the authorisation for an investigation into Adams’ allegations on 6 December.

“The question is, why did you say to the ad hoc committee that you received the section 27 in the middle of December? Why would you say that?” asked commissioner Sesi Baloyi.

“At the time, Commissioner Baloyi, that was my recollection. In coming to this commission, I had to affirm myself properly with all of the facts. I’m not saying that the ad hoc was not important. I didn’t go through all of this detail with my team when I went to ad hoc,” responded Johnson.

“But you would have prepared to go to ad hoc. I mean, I suspect they would be deeply offended if they are to understand you to mean you went to that committee without preparing and looking at your records on this matter,” Baloyi responded.

‘Why would you do that?’

Baloyi said it was improbable that Johnson did not remember when she received the affidavit, which formed the basis for an investigation against Khumalo.

“So I assume, I must assume, that you prepared when you went there. You knew what the issues were, the terms of reference, as in the question that they are required to deal with. They are not very different from what we are dealing with here.

“I can’t, it’s difficult to accept you saying I did not remember when, in fact, a lot happened before 6 December. You activated things and received a section 28 application. You authorised things to be done before 6 December. How can you make a mistake? How could you genuinely make a mistake that you received this referral in the middle of December?

“It’s improbable that you did not remember that you received this in November already before the middle of December. It’s just unbelievable that you did not remember when you answered the question.”

“I take your point, Commissioner,” said Johnson.

Article: Caxton publication, The Citizen

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