Story audio is generated using AI
Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) head Andrea Johnson admitted she had made an error in concluding that the corruption case against police crime intelligence head Lt-Gen Dumisani Khumalo fell within the directorate’s mandate.
The directorate, headed by Johnson, faced the allegation that it acted outside its mandate.
The allegation, made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, has become a central issue before the Madlanga commission of inquiry, which is examining whether the directorate had the legal authority to investigate the corruption case.
Johnson, when faced with three experienced legal minds in retired justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga and advocates Sesi Baloyi and Sandile Khumalo questioning her on the matter, made concessions during cross-examination on Wednesday.
She mainly faced technical questions about whether the complaint by National Coloured Congress MP Fadiel Adams, which started the investigation into Khumalo, complied with the National Prosecuting Authority Act’s requirements for cases falling within the directorate’s mandate.
Khumalo faces corruption charges related to the SAPS crime intelligence unit’s employment of “unqualified civilian” Brig Dineo Mokwele in a senior post.
Johnson admitted the complaint by Adams lacked substance to back up suspicions of corruption. The National Prosecuting Authority Act requires that matters investigated by the directorate should stipulate the grounds on which the suspicion is based.
She said although Adams made a serious allegation falling within the directorate’s mandate, further analysis of his affidavit did not substantiate a basis for his suspicion of corruption as required by the act.
The commission took the view that Adams’ failure to do so legally meant that his allegation should not have been investigated by the directorate.
“It is an error; it was an honest error,” Johnson said.
The concession, however, attracted questions as to whether, since her appointment to the position in 2022 by President Cyril Ramaphosa, Johnson had applied the wrong legal test when considering whether affidavits by complainants fell within the directorate’s mandate.
“Would it be a fair understanding that all your approaches to all section 27 [of the National Prosecuting Authority Act] referrals take the attitude you did on this one, based on affidavits that do not have any grounds to support suspicions expressed therein? Have you interrogated their compliance with section 27 before initiation of an investigation?” evidence leader Mahlape Sello asked.
Johnson responded with a “no” and referred Sello to the affidavits her office sent to the commission, adding that they were compliant with the law.
Read: EDITORIAL | Questions over Idac chief threaten confidence in anti-corruption fight
Madlanga criticised Johnson for applying the wrong legal test when considering whether Adams’ complaint was compliant with the act, saying: “Even a law student doing their first year would know that. How you could mix the subjective test and objective test completely escapes me.”
Johnson said her understanding of the act’s section 27(b) required her to apply an objective test when considering whether affidavits of complainants were compliant with the act’s provisions, adding that her decision on the Adams matter did not reflect on how she dealt with other cases.
It also emerged in the commission that minister Senzo Mchunu’s office was the one which triggered the investigation against Khumalo.
Mchunu’s office in November 2024 alerted the directorate to Adams’ complaints of interception in corruption cases he opened against Khumalo.
Johnson told the commission that after getting the complaint from Mchunu’s office, without an affidavit from Adams, she asked senior investigator Dylan Perumal to engage Adams. She said the directorate could only investigate the case if there was an affidavit from him.
Sello put it to Johnson that by doing so, the directorate “solicited” the affidavit from Adams.
“I suggest you did that because you knew the minister’s letter does not constitute a section 27 referral. Idac decided to cure that deficiency.
“If we look at section 27, it says the complaint must be in an affidavit, so you knew the minister’s letter would not be sufficient to trigger your mandate. And you sought to cure that shortcoming,” Sello said.
Johnson did not agree with the use of the term “solicited” but agreed she issued instructions for Perumal to engage with Adams.
“I do not agree with the (word) solicited. We would have asked him [to file an affidavit],” Johnson said.
Johnson will continue with her testimony on Thursday.
Update: July 22 2026
This article has been updated with new information.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.