By Johnathan Paoli
The Madlanga Commission of Inquiry on Tuesday questioned whether the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) had a lawful basis to investigate senior Crime Intelligence (CI) officials, with commission chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga suggesting the probe may have been launched on the strength of “mere allegations”.
Resuming after the lunch adjournment, the commission questioned retired senior investigator Brian Padayachee about allegations made by National Coloured Congress MP Fadiel Adams and whether his referral met the requirements of Section 27 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act.
Madlanga repeatedly challenged Padayachee’s understanding of the legal threshold required before an investigation could begin, cautioning that allegations alone could not justify the exercise of IDAC’s investigative powers.
“You see the problem with your approach, you seem to believe that once an allegation has been made, then the Section 27 requirements have been met,” Madlanga said.
The commission heard that Adams submitted a sworn Section 27 affidavit to IDAC in November 2024 alleging widespread corruption, manipulation of promotions and procurement, and the systematic capture of Crime Intelligence by senior officers.
In his affidavit, Adams alleged that Crime Intelligence head Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo, Intelligence Analysis and Coordination head Major-General Nosipho Madondo and chief financial officer Major-General Philani Lushaba manipulated procurement processes and appointments to senior positions within the division.
“I am very concerned that the senior management of the SAPS will not ensure that these cases are fully investigated and I believe that every attempt will be made to cover it all up. I therefore request the IDAC to investigate these cases and I am prepared to co-operate fully in the investigations,” Adams stated.
Padayachee testified that IDAC requested police dockets linked to complaints opened by Adams after allegations emerged that the investigations had been interfered with.
According to Padayachee, IDAC confirmed the criminal cases cited by Adams had been registered but were never properly investigated.
He said the referral ultimately focused on allegations of corruption surrounding the appointment of Brigadier Dineo Mokwele rather than SAPS’ failure to investigate the dockets.
That investigation led to the arrest of Khumalo and several other senior SAPS officers.
The probe centred on Mokwele’s appointment as head of Crime Intelligence’s Technical Support Services unit, with investigators alleging that her application and curriculum vitae misrepresented her managerial experience and qualifications, and that the recruitment process had been manipulated to secure her appointment.
Mokwele, who previously worked at BMW South Africa, has denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that she never falsely claimed to be a manager and that her appointment was lawful.
Commissioners questioned whether Adams’ affidavit contained sufficient factual grounds to justify opening the investigation.
Madlanga stressed that Section 27 requires “jurisdictional facts” to exist before a preliminary investigation may lawfully commence, asking what evidence existed beyond Adams’ suspicions.
Padayachee maintained that the investigation proceeded after IDAC management accepted the referral and authorised a preliminary investigation.
However, under questioning, he acknowledged that he had not seen Adams’ Section 27 affidavit before beginning the investigation.
“Section 27 is not dealt with by me, but dealt with at management level. I only get to deal with it at the tail end when a preliminary investigation is authorised. I do not get to see the Section 27 referral,” Padayachee said.
Madlanga said he found that explanation difficult to accept, a point Padayachee eventually conceded.
The commission also questioned why the lead investigator would investigate such serious allegations without first reading the referral that triggered the probe.
After attempting to explain the process, Padayachee admitted that “it didn’t make sense”.
The commission further examined inconsistencies in a statement taken from Adams by IDAC investigator Dylan Perumal.
Commissioner Sandile Khumalo also challenged the legal basis for the fraud and corruption charges relating to Mokwele’s appointment.
Padayachee argued that Mokwele’s qualifications and experience had been misrepresented and that the appointment process had been manipulated.
Khumalo repeatedly asked what specific conduct amounted to fraud or corruption, noting that appointing an external candidate was not, in itself, unlawful.
Madlanga similarly questioned what objective evidence supported allegations of manipulation.
At one point, he described Padayachee’s reasoning as “a quantum leap in logic”, saying he could not see how the jurisdictional requirements had been satisfied to justify investigating and charging Mokwele, Khumalo and others.
Commissioner Sesi Baloyi also questioned whether Padayachee had improperly relied on the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA) instead of the Section 27 referral that authorised the investigation.
Towards the end of proceedings, Padayachee said he had appeared before the commission to tell the truth despite the rigorous questioning.
He referred to longstanding allegations of corruption within Crime Intelligence, saying some whistleblowers who exposed wrongdoing years ago remain under witness protection.
Proceedings were adjourned, with Padayachee expected to continue his testimony on Wednesday.
INSIDE POLITICS
