MADLANGA COMMISSION: ‘Hidden hand’ may have steered Idac probe beyond Fadiel Adams’ complaint, hearing told

On Tuesday, 28 July, proceedings at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry shifted from the substance of National Coloured Congress leader Fadiel Adams’ complaint, which laid the basis for the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption’s (Idac’s) investigation into SAPS Crime Intelligence and the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT), to a more fundamental question.Who, if anyone, was directing the investigation behind the scenes, and how did its scope grow to encompass issues seemingly unrelated to the original allegations? Idac leader Andrea Johnson, who stepped down this week after facing gruelling questions at the commission about the Crime Intelligence and PKTT investigations, continued her testimony.Adams’ Section 27 affidavit (in simple terms, a whistleblower statement) claims that in about October 2024, he anonymously received information alleging fraud and corruption within Crime Intelligence.The complaint focused on the lateral transfer of Major General Nosipho Madondo from KwaZulu-Natal SAPS to Crime Intelligence headquarters by Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo and other senior officers, despite her allegedly lacking the required top-secret security clearance.However, documents placed before the commission painted a markedly different picture. An Idac summons Johnson signed in April 2025 sought a sweeping range of records, extending far beyond Adams’ allegations.The evidence suggests that Idac’s investigation had expanded well beyond the allegations contained in Adams’ original complaint, raising questions about whether the directorate had exceeded the scope of its mandate.By seeking documents unrelated to the allegations in Adams’ affidavit, the investigation appeared to move from examining a specific complaint to conducting a far broader inquiry into the internal functioning of Crime Intelligence and the Political Killings Task Team.The ‘hidden hand’ theory Commissioner advocate Sandile Khumalo SC crystallised what had been building throughout days of testimony: the documents before the commission appeared to point to an investigation driven by something other than Adams’ complaint. Looking at the summons and other records, Khumalo underlined that it appeared there was a “hidden hand” directing Idac’s investigation.He pointed to requests for information about why former Crime Intelligence head Lieutenant General Peter Jacobs did not return to the division; performance assessments of major generals, provincial heads and section heads dating back to the 2022/23 financial year; and records relating to the PKTT. Collectively, advocate Khumalo indicated, they suggested an investigation far broader than anything contained in Adams’ Section 27 complaint.“This is something else altogether,” he remarked, adding that the inquiry appeared to have evolved into a wide-ranging investigation into Crime Intelligence and the PKTT rather than the specific allegations made by Adams.Khumalo reiterated that it was his observation and that he could be “100% wrong”. Nevertheless, he said the documentary trail inevitably raised the question of who had been driving the investigation and for what purpose.Advocate Sandile Khumalo SC at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry in Pretoria on 9 June 2026. (Photo: Gallo Images / Frennie Shivambu) Johnson disagreed with his observation, but acknowledged the concern. She maintained that she relied on Idac chief investigator Dylan Perumal and the investigation team, and that when she authorised the summons, she had no reason to doubt the authenticity or accuracy of the information placed before her. Yet she also accepted that, as the evidence unfolded before the commission, she had seen no investigation into the PKTT itself and could not explain why those records had been sought.Khumalo noted that Adams’ Section 27 complaint should have been the genesis of Idac’s investigation. If that was the starting point, he asked, how had the summons expanded to include issues that did not appear anywhere in the complaint?Johnson explained that investigators must have had additional information justifying those inquiries.Khumalo suggested another possibility.“If one accepts that Adams’ affidavit was the starting point, then the obvious questions become: who was driving this investigation, what was Idac’s motive, and was there political interference or infiltration?” he said, adding that these were precisely the issues the commission now had to determine.The unexplained expansion into the PKTT The commission’s examination of Idac’s interest in the PKTT exposed what may be one of the clearest examples of the investigation expanding beyond its original remit.Evidence leader advocate Mahlape Sello confronted Johnson with an apparent contradiction. On 3 April 2025, Johnson authorised a summons seeking extensive records relating to the PKTT, including documents concerning appointments and promotions within the unit. Yet earlier on Monday, Johnson told the commission she learnt only during the hearings that the PKTT had even become a subject of Idac’s inquiry.Sello pointed out that neither Adams’ original Section 27 complaint nor his disputed supplementary affidavit referred to the PKTT. If that was so, on what basis had Johnson authorised compulsory process to obtain PKTT records?Sello suggested there were only two possibilities: either Johnson knew Idac was investigating the PKTT when she signed the summons, or she authorised the request without understanding why those documents were being sought.Khumalo noted that the summons went even further, seeking information relating to the broader membership of the PKTT and their appointments and promotions. If Idac was not investigating the unit, he asked, what legitimate investigative interest did it have in obtaining those records?That question became more pointed because the commission had already heard evidence from project manager Brian Padayachee that Idac was not investigating the PKTT.Johnson initially suggested the explanation would have come from either Padayachee, chief investigator Perumal or both. But after making inquiries during the tea adjournment, she returned with a different account. Padayachee, she testified, told her he had not briefed her on the PKTT request. Johnson then said the summons had been prepared by Perumal. She had tried to contact him during the break for an explanation, but he did not answer.The allegation Idac appeared to ignoreOne of the central contradictions to emerge from Johnson’s testimony was not what Idac investigated, but what it seemingly did not.In this context, commissioner Sesi Baloyi SC directed Johnson to the opening section of Adams’ affidavit, which alleged that money had been unlawfully diverted from SAPS Crime Intelligence’s secret service account to then police minister Bheki Cele. Baloyi pointed out that, of all the allegations contained in the affidavit, this was the one that most clearly fell within Idac’s statutory mandate to investigate. Johnson agreed.Yet when Baloyi asked whether any statements had been taken or investigations initiated into that allegation, Johnson was unable to provide an answer.“I’m not sure how far the investigation team has gone or what they would have done,” Johnson said, adding that she had received no briefing on that aspect of the investigation.Commissioner Sesi Baloyi SC at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry in Pretoria on 1 June 2026. (Photo: Gallo Images / Frennie Shivambu) Baloyi took Johnson back to Adams’ affidavit and asked an obvious question: once she had familiarised herself with its contents, why had she not asked investigators what had become of the allegation that secret service funds had allegedly been unlawfully diverted to Cele? Johnson replied that she did not interrogate investigators about every aspect of a case. Instead, the team briefed her as each leg of the investigation was completed.She conceded, however, that she had not specifically asked about the allegation concerning the alleged diversion of secret service funds, despite it forming part of the authorised investigation.Baloyi argued that this omission was difficult to reconcile with Idac’s mandate. The allegation involving the alleged misuse of secret service funds was arguably the most serious in Adams’ affidavit and the one most directly falling within Idac’s jurisdiction.By contrast, much of the remainder of the investigation focused on matters relating to Crime Intelligence appointments, internal personnel decisions and the PKTT, issues that the commission has repeatedly questioned as falling outside the original complaint.Baloyi suggested the disparity raised troubling questions. Was this simply an oversight, or had investigators deliberately redirected their focus away from the allegation most closely aligned with Idac’s mandate?If the latter, the commission would ultimately have to consider whether the investigation reflected a selective approach to what was pursued and what was left untouched. Jacobs inquiry raises fresh questionsThe commission’s scrutiny of former Crime Intelligence head Lieutenant General Jacobs exposed another apparent inconsistency between Adams’ complaint and the direction taken by Idac’s investigation.Baloyi pointed out that Adams’ affidavit made no mention of Jacobs, let alone any allegation that he had refused to return to Crime Intelligence. Yet an Idac summons authorised by Johnson specifically sought information relating to Jacobs and his decision not to resume the post.Johnson said that investigators wanted to establish why Jacobs had not returned because, if he had been prevented from doing so, it could justify the deviation that resulted in Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo’s appointment.Baloyi pressed further. If Adams never raised the matter of Jacobs, where did the information come from? Someone, she suggested, must have provided investigators with that intelligence because it did not appear anywhere in the affidavits or statements before the commission.Baloyi pointed out that when Johnson signed the summons, she was authorising inquiries based on information that was not on the record and appeared to fall outside both Adams’ complaint and Idac’s mandate.Johnson replied that, before signing the summons, investigators had informed her they were examining the Jacobs issue because they had been told he had been precluded from returning to Crime Intelligence. Establishing that fact, she said, was necessary to determine whether the appointment of Khumalo by way of a deviation had been justified.The exchange sharpened one of the commission’s central concerns: if key lines of inquiry did not originate from Adams’ complaint or the evidence before Idac, who introduced them, and on what basis did the investigation continue to expand?On that troubling note, Johnson’s five-day grilling before the Madlanga Commission came to an end. DM