Komisija Madlanga: Johnson priznava, da IDAC ni imel podlage za preiskovanje Khumala, priznava, da pritožbe ne bi smeli zahtevati

Advocate Andrea Johnson, head of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), testified before the Madlanga Commission that her unit lacked legal grounds to investigate Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo over allegations tied to police recruitment irregularities. She also admitted that the anti-corruption body was not authorized to seek complaints directly from the public, a statement that raised new concerns about the legitimacy of the probe. The admissions came during Johnson’s testimony, which centered around the origin of the investigation and how it was initiated. The controversy surrounding the case stems from a Section 27 affidavit filed by National Coloured Congress (NCC) leader and Member of Parliament Fadiel Adams. This document served as the statutory referral that enabled IDAC to open its inquiry into Khumalo and other officials. During the hearing, Chair Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga and evidence leader Advocate Mahlape Sello focused heavily on how the initial complaint leading to the investigation was obtained. Johnson revealed that the process began with a letter from the office of Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, who is currently on special leave. However, the letter arrived without any supporting documents or attachments, which Johnson acknowledged rendered it insufficient to justify a formal investigation. When questioned about her actions upon realizing the missing attachments, Johnson struggled to provide a clear account. She claimed she believed she had received confirmation of the letter but could not retrieve the corresponding response, even after conducting internal searches. She suggested that technical teams might still recover the missing email. This uncertainty prompted further scrutiny, particularly regarding the role of IDAC chief investigator Dylan Perumal. Johnson indicated that Perumal may have reached out to Adams after receiving specific instructions, though she could not confirm this definitively. Sello challenged Johnson’s assertion, stating that effectively, IDAC had sought a Section 27 affidavit from Adams. Johnson denied the claim, insisting she was not responsible for initiating such action. She stated, “I don’t agree with ‘solicited’... I am going through a detail that’s not mine and not in my head.” However, Madlanga countered by emphasizing that Johnson had given instructions to Perumal, making her accountable for the outcome. He urged her not to avoid the issue, reinforcing the gravity of the situation. Johnson eventually conceded after prolonged resistance, acknowledging that the process involved soliciting a complaint from the public. When asked whether IDAC was allowed to approach individuals for complaints, she admitted, “No. We are not supposed to solicit.” This admission deepened the scrutiny of the investigation’s legality and transparency. Further complications arose when Madlanga highlighted the timeline of events, pointing out that Adams’ affidavit was only stamped on November 21, 2024—ten days after Mchunu’s office sent its initial correspondence on November 11. This timeline suggests that the affidavit was not pre-prepared, contradicting some of Johnson’s earlier claims. The hearing was later disrupted when Johnson reportedly felt unwell due to medication. She is expected to return before the commission on Thursday, where more questions about the investigation’s origins will likely be addressed. As the proceedings continue, the focus remains on clarifying the chain of events that led to the initiation of the probe and ensuring accountability within the anti-corruption framework.