Dr. Drushanta Ramsamy, a prosecutor, accused her former supervisor, lawyer Andrea Johnson, of providing false information within the Madlanga Commission. This situation reflects a pattern observed in South Africa: after major public scandals, the discussion often shifts from factual data to issues of identity and race.
There is a danger that once the focus shifts to racial aspects, the search for truth becomes clouded by prejudice, and institutions meant to unite the country turn into arenas of racial suspicion. Therefore, the racial undertones surrounding the Madlanga Commission should concern every resident of South Africa.
Recent statements by some commentators and segments of society claiming that an 'Indian faction' attempted to influence the work of IDAC represent a worrying departure from the principles of constitutional democracy. Regardless of whether these assertions stem from political rhetoric, public discontent, or genuine suspicion, they must be treated with extreme caution.
There is a risk that a legitimate investigation into institutional conduct could devolve into an exercise in collective condemnation. South Africa cannot afford such a mistake. The purpose of the Madlanga Commission is not to determine the guilt or innocence of any racial community; its task is to establish facts, assess evidence, and determine whether any individuals or institutions acted illegally or unethically.
If wrongdoing has occurred, those responsible must face the full consequences of the law, which defines the functioning of constitutional democracies. However, the commission does not assign blame to an entire community. Incompetence and apparent disregard for the rule of law, which may have characterized certain aspects of IDAC's work, cannot be explained by race. Institutional failures are not inherited through ethnicity; they arise from weak leadership, inefficient management, insufficient oversight, and decisions made by individuals entrusted with public responsibility.
Corruption has never recognized racial boundaries and has infiltrated institutions led by representatives of all South African communities. To assert otherwise is to ignore decades of painful experience and to oversimplify one of the country's most persistent governance problems. Furthermore, there is a great danger in allowing racial narratives to take root. Once an entire community is associated with accusations against a few individuals, innocent citizens inevitably become collateral damage.
Families, professionals, entrepreneurs, and civil servants who have no connection to the allegations suddenly begin to be viewed through a lens of suspicion simply because they share a surname, origin, or cultural background. This is neither fair nor just. The Indian community in South Africa, like any other community in our diverse nation, has contributed significantly to democracy, the economy, and social development. Nevertheless, as in any community, there are individuals among them who do not meet societal standards, but this fact does not justify broad and reckless generalizations.
The same principle applies to all racial groups in South Africa. Crime knows no color, and honesty knows no ethnicity. Respect for the law is neither racial nor cultural—it is a matter of personal character and institutional accountability. Perhaps the greatest risk is that these racial debates distract from truly important issues. South Africans should be asking questions about adherence to proper governance systems, the protection of public resources, the effectiveness of oversight mechanisms, and respect for the Constitution by those who held power.
These questions deserve answers, whereas instead we risk getting sidetracked by identity politics, which offers easy villains but few solutions. Such narratives may satisfy political agendas or inflame public emotions, but they contribute little to strengthening institutions or restoring public trust. The project of South African democracy has always depended on something more than political victories or legal processes; it depends on social cohesion—the recognition that despite our different histories and origins, we share a common future. Every time race carelessly intervenes in matters requiring objective investigation, this cohesion weakens.
This does not mean that race never matters in South Africa, as our history guarantees that it often does. However, appealing to race where evidence points to individual or institutional failure harms both justice and national unity. The Madlanga Commission must remain focused on uncovering the truth, wherever it leads. Those found guilty of illegal acts must be held accountable without favoritism or bias. Likewise, the innocent must not be condemned by association.
South Africans also need to resist the temptation to lose focus. Our task is not to find a racial culprit, but to build competent, ethical, and constitutionally sound public institutions. Responsibility and social cohesion are not competing ideals but mutually reinforcing pillars of a healthy democracy. If we allow race to overshadow the evidence, we all become poorer. But if we insist on justice based on facts, not prejudice, the Madlanga Commission can strengthen not only our institutions but also the fragile social contract binding our nation.
IDAC Investigator Mantsha Robert Rapesu appeared before the Madlanga Commission on Friday, expressing serious concern regarding discrepancies in the Section 27 affidavit submitted to Parliament, as he intends to initiate criminal prosecution.
The Senior Investigator of the Independent Directorate of Corruption and Economic Crime (IDAC) informed the Madlanga Commission on Friday that the Section 27 document presented during the investigation does not match the document he was briefly shown before the investigation into high-ranking intelligence service officials.
He testified that key allegations he remembered were absent from the version subsequently presented to Parliament and the commission.
Mantsha Robert Rapesu also disclosed his plan to file criminal charges regarding matters under the commission's review and requested that the commission ensure the independence of any investigation.
The Commission, chaired by current Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, is investigating issues arising from IDAC investigations following a Section 27 referral made by MP Fadiel Adams.
Rapesu's testimony was the latest in a series of statements where other witnesses raised questions about how IDAC handled Adams' referral and the documentary materials relied upon in subsequent investigations.
Under the guidance of Evidence Head Advocate Tabanga Pue, Rapesu stated that IDAC State Attorney Drushanta Ramsami briefly showed him the Section 27 affidavit before the case was assigned, gesturing that he should review it quickly before it was taken back.
Rapesu noted that he immediately realized he shouldn't see the document, and he only had five to ten minutes to read it, after which Ramsami took it back. Despite the limited time, he stated that the allegations were so serious they remained firmly in his memory.
According to Rapesu, the affidavit he glimpsed contained allegations concerning the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT), alleged misuse of secret service funds, luxury items, living expenses, property, and other matters.
He testified that he immediately realized something was wrong when Advocate Andrea Johnson later presented what was described as the Section 27 affidavit in Parliament.
Rapesu stated: 'The affidavit before this commission is not the affidavit I saw.' He insisted that the allegations he recalled were missing from the version presented to Parliament and the commission, asserting it was not the affidavit he had seen.
Chairman Madlanga repeatedly questioned Rapesu on how he could confidently recall the contents of a document he saw for only a few minutes. Rapesu stood firm, asserting that he was recounting what he personally read, not speculating, insisting that the seriousness of the allegations made the document unforgettable.
The witness also described what he considered deviations from standard investigative procedures. He showed that Johnson herself presided over the allocation meeting, and that investigators were told they would not receive the initial Section 27 referral from Adams, although it usually forms the basis of the investigation.
Rapesu informed the commission that he participated in four cases, which he termed the 'Lushaba case,' the Mokwele case, formerly known as the Mandondo case, the forklift case, and the PKTT case.
He said he was the lead investigator in the investigation of the intelligence service brigade commander appointment, Dioneo Mokwele, but later discovered that the investigation team interviewed witnesses and obtained affidavits without notifying or consulting him.
'Despite being the lead investigator on the Mokwele case, the team consulted with witnesses on this matter without informing me,' Rapesu stated.
Rapesu deemed these events irregular and requested to be excluded from the Mokwele case. After being removed, Rapesu testified that he himself became the subject of an investigation.
He informed the commission that he was later charged with disciplinary offenses related to leaking confidential information concerning Cedric Nkabinde, chief assistant to the suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu. He denied this charge, stating that he voluntarily agreed to undergo a polygraph test and provide records from his mobile phone because he wanted to clear his name.
He further testified that he believed Dylan Perumal and Colonel Brian Padayachi played a role in the events that ultimately led to the investigation against him. These allegations became part of his evidence before the commission, which has not yet reached any conclusions on them.
Explaining why he did not file a criminal case earlier, Rapesu said he deliberately waited until the investigation against him concluded because he did not want it to appear as if he was obstructing or impeding the process. He explained: 'I didn't open the case then because I didn't want it to look like I was opposing what they were investigating against me. I wanted their process to finish.'
Now, having appeared before the commission, Rapesu stated that he decided to pursue criminal prosecution. He stated: 'My intention is to open a criminal case, and I hope the commission will also assist by providing investigators to handle this case, because I do not want it to fall into the wrong hands anywhere.'
Rapesu's evidence corroborates the testimony given on Thursday by IDAC colleague Drushanta Ramsami, who also claimed that the Section 27 affidavit initially available to investigators differed significantly from the version later presented to Parliament and the commission.
The commission has not yet made any findings on these allegations. Johnson denied guilt during her testimony before the commission and disputed the accusations made against her by several witnesses.
The investigation will resume on Tuesday, when Ramsami is expected to continue his testimony after completing his second statement.
Lawyer Andrea Johnson, former head of the Investigative Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), stated that the accusations of a 'deliberate attack' on SACP Commissioner Nlankhulu Mkhwanazi and Head of Crime Unit Dumisani Humalo could be plausible.
Speaking at the Madlanga Commission meeting on Tuesday, Johnson reported that the available information points to a conclusion that 'makes reasonable sense,' especially when considering the overall sequence of events and the evidence presented. She emphasized that if all circumstances, including case number 3527, are considered, the conclusion reached appears justified.
These remarks came after she previously testified before the Parliamentary Special Committee, where she dismissed suggestions that IDAC was involved in a coordinated campaign against two senior police officers. Mkhwanazi and Humalo consistently maintain before the commission that they were targeted due to attempts to eliminate corrupt elements within the South African Police Service.
The Commission also examined IDAC's decision to investigate human resources issues, which typically fall under the purview of the Public Service Commission (PSC), raising questions about the anti-corruption unit exceeding its authority. During the proceedings, particular attention was paid to the investigation into Humalo's appointment, despite the 2023 PSC report concluding that the appointment was lawful.
Johnson acknowledged that the PSC's findings should have settled this matter. She noted that it would be 'irresponsible' for IDAC if investigators possessed such a conclusive report but failed to bring it to her attention to conduct a proper inquiry. She added that such a report 'excludes it from any scope of investigation.' Johnson is expected to conclude her testimony on Wednesday morning.
