Andrea Johnson, Day 1: A Little Deurmekaar
Andrea Johnson, head of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), testified before the Madlanga Commission on 21 July 2026, more than a week after a medical certificate that Justice Madlanga described as containing almost no useful information kept her away. Under cross-examination, Johnson conceded a line in her own sworn statement, that she had no insight into the evidence behind the prosecution of Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo, was inaccurate and had to be corrected on the record. Commissioners also pressed her on whether her own investigators ever saw the document that triggered the entire Khumalo investigation, and whether she is claiming a stronger legal shield against self-incrimination than IDAC itself affords the people it questions.
Andrea Johnson, the head of IDAC, appeared before the Madlanga Commission on 21 July 2026, 8 days after her scheduled 13 July appearance was postponed. Her legal representative, Advocate Apla Bodlani, told the commission at the time that she had been hospitalised, and produced a medical certificate that Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, the retired Constitutional Court judge chairing the commission, said gave no real information about her condition. Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told Daily Maverick that President Cyril Ramaphosa was looking into the matter and had been looking forward to her testimony.
Over 6 hours and 3 sworn statements, Johnson’s testimony repeatedly returned to a single question: how IDAC came to charge Khumalo, the head of Crime Intelligence, and 6 co-accused, and whether Johnson can properly account for that decision.
A statement contradicted by its own paper trail
In her supplementary statement, Johnson wrote that IDAC prosecutors independently evaluate evidence and make prosecution decisions, and that she performs an oversight function with no insight into the dockets or the evidence they contain.
Commissioner Sandile Khumalo put a letter to her that appeared to contradict this. Dated 25 June 2025, the letter from the acting director of public prosecutions responds to correspondence Johnson had sent the previous day, and states that the DPP concurs with Johnson’s decision to charge the accused on the offences set out in the charge sheet.
Khumalo asked Johnson directly whether the decision to prosecute had been hers, or whether IDAC had simply presented the DPP with the facts and left the decision to that office. Johnson confirmed the decision had been hers. Khumalo then put it to her that the wording of her statement, that she had no insight into the dockets or evidence, did not square with that. Johnson, working through the wording live before the commissioners, ultimately agreed the sentence needed to be removed from her statement altogether.
Who saw the founding document
A second line of questioning traced back to earlier testimony from Colonel Brian Padayachee, the lead investigator on the Khumalo docket, who told the commission he had never personally seen the section 27 referral affidavit that originated the investigation.
Madlanga returned to this with Johnson, working through the chain of custody in detail. According to the testimony, the referral document was held by a prosecutor and never reached chief investigator Dylan Perumal, who in turn gave Padayachee only an oral briefing. Madlanga said the sequence did not make sense to him, telling the commission at one point, partly in Afrikaans, that he was now completely confused by it.
Khumalo followed up by asking Johnson why, at any point between authorising the investigation and writing to the DPP in June 2025 to request Khumalo’s prosecution, she had not confirmed her own investigator had seen the founding document. Johnson said she works on the assumption that documents given to an investigating team are shared internally, and that she would only become aware of a problem if it were escalated to her office.
A question of equal protection
In her third statement, Johnson indicated she would invoke her constitutional right against self-incrimination in response to certain questions relating to an ongoing NPA disciplinary process against her. Evidence leader Advocate Mahlape Sello questioned this position by reference to section 28 of the NPA Act, the same legislation under which IDAC itself operates, which provides that persons questioned by IDAC during an investigation may not refuse to answer on the ground that doing so could expose them to a criminal charge.
Sello asked Johnson whether she was, in effect, seeking greater protection for herself before the commission than IDAC extends to the people it interrogates, noting that she was putting the question to Johnson specifically given her more than 30 years as a practising advocate. Johnson did not offer a conclusive answer, and the commission left the matter for her to revisit before resuming testimony.
