Andrea Johnson, Day 2: A Little More Deurmekaar
On the second day of her testimony before the Madlanga Commission, Andrea Johnson, head of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), conceded that her own unit solicited the section 27 affidavit that later became the legal basis for prosecuting Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo. Under questioning from Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, she admitted applying the wrong legal test when deciding to open the investigation. She also could not explain how 9 of the 12 people named in her own authorisation to investigate came to be included, when only 3 appear in the founding document.
Andrea Johnson, head of IDAC, returned to the Madlanga Commission on 22 July 2026 for a second day of testimony that traced the origin of the investigation into Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo back to its source.
A solicited affidavit
Johnson told the commission that a letter from the Office of the Minister of Police, received in November 2024, did not on its own constitute a valid referral under section 27 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act. There was no affidavit attached, and the letter alone made out no offence. In response, Johnson instructed IDAC’s chief investigator, Dylan Perumal, to contact the complainant, MP Fadiel Adams, and obtain a proper section 27 affidavit from him directly.
Under sustained questioning from evidence leader Advocate Mahlape Sello and the commissioners, Johnson conceded that IDAC had, in effect, solicited its own founding document. Commissioner Sandile Khumalo put it to her plainly, and Johnson agreed: “I agree.”
The affidavit that resulted, dated 21 November 2024, extended well beyond Adams’s original complaint, which concerned the alleged interception of dockets he had personally opened. It went on to raise allegations involving procurement, secret service funds, and the appointment of Brigadier Dineo Mokwele. Johnson could not explain, either before or after the lunch adjournment, why the affidavit ranged so far beyond the complaint that gave rise to it.
The wrong legal test
Section 27 of the NPA Act requires 2 elements before IDAC may open an investigation: a suspicion of a specified offence, and reasonable grounds for that suspicion. Justice Madlanga worked through Adams’s affidavit and found no facts supporting any of the suspicions raised, only conclusions.
Johnson initially maintained that she had treated Adams’s suspicion as reasonable partly because of his position on Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Police. Pressed further, she confirmed she had applied what she described as a subjective test, assessing only whether Adams himself believed his own suspicions, rather than the objective “reasonable person” test the law requires. Madlanga told her that even a first-year law student would know the difference between the 2 tests, and that mixing them was not legally coherent.
Johnson ultimately conceded the error, telling the commission: “The test is not subjective. The test is objective. Here I brought a subjective mind to bear on the information the person gave us.” Commissioner Baloyi noted that even setting the wrong test aside, the affidavit itself did not supply the facts section 27 requires, including its central claim, an envelope of documents pushed under Adams’s parliamentary office door, the contents of which were never disclosed to IDAC.
Twelve names, three explained
The commission also examined the formal authorisation Johnson signed on 6 December 2024 to open a preliminary investigation. Its annexure lists 12 individuals: Lieutenant General Khumalo, Major General Madondo, Major General Lushaba, General Lekalakala, Brigadier Ncube, Brigadier Moyane, Brigadier Sebola, Brigadier Van Vuuren, Colonel Madileng, Brigadier Mokwele, Captain Duvhalo, and a twelfth individual described only as “Automotive Engineer.”
Only the first 3 names, Khumalo, Madondo and Lushaba, appear anywhere in Adams’s affidavit. Commissioner Baloyi pressed Johnson on the source of the remaining 9. Johnson said she could not recall a conversation about the additional names and had not asked the prosecutor who prepared the application, Advocate Ramsamy, where they originated. Baloyi told her directly that this amounted to a misuse of power, authorising an intrusive investigation, including into people’s financial records, on the strength of a document that did not name them. Johnson’s response was: “I have no comment, Chair.”
The commission adjourned for the day shortly after 3pm, at Johnson’s request, citing ongoing effects from medication following an illness the previous week.
