Andrea Johnson, Day 3: Blame-Shifting and Apologies
On the third day of her testimony before the Madlanga Commission, Andrea Johnson, head of IDAC, withdrew and apologised for calling Brigadier Dineo Mokwele’s appointment a “token appointment,” after Commissioner Sandile Khumalo showed the commission that Mokwele holds a degree in industrial engineering, a diploma in mechatronics, and close to a dozen further certificates. Johnson also could not provide any evidentiary basis for a separate allegation in her own statement that Mokwele’s appointment amounted to gratification for a future crime, and accepted a commissioner’s characterisation that IDAC used a limited preparatory investigation as a pretext to run a full, unauthorised investigation for 6 months.
Andrea Johnson returned to the Madlanga Commission on 23 July 2026 for a third day of testimony that shifted from questions about how the investigation into Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo began to questions about who else was caught up in it, and on what basis.
An apology, not an explanation
In her first statement to the commission, Johnson described Brigadier Dineo Mokwele, appointed to a senior technical post within Crime Intelligence, as not suitably qualified, and called her appointment a token appointment. Commissioner Sandile Khumalo put Mokwele’s actual qualifications to Johnson one document at a time: a degree in industrial engineering, a diploma in mechatronics, and roughly a dozen further certificates, including in cyber security, exceeding the position’s stated requirements. Johnson told the commission she had also been unaware Mokwele was studying towards an MBA.
Khumalo then challenged Johnson directly. “It’s an unfair statement to make having not seen her CV, having not seen her qualifications,” he said. “Can you please in this commission withdraw the statement that her appointment is a token appointment? It is an insulting thing to say.” Johnson did not simply comply. “I would have to go further than to withdraw,” she said. “I would have to apologise that that statement was made.”
A theory with no evidentiary basis
Johnson’s statement went further than questioning Mokwele’s qualifications. It alleged that her appointment was itself a form of gratification, intended to position her to assist colleagues in looting state funds at a later date. Advocate Mahlape Sello asked Johnson directly what evidence supported that conclusion. Johnson could not answer immediately, and after reviewing the charge sheet, offered only that Mokwele’s post gave her access to a less transparent budget and that she “could be approached” for funds.
Commissioners noted that this reasoning would apply to anyone appointed to the same position, regardless of conduct. Commissioner Khumalo, echoing a characterisation Commissioner Sesi Baloyi had made a day earlier, told the commission the case represented “a serious abuse of power by IDAC to target a civilian.”
A pattern of shifting responsibility
Asked to account for the qualifications claim, Johnson told the commission: “I relied on the briefing from my team. The facts I received then were incorrect.” It was not the only instance in 3 days of testimony where Johnson attributed an error in a sworn document bearing her own signature to information supplied by others, including the section 27 referral’s contested legal basis, the unexplained additional names on her investigation authorisation, and a prosecution memorandum to the Director of Public Prosecutions that cited a legal instruction she had not personally read.
Preparatory investigation used as pretext
The commission also examined the gap between IDAC’s 2 levels of investigative authority. Johnson authorised a preparatory investigation, intended only to establish whether grounds existed for a full investigation, on 6 December 2024. By February 2025, IDAC investigators had already interviewed BMW executives and issued subpoenas, activities associated with a full investigation rather than a preparatory one. The full investigation was not formally authorised until 30 May 2025, with Khumalo and his co-accused arrested less than 4 weeks later.
Commissioner Baloyi put it to Johnson that IDAC had used the preparatory investigation as a pretext to build a case that Adams’s original affidavit did not support, and only authorised the full investigation retroactively. Johnson’s response was direct: “I accept that.”
Conflicting testimony
Advocate Arendse, representing the commission, also raised inconsistencies between Johnson’s testimony before a separate parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee and her testimony before the Madlanga Commission. Johnson had told the Ad Hoc Committee she never personally received the section 27 referral; she has told this commission she did, and personally initiated the resulting process. She had told the Ad Hoc Committee she was unaware the matter had also been referred through the Minister of Police’s office; she has since confirmed to this commission that she received and responded to that referral. In each instance, Johnson’s explanation was that she did not recall. Commissioner Baloyi described this as improbable, given the extent of what Johnson had personally authorised in the same period.
By the end of day 3, Johnson had conceded that paragraphs 27 and 28 of her own first statement, containing the central allegation that Khumalo had captured systems and processes within Crime Intelligence for private interest, no longer hold given the evidence relating to Mokwele’s appointment.
