PRETORIA - Despite submitting her resignation, which was accepted by President Cyril Ramaphosa, now-former Independent Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) head Andrea Johnson continues to face tough questioning at the Madlanga Commission.
In a 17-point application to vacate office addressed to Ramaphosa and National Director of Public Prosecutions Andy Mothibi, Johnson wrote that “the recent five months or so have been challenging and the attacks on both my person and official capacity have been unprecedented.”
Her resignation, however, did not exempt her from further scrutiny before the Commission.
On Monday, Johnson entered the third day of her testimony, where evidence leader Mahlape Sello questioned her over whether certain documentation related to IDAC’s Crime Intelligence investigations has been handed over to the Commission.
LIVESTREAM | Andrea Johnson continues testimony
Johnson said MP Fadiel Adams provided four A1 statements to IDAC in relation to his complaints against Crime Intelligence officials.
Last week, Johnson admitted that parts of her earlier testimony before Parliament's ad hoc committee were incorrect.
She conceded IDAC had in fact solicited a Section 27 affidavit from MP Fadiel Adams that led to the arrest of Crime Intelligence boss Dumisani Khumalo, after previously denying that the directorate had ever received the document.
During the first part of her testimony on Monday, she conceded that the 6 February 2025 IDAC summons she signed may be problematic if there is no strong evidential basis to support alleged manipulation of security vetting processes.
The summons relates to investigations into alleged manipulation of security vetting processes and the unlawful granting of security vetting. She said she signed the summons after receiving a briefing from her investigators.
She added that police statements and referral affidavits form the foundation of investigations and, if they are incomplete or improperly compiled, the state risks losing its ability to prosecute those implicated
Sello asked: “What would your advice to the commissioners be regarding how they view the summons in circumstances where all the documents that you have listed, we have just discussed, do not factually or legally support this Section 28?"
Johnson answered:
“Then the investigation is problematic. Whatever follows is problematic.”
Asked about the legal validity of the investigation and any subsequent processes, Johnson said: “Short of a proper detailed explanation from the investigators, one that is accepted by the Commission, then that investigation falls away. It has to be a legitimate investigation that is supported by documentation. That is the basis on which IDAC has worked on all its other matters. This matter cannot be an exception.”