The Madlanga Commission has questioned whether the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) had the legal authority to prosecute suspended National Police Commissioner Fannie Masemola over alleged failures in the handling of a multimillion-rand police tender.
Former IDAC head Andrea Johnson defended the decision to charge Masemola, telling the commission that the prosecution was based on allegations that he failed to act swiftly enough to terminate a South African Police Service (SAPS) contract awarded to Medicare24 Tshwane District.
The R360 million tender has been linked to alleged crime boss Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala.
Masemola is charged under Section 38 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), which requires senior government officials to take reasonable steps to prevent irregular expenditure.
However, the commission questioned why Masemola was prosecuted when there is no allegation that he personally acted corruptly.
Commissioner Sesi Baloyi raised concerns that charging Masemola alongside Matlala could create the impression that the suspended police commissioner was involved in the alleged corruption surrounding the tender.
“It gives the impression that the whole purpose of this charge sheet was to just have him appear in court,” Baloyi told Johnson.
She also questioned whether the charge met the requirements of IDAC’s mandate, particularly given the absence of a direct allegation of corruption against Masemola.
The issue was further pressed by commission chairperson Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, who put it to Johnson that IDAC may not have the legal mandate to pursue a standalone charge under the PFMA.
The commission’s questioning centres on whether an alleged failure to prevent irregular expenditure, without evidence of corrupt conduct, falls within IDAC’s jurisdiction.
Johnson maintained that Masemola’s conduct warranted prosecution, arguing that he had taken too long to cancel the SAPS tender.
By the time the contract was terminated, SAPS had already paid Medicare24 about R50 million.
Masemola is therefore not accused of corruption or fraud in relation to the tender, but of contravening a statutory obligation under the PFMA.
The commission’s scrutiny of the case could now raise broader questions about the scope of IDAC’s powers and the circumstances under which the specialised anti-corruption unit can pursue officials for financial management offences.