The abuse of authority in IDAC(anti-corruption body)

Serious allegations of procedural misconduct and abuse of authority have emerged within South Africa’s Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), raising concerns about the integrity and legality of several high-profile investigations.

At the centre of the controversy is the alleged failure by IDAC to comply with Section 27 of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Act, which requires a formal referral affidavit before any investigation can be initiated. The affidavit must detail the nature of the suspected offence, the grounds for suspicion, and all relevant information known at the time.

According to critics, IDAC allegedly bypassed this requirement in investigations involving prominent figures, including Crime Intelligence head General Dumisane Khumalo, former Acting National Police Commissioner General Kgomotso Phahlane, and businessman Kishene Chetty. Both Khumalo and Phahlane are currently challenging the procedural validity of their investigations on these grounds.

Legal expert Mpumelelo Zikalala warned that failure to secure a Section 27 referral affidavit could jeopardise the legitimacy of IDAC’s cases and expose them to legal challenges. He further cautioned that the apparent lack of transparent criteria for selecting cases could allow the unit to be misused for personal or political agendas.

Much of the scrutiny has focused on senior IDAC investigator Suneel Bellochun, who is reportedly involved in all three investigations. In Chetty’s case, Bellochun is alleged to have acted simultaneously as complainant and investigator a dual role that legal experts argue fundamentally undermines principles of independence and fairness.

Chetty has been under investigation for alleged fraud, corruption, and forgery linked to a 2018 SAPS vehicle-marking contract. His legal challenges include the controversial Silverton case (335/05/2020), which was reportedly re-enrolled after significant legal setbacks. Further allegations suggest that three additional cases opened in January 2022 relied on information from the closed Silverton matter, again without adherence to Section 27 procedures.

IDAC spokesperson Henry Mamothame acknowledged the importance of Section 27 but argued that Section 28 of the NPA Act allows the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) to refer cases to IDAC without a referral affidavit. However, a former NDPP prosecutor disputed this interpretation, stating that Section 28 does not remove the requirement for a formal affidavit.

Mamothame declined to answer questions regarding Bellochun’s overlapping roles in Chetty’s case, leaving concerns about IDAC’s internal controls unresolved.

Additional allegations from sources within IDAC claim that a broader “Markings case” involving 72 accused has become entangled in internal gatekeeping and personal agendas rather than a clear pursuit of justice.

Chetty has described the investigations against him as a “well-planned personal vendetta,” alleging harassment and intimidation of his family by law enforcement officials.

The controversy is further compounded by earlier parliamentary testimony from IDAC head Andrea Johnson, who stated that investigations must begin with a Section 27 referral. The apparent absence of such documentation in these cases has intensified questions around oversight, accountability, and possible institutional failure within the anti-corruption unit.

As legal challenges continue, the allegations threaten to undermine public confidence in one of South Africa’s key anti-corruption mechanisms.