What The Madlanga Commission Has Exposed Inside SAPS
A Dismissal That Reflects a Wider Crisis
Major-General Feroz Khan’s dismissal on 02 September was, technically, an administrative event. The suspended Crime Intelligence deputy head failed to appear before the senior officer conducting his expedited disciplinary hearing, and SAPS deemed him dismissed under its disciplinary regulations. Khan’s lawyers say they intend to challenge the decision. He also remains the subject of a criminal case and serious allegations before the Madlanga Commission, which he has not yet had an opportunity to answer in person.
Yet Khan’s fall is significant for a reason that goes beyond one controversial general. Set against the very different outcome of Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo’s case, it captures the larger story of the past 14 months. The apparent reach of corruption and political interference inside the police has extended far beyond a handful of rogue officers, it has touched national leadership, specialised crime units, provincial commanders and, most troublingly, the machinery supposedly responsible for investigating corruption itself.
How the Crisis Spread Through SAPS
The crisis began with KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s explosive allegations on 06 July 2025, which prompted President Cyril Ramaphosa to establish the commission later that month. The inquiry was tasked with examining allegations of criminality, political interference and corruption in the criminal justice system. Police Minister Senzo Mchunu was suspended almost immediately.
Since then, the damage has moved steadily upwards and sideways through the system. National Commissioner General Fannie Masemola was suspended after being charged over alleged Public Finance Management Act violations connected to the Medicare24 contract awarded to businessman Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala. Deputy National Commissioner Lieutenant-General Shadrack Sibiya was suspended over allegations involving interference in sensitive investigations and alleged links to figures in the criminal underworld. Major-General Richard Shibiri, the former head of Organised Crime, was dismissed after being found guilty of misconduct that brought SAPS into disrepute, including associating with a known criminal.
The commission’s referrals have also reached provincial Hawks leadership, lower-ranking police members and the Ekurhuleni Metro Police Department. The pattern suggests that the allegations are not confined to one unit or one level of command.
The Watchdog Under Scrutiny
The numbers are not the most disturbing part. The more consequential revelation concerns the Independent Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), the anti-corruption body at the centre of several of these cases.
Its former head, Advocate Andrea Johnson, resigned in July while testifying before the commission. During her evidence, she conceded that she had made an error in determining that the case against Khumalo and six other Crime Intelligence officials fell within IDAC’s mandate. The charges concerned the appointment of Brigadier Dineo Mokwele.
IDAC’s case subsequently collapsed, with the National Prosecuting Authority withdrawing all charges against the seven accused without conditions on 21 August 2026.
A Case That Raised Deeper Questions
That reversal is important because the commission heard evidence suggesting that the problem may not have been a simple prosecutorial mistake. IDAC prosecutors and investigators disputed aspects of the case internally, while evidence leader questioning raised concerns about whether officers had been targeted before the evidence was properly established.
Separately, a former IDAC prosecutor testified that Johnson instructed staff to keep Masemola unaware of investigations so that he could potentially be caught giving misleading evidence to Parliament and then face a perjury charge. Those allegations remain contested and untested, but they are precisely the kind of evidence that makes the IDAC episode so significant.
The Masemola case reinforces the concern. The commission questioned why he had been placed alongside Matlala and other accused persons in a major corruption case when Masemola himself faced PFMA charges. Johnson conceded that the decision had been wrong, while the commission questioned whether the charging arrangement had the effect of unfairly associating the national commissioner with the broader corruption allegations.
Khumalo’s Exoneration and Khan’s Dismissal
This is why Khumalo’s exoneration matters almost as much as Khan’s dismissal. Khan represents the depth of the rot, with allegations and disciplinary action reaching into one of the country’s most sensitive police divisions.
Khumalo represents its breadth: an anti-corruption institution apparently capable, at least according to evidence before the commission, of pursuing an apparently defective case against senior officers while questions were simultaneously being raised about selective investigations elsewhere.
The contrast between the two cases also highlights the unevenness of accountability within the system. One senior officer has been dismissed after failing to attend a disciplinary hearing, while another saw the case against him withdrawn after questions were raised about the basis and handling of the prosecution. Neither outcome, on its own, resolves the broader institutional concerns.
Resetting IDAC
The state has now begun a reset of IDAC, including lifestyle audits of its entire staff, checks on qualifications, a full audit of its cases and a review of whether people were correctly charged.
Those measures may help restore confidence, but they also underline the seriousness of the problem. An anti-corruption body cannot credibly police misconduct if its own decisions, procedures and personnel are not subject to rigorous scrutiny.
The Question Beyond SAPS
The full name of the Madlanga Commission is the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Criminality, Political Interference and Corruption in the Criminal Justice System. Its purpose is to examine whether South Africa’s institutions were merely infiltrated by corrupt individuals or whether parts of the system themselves became tools for protecting allies, targeting rivals and influencing investigations for reasons unrelated to justice. If investigative and disciplinary mechanisms are compromised, accountability becomes selective. This leads to situations where some officials may be pursued while others are protected, and cases may be built before the evidence is secure.
The collapse of the case against Khumalo, alongside the allegations involving Khan, raises broader questions about who authorised investigations, how evidence was assessed and whether institutional rivalries influenced prosecutorial decisions. The commission must determine whether anti-corruption bodies were sufficiently independent and whether legitimate accountability was being used selectively as a weapon.
The inquiry’s responsibility therefore extends beyond identifying individual wrongdoing. It must establish which safeguards failed, who benefited and whether law-enforcement institutions can still act impartially. Its success is dependent on whether it can expose these failures and produce reforms strong enough to withstand political pressure. Otherwise, it risks becoming another example of institutions investigating one another while public trust continues to erode.
