Commission Revelations Intensify Concerns Over Political Interference and Criminal Networks

Johannesburg, South Africa. Tuesday, 9 June 2026 - Public Interest SA has noted with grave concern allegations emerging from affidavits filed in court proceedings related to the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry .

The allegations, which remain subject to investigation and response by the affected parties, nevertheless raise profoundly troubling questions about the possible intersection of politics, organised crime, procurement corruption, law enforcement and the administration of justice.

Of particular concern are allegations that Major General Feroz Khan used his access to SAPS systems to obtain and disclose the identity and residential address of a complainant in a case involving Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema. The complainant was reportedly Anoosh Rooplal, the curator of VBS Mutual Bank, a matter that has long been associated with allegations of corruption and political patronage.

The Commission affidavits further allege that parliamentary processes may have been utilised to advance the interests of certain individuals within the criminal justice system.

According to documents filed with the Hight Court in Johannesburg by Khan in his aborted application to interdict the Commission from accessing damning information on his electornic devices, parliamentary questions were allegedly coordinated through political channels in an effort to secure the removal of the erstwhile Inspector-General of Intelligence, Dr Setlhomamaru Dintwe.

If substantiated, such conduct would represent a serious abuse of democratic oversight mechanisms intended to strengthen, rather than undermine, accountability.

The affidavits also refer to longstanding public allegations concerning relationships between Malema, the EFF and individuals associated with Carnilinx, a company that has repeatedly faced allegations relating to illicit tobacco trading and customs duty evasion. These allegations have been consistently denied by the EFF and Malema.

While no findings have yet been made and all affected parties are entitled to respond, the emerging evidence inevitably raises questions about whether politically connected individuals and commercial interests may have enjoyed undue influence within law-enforcement structures.

The allegations are particularly significant in light of reports that Malema opposed efforts to have Khan appear before Parliament's ad hoc committee. In retrospect, it is reasonable to ask whether such opposition may have had the effect of shielding a key witness from public scrutiny at a time when serious allegations were already circulating.

The Commission material further paints a picture of what appears to have been a mutually beneficial relationship.

On the one hand, Khan is alleged to have used his position and access to sensitive SAPS information for Malema's benefit.

On the other, Malema is alleged to have used his position as a Member of Parliament and leader of the EFF to advance initiatives aligned with Khan's interests, including parliamentary interventions and expressions of political support during Khan's disciplinary difficulties.

Equally troubling are allegations that political support may have been mobilised on behalf of Khan during disciplinary proceedings. If proven, this would suggest an inappropriate blurring of the lines between political authority and professional accountability within the security services.

Whether these allegations ultimately establish a quid pro quo arrangement remains a matter for investigation and adjudication.

The Commission material also casts renewed attention on historical allegations involving procurement contracts, vehicle leasing arrangements, fleet management tenders and entities such as Afrirent and Bertobrite. While the EFF has consistently denied wrongdoing and rejected these allegations, the apparent convergence of procurement interests, political actors and senior law-enforcement officials warrants careful examination.

Public Interest SA is also concerned that, once again, suspended SCM head Lieutenant General Molefe Fani finds himself implicated in yet more allegations relating to procurement improprieties within SAPS alongside Khan.

While no adverse findings have been made and all implicated parties are entitled to respond, the recurring emergence of procurement-related controversies under his leadership raises legitimate concerns about governance, oversight, consequence management and institutional accountability within the police service.

The latest allegations are especially concerning when viewed against the backdrop of persistent concerns regarding procurement failures, questionable contracting decisions and allegations of interference in matters involving organised crime and corruption.

South Africans are entitled to know whether SAPS procurement processes are being administered in the public interest or whether they have become vulnerable to undue influence and manipulation.

South Africans deserve answers to several critical questions:

• Were state intelligence and policing resources improperly used for political or private purposes?

• Were criminal investigations influenced, delayed or obstructed by politically connected individuals?

• Did organised criminal interests succeed in cultivating relationships within law-enforcement agencies and political structures?

• Were oversight institutions manipulated to protect individuals from scrutiny or accountability?

• Did political influence contribute to the apparent failure to hold certain individuals accountable for alleged wrongdoing?

• Have procurement systems within SAPS and local government been compromised by networks of political and commercial influence?

• Why have individuals repeatedly linked to serious allegations remained insulated from meaningful scrutiny and accountability?

These questions are not directed at any one individual or organisation. Rather, they go to the heart of whether South Africa's criminal justice system has been compromised by networks of influence operating across political, commercial and law-enforcement spheres.

Public Interest SA reiterates that allegations are not findings and that every person implicated is entitled to the presumption of innocence and a full opportunity to respond.

However, the seriousness, breadth and recurring nature of these allegations demand rigorous investigation, transparency and public accountability.

"The allegations against Major General Khan are particularly alarming because they strike at the very heart of witness and whistleblower protection. If a senior law-enforcement official can allegedly access confidential SAPS records and disclose a complainant's identity and residential address to politically connected individuals, it raises grave concerns about the safety of whistleblowers, witnesses, complainants and investigators.

Such conduct would not only compromise individual cases but also deter citizens from reporting corruption, organised crime and abuses of power.

A criminal justice system cannot command public trust when those entrusted with safeguarding sensitive information are themselves alleged to be responsible for its unlawful disclosure," says Tebogo Khaas, chairperson of Public Interest SA.

The Commission must be allowed to complete its work without fear, favour or prejudice. Any attempt to suppress evidence, frustrate investigations or shield individuals from scrutiny would undermine public confidence in the rule of law and the constitutional project itself.

South Africa cannot afford a criminal justice system in which political influence determines who is investigated, who is prosecuted and who escapes accountability. Nor can it tolerate a policing environment in which procurement systems become vehicles for patronage, enrichment or criminal infiltration.

The country deserves institutions that serve the public interest, not networks of political and commercial convenience.

END