Public Interest SA Seeks NDPP Review of Decision to Halt Corruption Investigation Involving Former IDAC Head

JOHANNESBURG | Sunday, 18 October 2026 - Public Interest SA has formally submitted representations to the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Advocate Andy Mothibi, seeking reconsideration of the decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Pretoria, to decline authorisation of investigative subpoenas in a corruption complaint involving former Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) head Advocate Andrea Johnson.

The decision resulted in the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) declaring the investigation finalised, notwithstanding questions about whether reasonable investigative avenues had been exhausted.

Public Interest SA has also received confirmation from the Legal Practice Council (LPC) that its separate professional misconduct complaint against Advocate Johnson is progressing to consideration by an independent Investigating Committee, following her failure to submit representations within the prescribed period.

DPCI investigation closed following refusal to authorise subpoenas

In correspondence signed by Major General Ebrahim Ahmed Kadwa, Component Head: Forensic Accounting Investigation, the DPCI confirmed that Public Interest SA's complaint, submitted on 28 April 2026 in terms of Section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA), had been registered under Silverton CAS 166/07/2026.

The DPCI advised that an application for subpoenas under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, accompanied by the investigation docket, was submitted to the DPP, Pretoria, on 24 July 2026.

The DPP declined authorisation on the grounds that insufficient evidence existed to substantiate the alleged corruption offence.

Consequently, the DPCI concluded that no further investigative avenues remained and declared the matter finalised.

Public Interest SA disputes the apparent reasoning underlying this decision and has requested the NDPP's intervention.

Representations to NDPP challenge evidentiary threshold

At the heart of Public Interest SA's representations is the distinction between the evidentiary threshold required to prosecute an alleged offence and the legal requirements governing investigative measures intended to obtain evidence.

Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides a mechanism for obtaining material or relevant information concerning an alleged offence, subject to statutory requirements and judicial oversight.

Public Interest SA contends that an insufficiency of evidence to prosecute cannot, without more, necessarily justify denying investigators access to lawful mechanisms intended to obtain additional evidence.

“We are deeply concerned by the apparent circularity of a decision that effectively prevents investigators from obtaining further evidence because the evidence already available is considered insufficient. Investigative powers exist precisely to assist in establishing facts and determining whether criminal conduct can be substantiated,” said Public Interest SA chairperson Tebogo Khaas.

“The question we have placed before Advocate Mothibi is whether the DPP applied the correct legal considerations and whether the consequential closure of the investigation was justified.”

In its representations, Public Interest SA has requested scrutiny of the original Section 205 application, the DPP's reasons for declining authorisation, and the DPCI's conclusion that no further investigative avenues remained.

The organisation has also requested clarification on whether the refusal constituted, or was accompanied by, a formal decision not to prosecute, and whether further investigative steps or a reconsidered subpoena application would be appropriate.

Public Interest SA emphasises that its representations respect prosecutorial independence while seeking to ensure that decisions with potentially far-reaching consequences for corruption investigations are rational, procedurally sound and legally defensible.

Kadwa's own criminal proceedings raise additional governance questions

Public Interest SA considers it necessary to draw attention to the fact that Major General Kadwa, who signed the correspondence communicating the closure of the investigation, is himself facing criminal charges in separate proceedings alongside Major General Feroz Khan and businessman Tariq Downes.

The proceedings before the Kempton Park Magistrate's Court concern allegations arising from a 2021 incident involving unwrought gold and alleged interference with law-enforcement processes.

The charges reportedly include corruption, defeating the ends of justice and contraventions of legislation governing precious metals.

Public Interest SA acknowledges that these proceedings are unrelated to the complaint against Advocate Johnson and that Kadwa, Khan and their co-accused remain presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

Nevertheless, the circumstances raise legitimate questions concerning institutional safeguards, accountability and public confidence in the administration of sensitive corruption investigations.

“We are not suggesting that Major General Kadwa's criminal charges establish impropriety in the handling of our complaint, nor do we suggest that he personally made the DPP's decision. However, where a senior official facing serious criminal charges communicates the closure of another corruption investigation, the public is entitled to expect demonstrable safeguards against actual or perceived conflicts of interest,” Khaas said.

Public Interest SA believes that appropriate institutional oversight should establish whether the handling and closure of the investigation were insulated from any improper influence.

The organisation will seek clarification on the safeguards applicable to the handling of its complaint and whether any additional independent review is warranted.

LPC confirms Advocate Johnson failed to respond to complaint

Meanwhile, the separate professional disciplinary process before the Legal Practice Council continues.

In correspondence dated 12 September 2026, the LPC confirmed that Public Interest SA's complaint against Advocate Johnson was being investigated in accordance with Sections 35 to 44 of the Legal Practice Act.

Advocate Johnson was afforded until 5 October 2026 to submit her initial response.

In subsequent communication, LPC spokesperson Kabelo Letebele advised that, following enquiries with the Gauteng Disciplinary Department, Advocate Johnson had not submitted any response or representations.

The LPC is now preparing the complaint for consideration by an independent Investigating Committee, which will assess the available information and make recommendations concerning the appropriate next steps.

Public Interest SA welcomes the continued progression of this process and expects that it will be conducted independently, expeditiously and in accordance with the applicable statutory procedures.

The organisation stresses that Advocate Johnson's failure to respond does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or a finding of professional misconduct.

Accountability requires institutional consistency

Public Interest SA reiterates that the criminal complaint before the DPCI and the professional misconduct complaint before the LPC are separate processes governed by different legislative frameworks.

The closure of the criminal investigation does not dispose of the LPC complaint. Equally, the progression of the disciplinary complaint does not establish criminal culpability.

However, both processes raise broader questions about the effectiveness, consistency and credibility of institutional accountability mechanisms, particularly where allegations concern persons who have occupied senior positions within South Africa's anti-corruption architecture.

“Those entrusted with combating corruption must themselves remain subject to scrutiny through lawful and independent processes. Accountability cannot depend on institutional rank, influence or proximity to power,” Khaas said.

Public Interest SA will await the NDPP's response to its representations while continuing to monitor developments before the LPC.

“Our objective is neither persecution nor predetermined outcomes. We seek a credible investigation, a legally defensible decision and the assurance that allegations of corruption have not been prematurely abandoned. The integrity of our criminal justice system demands nothing less,” Khaas concluded.

ENDS

ISSUED BY PUBLIC INTEREST SA

Media enquiries: Email: media@publicinterest.org.za | Tel: +27 10 005 5884