Madlanga Commission | IDAC head Andrea Johnson expected to testify

[00:00:00]The investigative directorate against corruption head advocate Andrea Johnson is expected to take the stand at the Midlunga Commission of Inquiry this morning. Johnson, who was due to testify last Monday, was unable to appear after being rushed to hospital ahead of her scheduled testimony. She has been implicated by several witnesses who alleged that she interfered in investigations and defeated the ends of justice in a matter involving suspended crime intelligence deputy head Major General Firos Khan. For more on that story, we cross live to SBC News journalist Kenny Mapanga. Uh Kenny, good morning to you.

[00:00:39]>> Good morning to you, Leanne and to the viewers once again. Well, it has been confirmed now by the Madan Commission that the wheels are set in motion for Advocate Andrea Johnson to take the stand at 9:30 a.m. this morning. Now, in the previous hour, we did speak about her past conduct and how that could possibly come up in terms of what we're seeing now take place here at IDAK. when she was scheduled to appear uh last week and couldn't appear after the fact that she was rushed to hospital. What then took place is that a senior IDACK investigator that is Brian Pariachi took the stand and I think it was beneficial for him to start because that evidence went into the operational methods of IDAC and the flaws in some of its cases namely the case that is the appointment of Brigadier Mule and how that is being seen as a tool uh in that particular factional war that really centers around crime intelligence but also includes other highranking SAPs generals and how then IDAC finds himself or rather itself in that particular battle which seems to always have a route that allegedly starts with major general far Khan. Now it's going to be quite uh interesting to see whether or not the Madara Commission connects the past conduct of advocate on Johnson with the current events playing out at IDAC and the kind of alleged battle for the control of crime intelligence that it points to. Is this a situation where there is alleged selective justice? Could it have been some simple errors as this is a new unit rather finding its ground? Or was this allegedly another instance of this particular unit under the watch of advocate Andrea Johnson allegedly shielding or furthering the alleged interests of Major General Faras Khan.

[00:02:24]That is what the commission has to get to the bottom of when she takes the stand because at the very least that particular investigation has a lot of flaws. Not only did it not meet the requirements of the section 27 referral, but it seems that upon further scrutiny that charges were just allegedly being manufactured against uh the accused in the matter and you actually can't see or point to the alleged criminal conduct that the particular investigator advanced that is fraud and corruption.

[00:02:53]But Brian Padiachi made it a point lean to place the issue of the charges and how they formulated at the doorstep of the executive. The implication there is that he's referring to IDAK head advocate Johnson as well as the committee or the team that helps her decide or how they decide what is going to be the charges here and how they're going to proceed with an investigation.

[00:03:16]Now there's going to be very tough questions because this will would have happened under her watch and we do know that the complaint itself whether you look at the referral affidavit or the A1 statement itself by FIL Adams it didn't really meet the kind of section 27 requirements uh as expected by the act but on top of that you can't really find where the material in the docket exists to give credence to the charges that were formulated about that case. So, the question then becomes whether or not this was part of the alleged fight back or was this a legitimate pursuit of justice. We'll find out at 9:30 a.m.