IDAC’s failures demand reform, not abolition
South Africa needs IDAC’s specialist anti-corruption capability, but the institution must be repaired and strengthened.
Madlanga Commission testimony on South Africa’s Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) raises questions about the lawful use of investigative powers, adherence to statutory mandate, internal controls and some senior officials’ judgement. These are serious concerns, but do not warrant closing an important anti-corruption institution.
The controversy concerns IDAC’s investigation into police Crime Intelligence Head, Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo, and others. Former IDAC head Andrea Johnson said IDAC erred in deciding the matter fell within its legal mandate. The investigation’s evidential basis was also questioned, and Johnson has since resigned. The commission also heard about weaknesses in IDAC’s control over which investigations were authorised.
The commission has yet to confirm that wrongdoing occurred, but enough has emerged to sound alarm bells about IDAC’s management. If officials abused their authority, acted outside their mandate, or engaged in criminal wrongdoing, there must be consequences.
But what follows for IDAC as an institution?
Some say it is beyond repair. The uMkhonto weSizwe Party has submitted a bill seeking to dismantle the directorate, and the Democratic Alliance described IDAC as ‘fatally tainted’, renewing its call for an independent anti-corruption commission. Accountability Now’s Paul Hoffman has long argued for a constitutionally entrenched Chapter 9 anti-corruption body, and says IDAC was ‘built to fail.’
There is a familiar warning in the history of the ‘Scorpions’, which was closed and its expertise lost
These arguments deserve consideration. IDAC sits within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) whose institutional independence remains incomplete. While prosecutors are required to act without fear, favour or prejudice, the NPA remains dependent on the justice department for important aspects of its budget, administration and operational support. IDAC’s permanent status did not resolve these concerns, nor those relating to senior appointments and accountability.
Three different issues are becoming conflated in the debate: the conduct of individuals in IDAC; weaknesses in its governance, oversight and internal controls; and whether South Africa needs a specialist capability to investigate and prosecute serious corruption. Failures on the first two don’t make the third unnecessary.
Graft in South Africa remains acute and is becoming harder to investigate as it involves complex financial transactions, digital evidence, corporate structures spanning international borders, professional facilitators and big data. Trials require investigators, prosecutors, forensic accountants, financial analysts and digital specialists working together.
The country is struggling to confront the intersection of organised crime, corruption, procurement fraud and the penetration of law enforcement bodies. The IDAC debate should be part of a discussion about how to tackle complex crime using existing capabilities, while remaining open to institutional reform.
IDAC’s establishment as a permanent entity in 2024 reflected the need for a dedicated, multidisciplinary capability to address complex corruption. Its predecessor, the Investigating Directorate, could be abolished by presidential proclamation and depended on seconded investigators. IDAC can build and retain its own capability; dismantling it would destroy much of the capacity South Africa has spent years building.
Criminal justice researcher Jean Redpath concurs, saying handing IDAC’s responsibilities to the police’s Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the ‘Hawks’) wouldn’t solve the problem. The Hawks don’t replicate IDAC’s prosecution-led multidisciplinary model, face institutional and capacity constraints, and have also come under scrutiny at the Madlanga Commission.
The lesson is that we underestimated the risks of granting a young institution investigative powers
There is a familiar warning in the history of the ‘Scorpions’ – the Directorate of Special Operations – a specialised, multidisciplinary, prosecution-led institution. The 2005 Khampepe Commission raised concerns about their conduct, intelligence gathering, oversight and relationship with the police, but concluded that the Scorpions were needed and should remain in the NPA.
Instead, the unit was shut down. Its replacement, the Hawks, failed to meet the Constitutional Court’s test for adequate independence and required legislative repair. The Scorpions’ expertise was lost, and South Africa spent years reconstructing investigative capacity inside the NPA. IDAC is partly the product of this.
This costly cycle should not be repeated. Rather than dismantle IDAC, justice minister Mmamoloko Kubayi and NPA head Andy Mothibi have embarked on a six-month ‘reset’ – including reviews of staff competence and case-intake criteria, lifestyle and case audits, and revised standard operating procedures.
The independent Office of the IDAC Oversight Judge began operations on 10 July. It can investigate complaints of improper conduct, violations of rights or abuse of powers by IDAC officials, and IDAC investigators can raise concerns about political interference or improper influence.
None of this obscures the seriousness of what has gone wrong. But it offers an opportunity to ascertain what failed, hold wrongdoers accountable and rebuild IDAC around stronger controls. It should also feed into wider NPA Act reform, including appointments, tenure and the NPA’s financial and operational independence.
Strengthening accountability does not mean giving the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) greater control over IDAC cases. IDAC’s senior prosecutors need to make decisions on cases without inappropriate interference. But that does not mean an absence of management accountability.
SA has spent too much time establishing, weakening, dismantling and recreating criminal justice capacity
The NDPP and NPA leadership should be able to assess IDAC’s overall performance, case progress, use of resources and adherence to its mandate without becoming involved in prosecutorial decisions. IDAC also has internal safeguards. Its Operations Manual covers case intake and assessment, and difficult cases can be tested through external advisory panels.
Madlanga evidence suggests the problem may be less an absence of systems than the inconsistent application of existing safeguards. The reset should examine not only what additional controls are needed, but why those in place did not work.
The Madlanga lesson should not be that a specialist prosecution-led anti-corruption institution was a mistake. Rather, we underestimated the governance risks of granting a young institution investigative powers while its leadership and accountability arrangements were vulnerable.
Independence must be carefully calibrated with accountability. IDAC must be protected from political interference, but its considerable investigative powers must be exercised within the law and subject to effective oversight.
South Africa has spent too much of its democratic era establishing, weakening, dismantling and recreating criminal justice capacity. When individuals fail, we must hold them accountable. When governance fails, it must be repaired. When legislation is deficient, it must be changed.
But we must not destroy scarce institutional capability unless there is compelling evidence that the institution itself is incapable of repair. IDAC has not yet reached that point.
For permission to re-publish ISS Today articles, please email us. In South Africa, News24 has exclusive rights to republish ISS Today articles. In Nigeria, Premium Times has exclusive rights to republish ISS Today articles.
