Madlanga Commission questions ‘Scheme’ to embarrass and remove SAPS boss Fannie Masemola
The Commissioners repeatedly questioned the legal basis for charging suspended South African Police Service (SAPS) boss Lieutenant General Fannie Masemola alongside individuals accused of corruption and fraud.
The Commission’s questioning made it clear that this remains one of the key issues under scrutiny.”General (Fannie) Masemola ought not to have been lumped together with all these people charged with fraud and corruption.
It was meant to embarrass him and make the public think that he was also corrupt. He has suffered prejudice.
These were the words of Madlanga Commission Chairperson and retired judge Mbuyiseni Madlanga.
Those remarks reflect the Chair’s view during the Commission’s proceedings on Wednesday, when the Commission was grilling Johnson over the arrest of Masemola.
Their central question was: what was the legal basis for joining General Masemola with all the people charged with corruption and fraud?
Whether General Masemola pursues any civil action is ultimately a decision for him and his legal advisers.Commissioner Sesi Baloyi stated: “There was no good faith. This was simply a scheme to have General Masemola arrested, brought before a court with all the spectacle that comes with it, so that he could be removed from office. Once that happened, the objective would have been achieved.”
Johnson maintained before the Madlanga Commission that the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) had sufficient evidence to charge Masemola.
Johnson said the Section 27 referral by Major General Charity Matlala Matlou alleged that Masemola failed to act, or took too long, to cancel the Medicare24 contract after concerns about the procurement were brought to his attention.
Commissioner Sandile Khumalo noted that Matlou’s referral does not allege that Masemola delayed cancelling the contract.Commissioner Baloyi questioned the basis of the charge sheet, noting that it contains no allegations of corruption and is limited to statutory Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) contraventions.
Baloyi said the charge sheet creates the impression that there was no genuine intention to prosecute Masemola, suggesting instead that it appeared designed to have him arrested or brought before court.
Madlanga put it to Johnson that, when the provisions of the PFMA are considered, Masemola should not have been lumped together with the other accused facing fraud and corruption charges.
Johnson accepted that proposition.
The chairperson then asked why Masemola was included as a co-accused if he was not being charged with fraud and corruption, suggesting that the decision created the impression that he was complicit in the alleged offences and may have been intended to embarrass and taint him.
Johnson agreed that Masemola should not have been joined as a co-accused but rejected the suggestion that the decision was made to embarrass him.
Masemola is accused of failing to prevent irregular and fruitless expenditure, failing to manage contractual liabilities, failing to stop the acceptance of orders from Medicare24 and the payment of invoices issued to the SAPS, failing to ensure Medicare24 Tshwane District was properly screened and that the business was tax-compliant, failing to take disciplinary steps against implicated officialsS.and suggested.
