Key Takeaways
- Court documents filed with the Madlanga Commission allege a covert partnership between EFF leader Julius Malema and Crime Intelligence boss Feroz Khan.
- The affidavit claims Khan enlisted Malema’s help in 2021 to undermine then‑Inspector‑General of Intelligence Isaac Dintwe by supplying parliamentary questions designed to trap him.
- Khan is also accused of sharing confidential police information—including the identity and home address of a complainant in the VBS Mutual Bank scandal—with Malema during the same period.
- Malema has publicly described Khan as a longtime ANC acquaintance and denied any wrongdoing, insisting their relationship is purely personal.
- No court has yet tested the allegations, and no findings have been made against either man.
- The revelations increase pressure on Khan ahead of his scheduled July 1 appearance before the Madlanga Commission, which has reserved multiple days for his testimony.
Background of the Allegations
The recent flurry of media attention stems from an affidavit submitted by Tshepo Nyatlo, an investigator for the Madlanga Commission, which is probing alleged misconduct within South Africa’s crime‑intelligence and law‑enforcement structures. Nyatlo’s sworn statement, filed as part of the commission’s ongoing inquiry, details a purported clandestine collaboration between Julius Malema, the fiery leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and Feroz Khan, the head of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (often referred to as Crime Intelligence). According to the affidavit, the relationship dates back to their shared history in the African National Congress (ANC) but allegedly evolved into a cooperative effort aimed at influencing high‑level state decisions. The commission’s mandate to examine possible abuses of power within intelligence agencies makes these claims particularly salient, as they suggest a blending of political activism with covert state operations.
Details from the Affidavit
Nyatlo’s affidavit specifies that the alleged scheme unfolded in 2021, a year marked by heightened scrutiny of the Office of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence (IGI). At that time, Isaac Dintwe held the post of Inspector‑General, tasked with overseeing the legality and efficacy of intelligence activities. The affidavit contends that Khan, seeking to weaken Dintwe’s position, approached Malema for political assistance. Through an unnamed intermediary, Khan reportedly provided Malema with a set of pointed questions intended for use in parliamentary sessions. The alleged purpose of these questions was to ensnare Dintwe in contradictory statements or to expose perceived inadequacies in his oversight, thereby eroding his credibility and creating a pretext for his removal. The affidavit frames this as a coordinated effort to manipulate parliamentary proceedings for an intelligence‑policy objective.
Nature of the Alleged Scheme
The core of the alleged plot, as outlined in Nyatlo’s testimony, revolves around the strategic use of parliamentary question‑time as a weapon against a senior intelligence watchdog. By feeding Malema specially crafted queries, Khan allegedly hoped to force Dintwe into a defensive stance, potentially revealing procedural missteps or prompting public criticism that could justify his dismissal. Such a tactic would exploit the opposition’s parliamentary platform to achieve an executive‑branch goal without overtly invoking formal removal procedures. The affidavit suggests that the questions were not merely routine oversight inquiries but were calibrated to trap Dintwe, indicating a deliberate attempt to undermine his authority through political channels rather than through established internal accountability mechanisms.
Exchange of Sensitive Information
Beyond the parliamentary maneuvering, the affidavit alleges a reciprocal flow of confidential data from Khan to Malema. Specifically, Khan is said to have disclosed sensitive police information linked to the VBS Mutual Bank scandal—a high‑profile financial fraud case that has implicated numerous politicians and business figures. The shared details reportedly included the identity and residential address of a complainant who had lodged a criminal complaint against individuals connected to the VBS affair. Providing such personal data raises serious concerns about privacy violations and the potential misuse of state intelligence for political leverage. If proven, this exchange would represent a breach of the legal safeguards governing the handling of confidential investigative material and could constitute an offence under South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) and related statutes.
Political Reactions and Denials
Julius Malema has responded to the allegations by characterizing his relationship with Feroz Khan as a longstanding personal friendship rooted in their ANC activism, insisting that no improper conduct has taken place. In public statements, Malema has denied any involvement in schemes to remove Dintwe or to exploit confidential police data, framing the accusations as politically motivated attempts to tarnish his reputation. Conversely, Khan has not issued a detailed public rebuttal, though his legal representatives have previously emphasized his commitment to upholding the integrity of crime‑intelligence operations. The lack of a judicial finding means that, at present, the claims remain unverified allegations; however, the timing of the affidavit’s release—just weeks before Khan’s scheduled testimony—has intensified public and media scrutiny over both figures.
Implications and Ongoing Inquiry
The revelations have significant implications for the Madlanga Commission’s work, as they suggest possible collusion between political actors and senior intelligence officials that could compromise the independence of oversight bodies. Should the commission substantiate the claims, it may recommend reforms to strengthen safeguards against the politicization of intelligence, enhance protections for whistle‑blowers, and tighten controls over the dissemination of sensitive information. The inquiry has already reserved multiple days for Khan’s testimony on July 1, indicating the gravity with which the panel treats the matter. As the proceedings unfold, the commission will need to weigh the affidavit’s assertions against corroborating evidence, witness testimonies, and documentary records to determine whether any misconduct occurred. Regardless of the eventual outcome, the case underscores the persistent tension between political advocacy and state security institutions in South Africa’s democratic landscape.