Key Takeaways
- Fadiel Adams, a Member of Parliament facing fraud charges, has filed an application in the North Gauteng High Court asking the court to review and set aside the National Director of Public Prosecutions’ (NDPP) decision to withdraw criminal charges against suspended National Commissioner of Police General Fannie Masemola.
- The charges relate to alleged contraventions of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) surrounding a R360 million SAPS health‑care tender awarded to Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s company, Medicare 24 Tshwane District.
- Adams contends that the NDPP’s decision was irrational because evidence—including WhatsApp messages, affidavits from senior SAPS investigators, and a 370‑page forensic audit report—showed Masemola was aware of possible irregularities before the tender was awarded yet failed to act.
- He argues that timely intervention could have prevented approximately R38.16 million in irregular expenditure and that the NDPP’s conclusion that the evidence did not meet the prosecutorial threshold is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate to prosecute where a prima facie case exists.
- The application seeks a declaratory order that the NDPP’s decision is unlawful, an order to review and set it aside, and leave to supplement the grounds once the respondents provide the relevant record.
Background of the Application
Fadiel Adams, who is currently charged with fraud and defeating the administration of justice for allegedly misrepresenting the purpose of a visit to Westville Prison, launched the judicial review application in the Pretoria‑based North Gauteng High Court. The application names Andy Mothibi, in his capacity as National Director of Public Prosecutions, as the first respondent, and General Fannie Masemola, the suspended National Commissioner of Police, as the second respondent. Adams’ founding affidavit requests the court to declare the NDPP’s decision to withdraw charges against Masemola unlawful and inconsistent with the Constitution, and to order that the decision be reviewed and set aside.
The Underlying Tender Controversy
The matter stems from the R360 million SAPS health‑care tender awarded to Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s company, Medicare 24 Tshwane District. Masemola was initially charged with four counts of contravening Section 38 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), which imposes fiduciary duties on accounting officers to prevent irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure. Investigators alleged that irregularities in the procurement process led to at least R50 million being paid before the contract was cancelled in May 2025, prompting Masemola’s suspension for alleged failure to exercise adequate oversight.
NDPP’s Decision to Withdraw Charges
After a review, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) concluded that the evidence available did not meet the threshold required for a successful prosecution, leading to the withdrawal of the charges against Masemola. The NDPP’s decision was communicated formally, and the case was effectively closed pending any further developments. Adams contends that this conclusion was reached despite the existence of substantive evidence indicating a prima facie case of maladministration and possible criminal conduct.
Adams’ Argument Regarding Prima Facie Evidence
In his founding affidavit, Adams argues that the information available to the NDPP at the time of the decision demonstrated at least a prima facie case against Masemola. He asserts that a rational connection must exist between the evidence before the NDPP and the decision to stop the prosecution. According to Adams, the NDPP failed to consider critical documentation that showed Masemola had been alerted to possible irregularities before the tender was awarded, thereby undermining the legality of the withdrawal.
Evidence of Prior Knowledge and Communication
The affidavit details that an Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) investigator met Major General Fred Kekana in April 2026 and supplied information concerning alleged corruption, fraud, and manipulation of the medical services tender. This information, along with WhatsApp communications and affidavits from Major General Kekana and Major General Senobea Julie Hankins, was allegedly forwarded through senior SAPS officials to Masemola. Adams maintains that these documents, which formed part of the court docket available to the NDPP, clearly indicated that Masemola had received warnings about the tender process prior to its award.
Financial Impact and Forensic Audit Findings
Adams further emphasizes the financial consequences of Masemola’s alleged inaction, stating that had timely steps been taken when concerns were first raised, approximately R38.16 million in irregular expenditure could have been avoided. The affidavit cites specific payments: roughly R23 million in January 2026, R12 million in March 2026, and a further R1.6 million in April 2026. Masemola eventually signed a letter cancelling the contract in May 2026, more than a year after the alleged concerns were first communicated. The application also leans heavily on a 370‑page forensic investigation report that identified failures to investigate complaints about abuse of the SAPS supply‑chain management system and recommended actions such as contract cancellation, damage recovery, or supplier blacklisting.
Legal Basis for the Review
Adams grounds his request for review on the principle that the NDPP must act rationally and in accordance with the Constitution when deciding whether to prosecute. He argues that withdrawing charges in the face of evidence suggesting a prima facie case violates the NDPP’s constitutional mandate to prosecute where sufficient evidence exists. Consequently, he asks the High Court to set aside the NDPP’s decision, declare it unlawful, and order a review in terms of the Administrative Review Rules, reserving the right to amend his grounds once the respondents provide the full record.
Current Status and Future Proceedings
While the High Court application is pending, Adams continues to face his own criminal matters. He is scheduled to appear again in the Pinetown Regional Court on 16 October 2026 for a pre‑trial conference regarding his fraud and defeating the administration of justice charges. The outcome of the judicial review could have significant implications not only for Masemola’s potential reinstatement of charges but also for the broader accountability mechanisms governing senior officials in public procurement processes. The case remains a focal point of public interest concerning the interplay between political oversight, prosecutorial discretion, and the fight against corruption in South Africa.
