Expert Urges Scrap of IDAC, Calls for Independent Anti-Corruption Body
South Africa’s anti-corruption agency, the Investigative Directorate on Intelligence (IDAC), faces mounting calls for its dismantling after a senior official’s arrest reignited debates over its independence and effectiveness, according to experts and government statements.
Andrea Johnson, head of IDAC, was arrested on Tuesday by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on charges of corruption. The arrest follows a prolonged dispute between IDAC and Crime Intelligence (CI), which has accused the agency of operating without proper oversight and undermining state security.
The conflict escalated last month when Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, head of Crime Intelligence, declared a "state of war" between the two agencies, alleging that IDAC had been infiltrated by foreign agents and was conducting unauthorized surveillance. Mkhwanazi’s remarks, reported by News24 and eNCA, came after IDAC launched an investigation into alleged corruption within Crime Intelligence, including the misuse of state resources.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has condemned the rift, calling for an immediate resolution to avoid further destabilization of South Africa’s justice system. In a statement released on Wednesday, Ramaphosa urged both agencies to "cease hostilities" and cooperate under the supervision of the National Security Council. However, tensions remain high, with Johnson still in custody pending further legal proceedings.
Why is IDAC under fire?
The agency’s mandate—rooting out corruption in state intelligence—has long been controversial. Critics, including former public protector Thuli Madonsela, have argued that IDAC lacks transparency and operates with excessive secrecy. The current crisis stems from two key disputes:
-
Alleged foreign interference: Crime Intelligence has accused IDAC of collaborating with unnamed foreign entities, a claim Johnson has denied. Daily Maverick reported that IDAC’s investigations into CI’s operations uncovered evidence of "unauthorized foreign funding," though no specific countries or amounts have been disclosed.
-
Lack of accountability: IDAC has faced repeated criticism for failing to prosecute high-profile corruption cases, including those involving senior officials. A 2022 audit by the Public Protector found that only 12% of IDAC’s investigations resulted in convictions, raising questions about its operational effectiveness.
What happens next?
The NPA has not yet announced whether it will proceed with charges against Johnson, but her arrest has already triggered a review of IDAC’s structure. Legal experts suggest the agency may be restructured or placed under direct oversight, a move that would strip it of its current autonomy.
Meanwhile, Crime Intelligence has suspended all cooperation with IDAC, citing "security risks." The agency’s defiance comes as Ramaphosa’s administration grapples with a broader policing crisis, including rising crime rates and public distrust in law enforcement.
How does this compare to past reforms?
This is not the first time South Africa’s anti-corruption bodies have faced scrutiny. In 2016, then-President Jacob Zuma dissolved the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) after its head, Shaun Abrahams, resisted political interference. The move was widely condemned as an attempt to weaken the justice system.
Unlike that episode, however, this conflict involves two state intelligence agencies in a direct confrontation, raising concerns about institutional stability. Analysts warn that if unresolved, the dispute could further erode public confidence in South Africa’s governance structures.
Institutional silence persists
As of Thursday, neither IDAC nor Crime Intelligence has issued a public statement on the next steps. The National Security Council, tasked with mediating the dispute, has not confirmed whether emergency meetings have been scheduled.
The arrest of Johnson and the ongoing standoff highlight deeper structural weaknesses in South Africa’s fight against corruption—a battle that has yet to yield decisive results.