Intelligence Wars Harming SA's National Security

Dr. Reneva Fourie

The suspension of Inspector-General of Intelligence Imtiaz Fazel by President Cyril Ramaphosa on 15 October 2025 has unsettled the national conscience.

The decision has generated a wave of speculation and concern. It comes at a sensitive moment when both the Madlanga Commission and Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee are examining allegations of irregularities in the security sector and criminal justice system. These concurrent developments have deepened public apprehension about the health of South Africa’s security institutions and the role of the Presidency in the oversight of intelligence.

An effective and functional intelligence service is central to the stability, sovereignty, and integrity of any democratic state. It forms the invisible backbone of national security. Its task is to anticipate risks before they become crises, allowing the government to act with foresight rather than with haste. When properly managed, it strengthens not only the state but the entire society, creating conditions in which peace, order, and development can thrive.

A key contributor to this architecture is the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence. It exists to ensure that the intelligence services act lawfully, ethically, and in the national interest. Its work goes beyond monitoring misconduct.

It instils a culture of professionalism and accountability within institutions that, by their very nature, must operate in secrecy. The Inspector-General’s independence gives citizens confidence that the enormous powers vested in the intelligence services will not be misused. Mr Fazel’s suspension has therefore stirred unease about whether this independence is still intact.

The state of the intelligence community has been a matter of concern for a few years. The 2018 High-Level Review Panel, chaired by Dr Sydney Mufamadi, presented an unflinching assessment of the State Security Agency. It found that the agency had been politicised and factionalised to serve partisan interests.

Intelligence resources were misused to influence internal party contests, while financial abuses and unauthorised surveillance corroded professionalism. The result was a hollowed-out agency marked by outdated infrastructure, chronic resource shortages, and low morale.

The consequences of these weaknesses have been visible in the state’s inability to anticipate and respond to major crises. The failure to manage the July 2021 unrest remains one of the most striking examples. Fragmented coordination within the National Intelligence Coordination Committee left the state exposed.

The same weaknesses have been evident in the country’s slow response to cyber threats. Accenture's 2024 report reveals South Africa is the third most targeted country for cyberattacks, with approximately 577 incidents per hour. Organised crime networks have expanded their influence through illegal mining, extortion, and trafficking. 

Transnational risks also loom large.

The instability in northern Mozambique, where extremist groups continue to operate, demands constant monitoring. So does the growing presence of foreign intelligence interests competing for influence across the African continent. South Africa’s role within BRICS, the African Union, and intervention at the International Court of Justice to end the genocide in Gaza makes it an important target for geopolitical manoeuvring. A strong and principled intelligence capability is vital for navigating this environment.

In 2025, partial reforms began to take shape. The General Intelligence Laws Amendment Act, signed in March, formally redivided the State Security Agency into domestic and foreign branches.

This reform aims to clarify mandates and prevent the misuse of resources. Minister in the Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, has assured Parliament that the new structures will operate free from political interference. Yet implementation has been uneven, and scepticism persists.

Much of the concern centres on the location of the intelligence services within the Presidency. While it is common practice in many countries, this arrangement concentrates authority within the executive, making it difficult to separate the interests of the state from the interests of those who hold political office.

This places extraordinary pressure on the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and the Office of the Inspector-General to act as counterbalances to prevent exploitation by partisan agendas and enforce democratic checks and balances. 

Concern about the sudden suspension of Mr Fazel, therefore, is justified. Appointed in 2022 to rebuild integrity and oversight after a period of dysfunction, his role has been central to restoring confidence in the intelligence sector.

His removal, during a period of inquiry into political interference and institutional abuse, reinforces a perception of instability that weakens an already fragile accountability system. It also creates uncertainty among the professional officers who depend on stable leadership and clear guidance to perform their duties effectively.

The stakes are high because the threats facing South Africa continue to evolve. Transnational organised crime, cyber insecurity, and recurring social unrest require an intelligence community that is efficient, ethical, and united in purpose.

The gravest danger lies not in external enemies but in internal decay and corrosion of capacity. Yet even in this moment of uncertainty, there remains room for optimism. South Africa possesses the institutional frameworks and the democratic resilience to rebuild.

The findings of the High-Level Review Panel and the Zondo Commission already provide a clear foundation for reform. Furthermore, while the National Intelligence Coordinating Committee could be based in the Presidency so that its authority could be leveraged to ensure better coordination between the services, the general state security functions might be better placed as stand-alone departments accountable to Parliament through a dedicated ministry.

The Office of the Inspector-General should be constitutionally protected and its budget secured to prevent manipulation through financial pressure. Efforts to strengthen oversight mechanisms should be expedited to ensure that the intelligence services serve the nation rather than any political interests.

Rebuilding integrity within the intelligence sector is a moral undertaking that demands leadership and a commitment to democratic values. Intelligence professionals must view themselves as custodians of the Republic, guided by the Constitution and ethical standards.

Political leaders need to respect the impartiality of intelligence work, while civil society and the media should demand transparency and accountability. The suspension of the Inspector-General raises concerns but also offers an opportunity for national dialogue on intelligence governance. This turbulent period should inspire action towards transparency and professionalism, emphasising that security relies on trust, not just secrecy.

* Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development, and security.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.