IDAC Crisis Demands a Reset of the Criminal Justice System

Dr. Pingla Udit

In an article published two years ago (https://iol.co.za/news/politics/opinion/2024-07-07-ethical-conduct-the-key-to-restoring-citizens-confidence/), I argued that a revamped anti-graft agency “must be free from political interference.” 

Its focus was the adoption of a comprehensive approach to combating white-collar crime and prosecuting corruption and related offences. A suite of progressive policies, strategies and programmes to fight crime and corruption had been put in place to create safety and security for all South Africans.

Yet all that good work was derailed by weak governance, the collapse of criminal cases, corruption and malfeasance.

The Zondo Commission of Inquiry (2018-2022) recommended the establishment of a standing anti-state capture and anti-corruption agency. Subsequently, the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2020–2030 was developed. 

Arising from Lt-Gen. KZN Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's explosive media briefing in July 2025, a judicial inquiry, the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry, was established to “investigate systemic criminality, political interference, and corruption within the criminal justice system.” Its key focus areas are criminal syndicates, political interference and institutional accountability. 

Recent evidence before the Commission implicates both the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), a unit in the National Prosecuting Authority embroiled in corrupt criminal activities.

A strategic reflection is now necessary in the Criminal justice system’s efforts to fight crime and corruption within the ambit of the Constitution.

On 27 June 2024, the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) was signed into law under the National Prosecuting Authority, Amendment Act 10 of 2024. IDAC was granted wide-ranging powers and resources to combat corruption, with a judge providing oversight. The powers and functions of IDAC (Cf. Chapter 5 of the NPA Act).

The mandate of IDAC is Commissions and Referrals, Statutory and Common Law Offences and Prosecutor-Led Investigations. Referrals to the Investigating Directorate (ID) are as follows:

Any person may report a matter to the head of the ID by means of an affidavit (s27) and the Director, in the absence of a Case Assessment Report (CAR), may authorize an investigation into the matter if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed (s28(2); and whether if the offence is a specified crime, which is defined in the NPA Act. 

Evidence presented at the Commission reveals there was an abuse of power in the use of a Referral by the Head of IDAC, when an affidavit was solicited after the fact.  

The Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) and IDAC are specialised units within the NPA, tasked with high-level economic crime, state capture and corruption. The AFU operates under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA) to litigate and seize assets identified as the proceeds or rewards of criminal behaviour.

The AFU has recorded major recoveries and forfeitures on high - profile cases. Whereas IDAC matters authorised, under investigation, enrolled or criminal matters terminated before enrolment or matters finalised, the number of convictions, acquittals or persons before court is under the radar.  

IDAC appointed a team of prosecutors, forensic experts and analysts, and recruited criminal investigators with full police powers. People were brought together to work under different disciplines, policies, and authorities within IDAC.

The shortcomings were laid bare at the current judicial inquiry by key witnesses. It was apparent that there was an abuse of power allocated to certain high-ranking officials both at SAPS and IDAC. 

This raises the question of what guardrails were absent that allowed IDAC to deviate from a multitude of high-profile corruption cases and instead became entangled in assumptions about human-resource and vetting matters; and in the handling of unverified documents without consultation with the relevant institutions and agencies. What was the intention of IDAC in prosecuting individuals on a matter that could not be classified as a crime? 

Professional rigour in processing documentation as a head of a portfolio or as the legal representative of an institution requires scrutiny before any document is signed off or presented to a commission of inquiry.

Anything less reflects incompetence, tardiness and mediocrity. A resignation is not the solution to avoid self-incrimination, as there are constitutional obligations. When legal professionals enter government service, it does not automatically follow that they are trained for management. 

The intentional deviations that surfaced at the Commission flag the urgent need for standard operating procedures and oversight. Since IDAC's establishment, there was a delay in the appointment of the oversight judge, being realised only in mid-July 2026.

Every criminal justice institution should provide training in leadership principles, ethics, good governance and the rule of law. Knowledge of ethics and good-governance practice is the starting point and should be continuous. 

Governance training is as imperative as training in law, policing, intelligence, human rights, digital technology, forensic evidence and artificial intelligence. Facts, evidence, investigative capacity, truth, justice and the law must be the guiding principles.

IDAC is a relatively new entity, having been effectively legislated in June 2024. The IDAC cases are complex, require specialist skills, and come at a great cost to the Authority.

Yet, in less than two years, poor recruitment of people in leadership positions and inadequate preparation have led to the collapse of criminal cases. Further, the lack of political leadership in the context of the fight against organised crime, has resulted in blurred lines of accountability between IDAC and the NPA.

There are huge backlogs in the criminal justice system, which is the culture of the work environment and flaws in lengthy recruitment processes. This is further aggravated by the culture of fear, with prosecutors being hampered in doing their professional work. The appointment of the National Director of Public Prosecutions changes, but the narrative remains the same,  as political interference keeps on escalating. 

What is required is a reset of the entire criminal justice system across jurisdictions, adequately resourced so that cases can be addressed timeously, with professionalism and fairness in prosecution, to restore public confidence.

In tandem with this, recently the South African Police Service has unveiled a reset and implementation of their reform agenda. Weaknesses among SAPS generals were exposed at the judicial inquiry and necessitate a rigorous recruitment process that prioritises highly qualified, ethical individuals of integrity to confront criminal syndicates, drug cartels, crime and corruption.

The top-heavy managerial structure of the SAPS necessitates a review. The SAPS needs to move with technological advancement and recruit staff who are tech-savvy, given that fraudulent activities are computer-generated. Training for officials should include forensic accounting, investigative techniques and artificial intelligence so that the organisation is better equipped to address safety and human security concerns. 

A reset of IDAC is equally essential to align and collaborate with the current new police reset agenda to reform the criminal justice sector.

A Coordinated Review of the multiple institutions in the criminal justice sector is necessary to address the challenges in their respective working practices. 

As stated in the article published two years ago, the unit should be an independent institution with parliamentary oversight. Only then can it thwart deflection from accountability and address the long-standing perceptions of political interference in the NPA. 

A briefing statement by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development on 30 July 2026 made good progress in addressing the crisis at IDAC. The announcement highlighted a comprehensive reset, rebranding and repositioning to enhance effectiveness at IDAC, in order to restore institutional stability, operational effectiveness and public confidence. 

Ultimately, the success of the criminal justice sector will be measured not in its statutory powers alone, but in its ability to demand courageous leadership, commitment, institutional independence, ethical conduct, professional excellence and unwavering accountability across every level of government.

The hallmark of the criminal justice system will be an ability to investigate and prosecute organised crime and corruption without fear, favour or prejudice, while consistently upholding the rule of law and constitutional democracy.

* Dr. Pingla Udit is a Strategy Analyst: Human Rights and Conflict Resolution. 

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