Court papers filed before the Madlanga Commission have thrown a harsh new light on the relationship between EFF leader Julius Malema and Crime Intelligence boss Feroz Khan, with fresh allegations claiming the two worked quietly together to push a senior intelligence watchdog out of his job while trading sensitive state information. The claims, still untested, place the Julius Malema and Feroz Khan relationship squarely at the centre of one of the most scrutinised inquiries into South Africa’s intelligence structures.
The allegations surface in an affidavit by Tshepo Nyatlo, an investigator attached to the commission, which is probing misconduct within crime intelligence and broader law-enforcement bodies. For many South Africans already wary of how political muscle and state spycraft intersect, the papers raise an uncomfortable question about who really puls the strings behind certain decisions.
At the heart of the matter sits an alleged 2021 campaign to remove then Inspector-General of Intelligence Isaac Dintwe. According to the affidavit, Khan turned to Malema for help and, working through an intermediary, fed the EFF a set of questions to be raised in Parliament.
Investigators contend those questions were not innocent parliamentary oversight. They were allegedly crafted to corner Dintwe and chip away at his authority, effectively weaponising a public platform to serve a private agenda inside the intelligence community.
The court papers go further, alleging that Khan handed Malema confidential police information during the same window. That material reportedly tied back to a criminal complaint linked to the VBS Mutual Bank scandal and is said to have included the complainant’s identity and home address.
If accurate, the disclosure of a complainant’s personal details would mark a serious breach, the kind that could expose a witness to intimidation in a case that has already wrecked municipalities and savings across the country.
What the Julius Malema and Feroz Khan relationship allegations actually claim
To make sense of the affidavit, it helps to separate the two distinct allegations now in play and weigh them against what has been said publicly.
| Allegation | What the affidavit claims | Current status |
|---|---|---|
| Removal of the Inspector-General | Khan enlisted Malema’s help and supplied parliamentary questions designed to trap Isaac Dintwe | Untested, no findings made |
| Sharing of police information | Khan allegedly passed Malema confidential details on a VBS-linked complaint, including the complainant’s address | Untested, no findings made |
| Nature of the relationship | Investigators suggest active collaboration on sensitive maters | Malema describes it as a long-standing acquaintance |
The table lays bare the gap at the centre of this story: serious claims of coordinated action one side, and a far more innocent account on the other, with no court yet ruling on which version holds.
That contrast maters because it cuts against what Malema himself has said in public. The EFF leader has repeatedly cast Khan as nothing more than a longtime acquaintance from their shared ANC days, and he has denied any wrongdoing in their dealings.
It bears stating plainly that neither allegation has been tested in court, and no findings have been made against either man. An affidavit sets out an investigator’s version of events; it is not a verdict, and both Malema and Khan are entitled to challenge every claim.
Still, the timing is doing a lot of work here. The revelations land just as scrutiny tightens around Khan ahead of his scheduled appearance before the commission, with the inquiry having set aside several days for his testimony.
That allocation of time is teling. Commissions rarely reserve multiple days for a single witness unless they expect the evidence to be dense, contested, and consequential, which suggests this chapter is only starting to open.
For readers following the broader story, the affidavit reframes a relationship that has long been brushed off as old political friendship into something investigators believe may have shaped real decisions inside the state. Whether that belief survives cross-examination is the question now hanging over the commission.
What is clear is that the coming testimony will test both men’s accounts under far more pressure than a press statement ever could. South Africans have watched enough inquiries to know that the gap between an allegation and a finding can be wide, but they have also learned not to look away while it is being measured. The next few days of evidence may decide which version of the Julius Malema and Feroz Khan story the public is left believing.