The latest court filings lodged with the Madlanga Commission have thrust Julius Malema once again into the nation’s political spotlight, this time over alleged collusion with Crime Intelligence head Maj‑Gen Feroz Khan. An affidavit submitted by commission investigator Tshepo Nyatlo claims Khan enlisted the EFF leader’s assistance in a covert 2021 drive to unseat then Inspector‑General of Intelligence Isaac Dintwe. According to the sworn document, Khan used an intermediary to feed the EFF a series of parliamentary questions designed, we are told, to corner Dintwe and undermine his authority.
The affidavit further alleges that Khan passed highly sensitive police intelligence to Malema, including the identity and home address of a complainant linked to the VBS Mutual Bank scandal. If proven, such a breach would represent a serious violation of confidentiality protocols and raise profound questions about the integrity of South Africa’s security institutions. Khan is due in court on 1 July, an appearance expected to dominate headlines and perhaps provide the first public glimpse of the alleged quid pro quo between political power and state intelligence.
Our sources indicate that the documents submitted to the Madlanga Commission paint a picture of a relationship that stretches back to the early days of the African National Congress, when both men were reportedly acquaintances. Malema has consistently described Khan as a “long‑time friend” from those formative years and has flatly denied any misuse of state resources. Nevertheless, the fresh allegations have rekindled public debate about the extent to which political actors may be leveraging intelligence agencies for partisan gain—a concern that has haunted the country since the fall of the Zuma administration.
Behind the courtroom drama lies a broader narrative about the intertwining of South Africa’s political and security spheres. The VBS scandal, which exposed massive looting of a community bank in the Eastern Cape, already implicated senior politicians and senior civil servants. The alleged disclosure of a complainant’s personal details to a political figure adds a new layer of intrigue, suggesting that intelligence could be weaponised to silence or intimidate whistle‑blowers. If the claims are substantiated, they could trigger a cascade of disciplinary actions across multiple government departments.
The Madlanga Commission, convened by President Cyril Ramaphosa in July 2021, was tasked with investigating the alleged interference by the Presidency and other actors in the operations of the State Security Agency. While the inquiry has already produced a series of damning reports, the latest revelations about Malema and Khan could expand its remit, prompting a fresh look at how intelligence agencies interact with opposition parties. Our newsroom has been following the commission’s proceedings closely, noting that previous testimonies have already led to resignations and criminal charges for several officials.
Legal experts we consulted warn that the affidavit’s claims remain untested in a court of law, and that any conclusions drawn at this stage would be premature. “The burden of proof lies with the commission,” one analyst explained, “and they must establish a clear chain of causality between the alleged questions asked in Parliament and any direct action taken against Dintwe.” The investigative team, however, appears confident that the documentation in their possession can substantiate the narrative of a coordinated effort to destabilise the intelligence chief’s tenure.
Political reactions have been swift. The EFF’s national spokesperson dismissed the allegations as “political theatrics” designed to smear the party’s leader ahead of the upcoming municipal elections. Conversely, the Democratic Alliance called for an “immediate, independent forensic audit of all communications between the Crime Intelligence Directorate and any elected officials.” The ANC, meanwhile, has walked a fine line, urging due process while hinting that the revelations could expose deeper fissures within the ruling coalition.
Public sentiment reflects a blend of fatigue and curiosity. South Africans, still reeling from the economic fallout of the pandemic and grappling with a cost‑of‑living crisis, have grown wary of political scandals that appear to distract from pressing socio‑economic issues. Yet the prospect of high‑profile figures potentially abusing state intelligence resources has sparked vigorous debate on social media platforms, with many users demanding transparency and accountability from both the commission and the implicated individuals.
As we continue to monitor the Madlanga Commission’s schedule, the upcoming testimony of Maj‑Gen Feroz Khan stands out as a pivotal moment. Witnesses will be given the opportunity to address the specific allegations outlined in Nyatlo’s affidavit, including the alleged supply of parliamentary questions and the purported sharing of confidential police data. The commission’s chair, Justice Thomas Madlanga, has underscored his commitment to a thorough and impartial investigation, promising that any findings of misconduct will be reported to the appropriate prosecutorial bodies.
Whether the court papers will ultimately lead to formal charges against Julius Malema or Maj‑Gen Feroz Khan remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the saga underscores lingering concerns about the health of South Africa’s democratic institutions and the clarity of boundaries between political actors and the intelligence community. As SA Report follows the developments, we will keep our readers informed of each twist, ensuring that the story is told with the depth, accuracy and local insight that our audience expects.