Mantsha Raphesu, a senior investigator at the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, testified about an internal plot against him before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.
The testimony is significant because it corroborates claims made by prosecutor Drushantha Ramsamy regarding the legitimacy of a high-profile investigation. If an internal plot existed to manufacture charges, it could undermine the credibility of the state's anti-corruption efforts.
Raphesu appeared before the commission in Cape Town on Friday, July 26 [2]. During the proceedings, he said there was a coordinated effort within the agency to target him after he resisted further involvement in a specific, controversial probe.
Central to the testimony was the timing of a legal summons. Raphesu said there was no complaint before the R50 million [1] summons was issued. This contradicts the expected procedural flow of an investigation, where a formal complaint typically precedes the issuance of a summons for such a significant amount.
Raphesu's statements align with the previous testimony provided by Ramsamy. Both officials suggest that the legal mechanisms of the IDAC were bypassed or manipulated to target individuals within the organization.
While addressing the commission, Raphesu remained firm on the lack of procedural integrity regarding the summons. He said, "There was no complaint before the R50 million summons was issued" [1]. In another exchange regarding the nature of the internal conflict, he said, "No one is saying f***."
The Madlanga Commission continues to examine the conduct of the IDAC to determine if the agency has been weaponized for internal political gains or personal vendettas.
“"There was no complaint before the R50 million summons was issued."”
The corroboration between a senior investigator and a prosecutor suggests a systemic failure or deliberate manipulation within the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption. By testifying that a R50 million summons was issued without a prior complaint, Raphesu has provided evidence that the agency may have bypassed legal protocols, potentially turning a corruption-fighting body into a tool for internal retaliation.
