On 20 July 2026, an article was published under the title: Explosive affidavit by IGI shows how Mchunu drew him into Crime Intelligence wars.
The article originated from amaBhungane.
I write to place on record my objections to the article, which contains material inaccuracies and mischaracterisations that are prejudicial to my integrity and reputation. My concerns are set out below.
For context, I have been in possession of the Inspector General of Intelligenceâs (IGI) report since April 2025 and considered its contents in July of the same year.
I obtained and reviewed the IGIâs affidavit on the day the article was published.
I subsequently contacted Mr Sam Sole, one of the authors, to draw his attention to certain inaccuracies. I now set out those concerns formally, as discussed during our telephonic exchange.
The misleading title
The title of the article is misleading. It is not substantiated by the content of the affidavit upon which the article purports to rely.
In particular, the use of the word âdrewâ carries the implication that I directed the IGI towards some improper or ulterior purpose. It suggests that I involved the IGI in so-called âCrime Intelligence warsâ.
I have no knowledge of any such conflicts, and this characterisation is not supported by any fact contained in the IGIâs report or his affidavit. I reject it without qualification.
I note that Daily Maverick published the same article under a different title, namely: Intelligence trap: Explosive affidavit exposes how former Police Minister Mchunu neutralised Inspector-General Fogel, which was subsequently amended to: Intelligence trap: Explosive affidavit exposes how Inspector General was sidelined. The substance of the article remained materially unchanged across both publications.
Newsroom Africa thereafter conducted an interview with Mr Orrin Singh, in which he repeated substantially the same claims. This served to disseminate the same inaccuracies to a wider audience.
The alleged link between
the IGI investigation and GCI OPS
the IGI investigation and GCI OPS
The article attempts to connect the IGI investigation with the operations of GCI OPS and the disbandment of the PKTT.
This is directly contradicted by the IGIâs own affidavit. At paragraph 78, the IGI elaborates: âOn 18 February 2025, I met with General Masemola. I assured him that my investigation was not aimed at probing operational details. I told him that it was limited to evaluating compliance with procurement regulations and verifying the existence of an approved project that required a building to be procured.â
The affidavit therefore makes clear, in the IGIâs own words, that the investigation had no connection to GCI OPS or any other operational matter. It arose from specific allegations of procurement irregularity that surfaced in January 2025, and its scope was confined to that subject.
Any suggestion that the investigation formed part of âCrime Intelligence warsâ is a fabrication unsupported by the very affidavit upon which the article relies.
The statutory basis for the referral
and what the affidavit actually states
and what the affidavit actually states
The characterisation of my conduct as having âdrawnâ or directed the IGI into so-called âwarsâ deliberately avoids the correct statutory terminology.
The applicable legislation provides that the President or a Minister may refer matters to the IGI for investigation. That is precisely what occurred.
Critically, the IGIâs own affidavit confirms this. At paragraph 75, the IGI states: âMy investigation into Crime Intelligenceâs procurement of properties was initiated by the referral to me by then Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu, in terms of section 7(7)(c) of the Oversight Act. Section 7(7)(c) provides that the Inspector General may perform all functions designated to him by the President or any Minister responsible for an intelligence service.â
The IGI therefore characterises the referral as a lawful exercise of statutory authority. He did not view the referral as him being âdrawnâ into any conflict.
The facts are accordingly straightforward. Allegations of irregularity surfaced and I referred them to the IGI for investigation in terms of section 7(7)(c) of the Oversight Act.
The IGI conducted the investigation and he submitted his report to the Minister of Police on 2 May 2025.
There is no basis for the suggestion by Mr Singh that the IGI was âhoodwinkedâ. The IGI makes no such suggestion in his affidavit.
Any insinuation that the referral was connected to extraneous matters is without foundation. It is prejudicial to both my reputation and that of the IGI, and it mischaracterises lawful and legitimate work as impropriety.
Contradictions with prior reporting
The article under complaint is inconsistent with Daily Maverickâs own prior reporting.
On 19 October 2025, Daily Maverick published an article under the title, Intelligence chief Imtiaz Fazelâs sudden suspension â between the brown stuff and the fan.
The following passages from that earlier article are instructive:
âMchunu admitted earlier to the committee that he had requested Fazel to investigate whistle-blower and former SAPS clerk Patricia Mashale, who deployed social media to make claims of corruption against the SAPS.
âNow only the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption remains standing as the last Praetorian guard capable of moving through the quagmire of police criminality and corruption and taking actionâ¦
âOn Wednesday, [MP Dianne] Kohler-Barnard noted with regard to the suspension of the Inspector General of Intelligence, that âwhen those who are meant to root out corruption become the targets of complaints and suspensions, it is clear there is far more to this situation than meets the eye.â
There is absolutely no link whatsoever. The investigation was strictly based on allegations as they surfaced in January 2025 around the purchase of property by CI in the SAPS, and thatâs exactly what it is.
The claim that no criminal
recommendations were made
recommendations were made
The article further asserts that the IGIâs report contained no recommendations: âContrary to what was later reported, it does not appear that the IGI recommended criminal charges against Khumalo and Masemola.â
This is contradicted by Daily Maverickâs own publication of 19 October 2025, which stated:
âPreviously, the ad hoc committee heard that Fazel had recommended the disciplining and criminal charging of National Commissioner Fannie Masemola and Crime Intelligence head, Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo, over the use of R120-million from the Crime Intelligence slush fund to buy property.â
Daily Maverick was therefore aware of these recommendations, and its present article is irreconcilable with its own prior reporting.
Conclusion
The foregoing demonstrates that the article contains material inaccuracies which are not supported by the very affidavit upon which it purports to rely.
On the contrary, a proper reading of the IGIâs affidavit confirms that the referral was a lawful exercise of statutory authority under section 7(7)(c) of the Oversight Act and the IGI accepted and conducted the investigation.
The articleâs characterisation of events is accordingly irreconcilable with the source material it cites. The article is further contradicted by Daily Maverickâs own prior publications, as demonstrated above.
I reserve all my rights, including the right to supplement this complaint and to take such further steps as may be necessary to protect my integrity and reputation. DM