An affidavit by Inspector-General of Intelligence Imtiaz Fazel has been seized upon for a very sinister agenda and amplified through selective social media claims that go far beyond what the document actually states. A determined campaign is at play to portray Ntshavheni as “complicit in looting” the Crime Intelligence Secret Service Account and to allege the suppression of criminal dockets characterisations that the affidavit and published reporting simply do not establish.
What the affidavit records is limited and procedural. On 11 February 2025 Ntshavheni wrote asking Fazel to extend the duration of his investigation so that Gauteng Counter Intelligence Operations work could be concluded before his office obtained access to a project file. Fazel declined, asserting that the Minister in the Presidency had no authority over him and no power to direct an investigation into a different national intelligence structure. He later wrote to President Cyril Ramaphosa about the matter and about the withdrawal of his security clearance. These are the contents reported by amaBhungane, Daily Maverick and News24. They describe a dispute over access and oversight, not a finding of misappropriation or criminality by the Minister.
Former Police Minister Senzo Mchunu has publicly defended his original referral of the property procurement matter to the Inspector General as a lawful exercise of statutory authority. Ntshavheni herself has previously underlined the distinct mandates of Crime Intelligence, the State Security Agency and the Office of the Inspector-General, noting that the security cluster continued to function. None of this has prevented opponents from converting an untested affidavit into a narrative of corruption and cover-up.
A separate and unrelated 2020 High Court judgment concerning Ba-Phalaborwa Municipality has also been dragged into the fray. That judgment set aside a municipal tender and contract on procedural and financial grounds and directed that a copy be sent to prosecutors for consideration. It made no personal finding against Ntshavheni, who was not a party to the proceedings and did not testify. Even in that case, the amount was not anyway close to a million rands and there are no allegations of corruption against Ntshavheni. Linking that case to the current intelligence dispute is opportunistic and factually baseless.
The pattern is clear. The question is what is Minister Ntshavheni disrupting that makes her a target for a coordinated smear campaign? Claims are being circulated which available records do not support. They treat an affidavit filed in live proceedings as a verdict, and disregard the distinction between a request about investigative timing and an accusation of looting. This is not accountability; it is desperation dressed up as scrutiny.
Where matters stand remains unchanged – the Inspector General’s allegations have not been tested in court, and no finding of wrongdoing has been made against Minister Ntshavheni.
Those who continue to push the propaganda demonstrate a willingness to subordinate facts to political convenience. The public deserves better than recycled innuendo.
Against this backdrop, the apparent circulation of the affidavit is particularly troubling. It is legitimate to ask whether its disclosure was merely incidental, or whether it may have been deliberately leaked as part of a broader agenda to influence public perceptions, shape a particular narrative, or advance interests of their handlers.
Leave a Reply