Andrea Johnson and Feroz Khan granted bail over 2018 assault case

Former Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) head, Advocate Andrea Johnson, and former Crime Intelligence deputy head, Feroz Khan, have each been granted R10 000 bail, in connection with a 2018 assault case.

The pair appeared briefly in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on Friday, following their arrest earlier that day by the Madlanga Commission’s recommendations task team.

They face charges of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and defeating the ends of justice. Johnson also faces a charge under the National Prosecuting Authority Act.

Johnson must surrender her passport to the investigating officer by 4 November, while the matter has been postponed to 2 February 2027 for further investigations.

National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson, Kaizer Kganyago, has warned that more arrests could follow.

The charges stem from allegations that Johnson interfered with an investigation into Khan’s alleged assault of Brigadier, Leonora Phetlhe, in June 2018 by sharing confidential case information with him without authorisation.

South African Police Service (SAPS) spokesperson, Amanda Van Wyk, says investigation points to alleged interference by the former IDAC head.

“The commission’s recommendations task team has arrested the male and female suspects both aged 56 on charges related to defeating the ends of justice, the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, as well as contravention of the National Prosecuting Authority act. This emanates from an incident which took place on the 26th of June 2018 where in the former major general had assaulted a brigadier under his command. She sustained injuries and she subsequently opened an assault case,” van Wyk said.

According to the charge sheet, Khan allegedly attacked Phetlhe following a heated argument on 26 June 2018.

He is accused of stabbing her with a pen and assaulting her with his hands and a paper file, leaving her with injuries to her face and chest.

Phetlhe subsequently opened a case with police.

However, investigators allegedly discovered that Khan had submitted a warning statement to the investigating officer on 5 July 2018, before the docket had even reached the NPA for a decision.

Investigations allegedly revealed that Johnson, who was then a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, disclosed confidential information to Khan without the NDPP’s permission, with the pair allegedly acting in common purpose to frustrate the prosecution.

The State has indicated that it will not oppose bail, with both defence teams undertaking that their clients will comply with any conditions imposed by the court.

Khan’s legal troubles are however not stopping his defence from going on the offensive.

His lawyer, Advocate Muhammad Valley, says they intend to pursue charges against Phetlhe, accusing her of lying to the Madlanga Commission when she testified about the alleged assault.

Meanwhile, another Madlanga Commission-related matter has raised questions about whether controversial businessman, Suliman Carrim, will honour his commitment to testify.

The commission says Carrim’s lawyers have yet to properly engage with it to arrange his appearance.

Carrim was granted R100 000 bail on Wednesday, with the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court ordering him to contact the commission within 48 hours to indicate his intention to testify.

His legal team had also undertaken to arrange a date with the commission.

However, spokesperson, Jeremy Michaels, says the lawyers have merely communicated the bail outcome, without taking the process further.

The legal battles surrounding the commission are far from over.

Hawks Lieutenant-Colonel, Deena Govender, is taking IPID and the Police Minister to the High Court, challenging the legality of a search-and-seizure operation conducted at his home and office in October.

Multiple mobile phones and a laptop were seized during the operation.

Govender, who recently testified before the Madlanga Commission, wants the search declared unlawful and irregular.

He is also seeking to prevent investigators from using any data retrieved from the seized devices in pending proceedings until his application is finalised.

The senior officer alleges that IPID may have an ulterior motive to discredit him, questioning why the investigation is being pursued when the case in which he is implicated was only registered in April 2023.