Admin
19 Oct, 2025
Accountability or control? UDM questions motives behind intelligence shake-up
Statement by Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP, UDM Deputy President and Leader in Parliament The United Democratic Movement (UDM) notes President Cyril?Ramaphosa’s suspension of Inspector-General of Intelligence Imtiaz Fazel, pending investigation by the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI). This decision leaves the public without credible explanation about the nature of the complaint or the grounds for this action. The Office of the Inspector-General is not just symbolic. It is the constitutional safeguard ensuring South Africa’s intelligence services operate lawfully, ethically and in the national interest. The clarity, independence and stability of this office are vital. If the office is undermined through secrecy the rule of law and confidence in our security architecture are greatly damaged. Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo?Ntshavheni’s assurance that intelligence services “remain operational” misses the point. The question is not whether the machinery of intelligence continues to function but who is watching the watchers. Operational continuity means little when independent oversight is compromised. The timing and swiftness of this suspension stands in stark contrast to the presidency’s usual inaction when serious complaints are made against ministers and senior officials. The inconsistency suggests selective accountability and deepens suspicion that the rules of good governance apply unevenly depending on who is involved. It is also deeply ironic that intelligence services now fall under the direct political responsibility of the Presidency while one of the country’s most serious intelligence-related controversies, the so-called Phala Phala matter, remains unresolved. If the Presidency truly holds intelligence policy, the country deserves more than vague reassurances; it deserves transparency, independent oversight and credible accountability from the very top. When Imtiaz Fazel was appointed, he faced three major and publicly identified challenges: 1) ensuring proper oversight access and institutional independence for his office; 2) addressing past misuse of intelligence for political or factional ends; and 3) transforming intelligence structures from purely reactive to proactive, especially in the light of major failures of intelligence-led prevention. The first challenge was that the oversight office was funded by the very agency it was meant to monitor. The second challenge recognised that intelligence services had been weaponised in internal politics. The third flagged the failure of the intelligence community to anticipate or prevent major unrest, such as the July 2021 unrest. In other words, Fazel inherited a job filled with structural obstacles and institutional vulnerability. Now his sudden suspension, without full public explanation, raises the question: if an official who called for independence, accountability and reform is now being suspended, is the oversight architecture being penalised for doing its job? The optics of this matter cannot be ignored. The question is no longer simply whether intelligence is functioning. The question is whether accountability has become the casualty. In December 2023 Mr Fazel publicly told Parliament that his office lacked autonomy and called for control over its own budget, staffing and operations. He also warned that without reform, oversight would remain subservient to the very agencies it was meant to supervise. If an official who demanded independence is now suspended without explanation, South Africans are right to ask who benefits from his removal. The UDM’s policy on intelligence is rooted in a simple principle: South Africa’s security institutions must serve the people, not politics. Our vision is to transform outdated and fragmented intelligence structures into modern, professional and accountable agencies that protect citizens and uphold the Constitution. We believe that the real threats to national security are organised crime, corruption and terrorism, and that intelligence resources must be directed accordingly. To confront these challenges effectively, the country must invest in crime intelligence so that policing decisions are based on accurate information, not speculation. Equally important is the need for closer coordination between the ministries of justice, police, correctional services, defence and national intelligence. In the UDM’s view, the true purpose of intelligence is to safeguard constitutional values, ensure public safety and strengthen democracy. It must never be used as a political instrument or a weapon in internal power struggles. This is the lens through which the UDM views the current situation. The secrecy surrounding the suspension of the Inspector General undermines the very goal of building a professional, accountable and transparent intelligence community. The UDM’s call 1. The Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence must inform Parliament and the public, within the limits of confidentiality, about the nature of the complaint, the terms of reference of its inquiry and the expected timeline for completion. 2. The Presidency must guarantee that the independence of the Inspector General’s office will not be undermined or manipulated for political convenience. 3. Government must immediately begin reforming the Intelligence Services Oversight Act to give the Inspector General genuine autonomy, full control of its own budget and staff, and clear protection against arbitrary suspension or removal. 4. The President must account for the apparent inconsistency between his swift action in this case and his persistent inaction when serious allegations are made against members of his Cabinet. 5. Parliament must ensure that the broader intelligence reform agenda is implemented in line with the UDM’s policy vision of professional, coordinated and transparent intelligence services focused on fighting corruption, organised crime and terrorism, rather than political battles. South Africa’s democracy depends on intelligence that serves the people, not the powerful. The secrecy, inconsistency and lack of clarity surrounding this suspension are unacceptable. The public deserves to know whether this is about accountability or control. Crime in South Africa is out of control. Communities across the country are under siege from violent criminals, organised syndicates, hijackings, kidnappings, cash-in-transit heists and illicit trade networks that operate with alarming sophistication. The reality is that crime prevention begins with intelligence. Without accurate and coordinated intelligence gathering, our police and security agencies are simply reacting to crime instead of preventing it. Weak oversight and political interference only make this worse. South Africans cannot afford an intelligence system that is distracted by secrecy and infighting while the country burns.
Admin
18 Oct, 2013
The questionable conduct of the intelligence services: IEC lease agreements
Open letter to Siyabonga Cwele, Minister of Intelligence about the questionable conduct of the intelligence services: IEC lease agreements from Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP (UDM President) (8 March 2013) The above mentioned matter has reference. On the 3rd of October 2011, I wrote a letter to the office of the Public Protector requesting it to investigate suspected irregularities in the lease agreements of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC). Afterwards I had a few meetings with the Public Protector, Advocate Thuli Madonsela to discuss progress. She sensitised us about her workload, but undertook to expedite the process. While still awaiting feedback from the Public Protector’s office, on the 27th of November 2012, I received an unclassified letter from Ms N.G. Bam, the Acting Director of the Domestic Branch of the State Security Agency of South Africa stating that: “Pursuant to media reports regarding alleged irregularities at the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), the state Security Agency (SSA) hereby requests a meeting with you to further discuss the matter at your earliest convenience. The State Security Agency views media reports surrounding the IEC in a serious light hence we request to engage with you.” I did not respond to Ms Bam’s letter due to reasons outlined below. Yesterday two officials from your Department, Mr Sello Motaung and Mr Mphuthumi Jekem, visited my office in Pretoria and asked for feedback on Ms Bam’s letter. Unfortunately, I was busy with Parliamentary work at the time of their visit. This morning I phoned Mr Jekem to follow-up on their visit. He told me that they had discussions with IEC Chairperson, Advocate Pansy Tlakula about my complaint to the Public Protector and are now interested to hear my side of the story. I refused to discuss the matter with him because it is still under investigation. There is something about this meeting request that does not sit well with me. Firstly, on what basis does your Department want conduct a parallel investigation? Secondly, if you “view matters surrounding the IEC on a serious light”, why do you not approach the institution that is busy investigating the matter for information? I am wondering whether this is not a precursor of how Government is going to operate once the Information Bill becomes law. I therefore call on your office to investigate this questionable conduct. Yours sincerely, Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
