Senzo Mchunu Denies Weaponizing Intelligence Oversight in Crime Intelligence Case

Contested Narrative: The “Crime Intelligence Wars”

The controversy centers on an affidavit filed by the suspended Inspector-General of Intelligence, Imtiaz Fazel, as part of his legal challenge against the withdrawal of his security clearance and subsequent suspension by President Cyril Ramaphosa. Media reports, including coverage from AmaBhungane, have framed the document as evidence that Mchunu drew Fazel into internal Crime Intelligence wars to serve specific political or factional goals.

Mchunu has formally rejected this framing. In a right-of-reply communication, the former minister described the characterization as not supported by any fact contained in the IGI’s report or his affidavit and argued that the media narrative lacks factual support within the affidavit itself. He specifically disputed the implication that he manipulated the IGI, asserting that his actions were limited to fulfilling his oversight duties regarding public funds and procurement compliance.

Statutory Authority and the January 2025 Referral

At the heart of the dispute is the mechanism used to initiate the investigation into the Crime Intelligence division. Mchunu points to Section 7(7)(c) of the Oversight Act, which empowers a minister responsible for an intelligence service to designate functions to the Inspector-General.

“My investigation into Crime Intelligence’s 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.”

Imtiaz Fazel, Inspector-General of Intelligence, via AmaBhungane

Mchunu argues that this statutory referral was transparent and legitimate. According to his account, he acted after allegations surfaced in January 2025 concerning the irregular procurement of the Veroz Boutique Hotel in Pretoria, the misuse of secret service account funds, and the irregular appointment of a brigadier. He maintains that these referrals were distinct from, and unconnected to, the operational maneuvers of the Gauteng Counter-Intelligence Operations (GCI-OPS) or the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT).

The IGI’s Meeting with General Masemola

To support his claim that the investigation was strictly procedural, Mchunu cites specific testimony from Fazel’s affidavit regarding a meeting held on 18 February 2025 with General Masemola. In that meeting, Fazel reportedly sought to clarify the boundaries of his work to avoid friction with police leadership.

“On 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.”

Imtiaz Fazel, Inspector-General of Intelligence, via AmaBhungane

Mchunu contends that this record directly contradicts suggestions that he was attempting to use the IGI to interfere in operational policing or to engage in factional conflict. By focusing on procurement, Mchunu argues, the investigation remained within the standard remit of the IGI’s office.

Unresolved Questions in the Legal Challenge

While Mchunu focuses on the legality of his referral, the broader context of the IGI’s suspension remains complex. Fazel’s affidavit alleges that he faced systematic resistance from the State Security Agency, Defence Intelligence, and police Crime Intelligence while attempting to exercise his legal mandate. The affidavit also highlights his correspondence with President Ramaphosa, including a letter dated 1 October 2025, sent just weeks before his suspension.

As the legal proceedings continue, the central point of contention remains whether the investigations into Crime Intelligence were part of a coordinated effort to sideline figures within the security cluster or a necessary response to documented irregularities. With the President and other respondents yet to file their formal answers in the High Court, the extent to which Mchunu’s referrals contributed to the subsequent political fallout remains a primary focus of the case.