Allegations have emerged that funds from the South African Police Service (SAPS) secret fund were misused to build a perimeter wall at the private residence of the late Nathi Mthethwa, who served as police minister at the time and later as South Africa’s ambassador to France. The claims have sparked renewed scrutiny over the management of the police’s confidential resources and the lack of accountability for high-level officials.
The revelations come from Advocate Mkhwanazi, who disclosed that the construction of the wall was funded directly from the crime intelligence budget. “That was money from crime intelligence… nobody was held accountable but reports are there,” he stated. The statement suggests that detailed reports documenting the expenditure exist, but no action was ever taken against those involved, raising questions about oversight within the police service and the governance of intelligence funds.
Crime intelligence, a highly sensitive division of SAPS, manages a secret fund intended for covert operations, national security initiatives, and confidential policing activities. These resources are supposed to remain tightly controlled, with spending monitored through internal audits. However, the use of these funds for personal benefit appears to indicate a serious breach of protocol.
At the time the wall was constructed, Mthethwa held the position of police minister, placing him in direct oversight of the police and its divisions, including crime intelligence. Critics argue that this relationship raises concerns about conflict of interest and the potential misuse of state resources for private purposes.
Although reports documenting the allocation of the funds exist, no public investigations were launched, and no officials were disciplined. This absence of accountability has drawn criticism from civil society groups and governance watchdogs, who say it reflects a broader culture of impunity among top government officials.
The case also highlights ongoing issues regarding transparency in the management of sensitive intelligence budgets. While the SAPS has defended the confidentiality of such funds as necessary for operational security, this incident demonstrates how secrecy can be exploited for personal gain when oversight is weak.
Legal experts suggest that the matter could have significant implications if further investigated. Misappropriation of crime intelligence funds constitutes a serious offence under South African law, potentially attracting criminal liability for those found to have authorised or benefitted from the expenditure.
Advocate Mkhwanazi’s disclosure has reignited calls for a full review of SAPS secret fund expenditures, with many observers demanding that parliamentary committees or independent investigative bodies probe the extent of misuse and hold responsible parties accountable. “It’s a matter of public interest,” said one governance analyst. “If secret funds are being misused without consequence, it undermines trust in law enforcement and government institutions.”
While Mthethwa has passed away, questions remain about how and why the perimeter wall was constructed using public intelligence funds, and who ultimately authorised the spending. The absence of accountability underscores the need for stronger institutional checks and transparency mechanisms within the police and other government departments handling sensitive resources.
As South Africa continues to grapple with issues of corruption and governance, revelations like these emphasize the importance of oversight, not only to prevent misuse of public funds but also to maintain public trust in the country’s law enforcement institutions. Analysts argue that unless meaningful investigations are undertaken and lessons learned, similar misappropriations are likely to recur, eroding confidence in both the police and the broader government.
The SAPS has not yet provided an official response to the allegations regarding the misuse of crime intelligence funds for private purposes. Meanwhile, civil society organizations are expected to push for a formal inquiry to determine whether any legal action can be taken, even posthumously, to recover misused funds and ensure institutional accountability.
