Major-General Nozipho Madondo, a senior crime intelligence officer, was denied top-secret security clearance despite an internal investigation finding no prima facie disciplinary case against her, according to an affidavit filed by SAPS Chief Risk Officer Major-General Charinty Matlou. The adverse vetting outcome stems from findings by a security vetting panel that cited repetitive dishonesty amounting to criminal conduct, according to records declassified by National Police Commissioner Fannie Masemola.
Vetting Findings and Declassified Records
The security vetting panel rejected Madondo’s application on multiple occasions. The panel recorded its decision bluntly, stating there was “no clearance due to repetitive dishonesty amounting to criminal conduct or act,” as detailed in a roughly 190-page security-vetting record declassified for use in a criminal investigation by the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (Idac).
Chief Risk Officer Matlou stated in her brief that the adverse vetting outcome remained operative regardless of a separate disciplinary finding by retired Western Cape police commissioner Lieutenant-General Thembisile Patekile. Matlou reviewed an affidavit by Lieutenant-Colonel MS Banda alongside attached vetting documents, noting that the file contained three affidavits submitted by Madondo to Crime Intelligence vetting officials.
“In these affidavits, Madondo admitted to committing criminal offences, which exposes the SAPS to reputational damage and portrays a lack of integrity and honesty amongst others,” Matlou said in the affidavit. While the affidavit does not identify the specific offences, it records Madondo’s answer to Matlou’s interpretation of the documents.
Did You Know? The security vetting record used in the investigation spans approximately 190 pages and was specifically declassified by National Police Commissioner Fannie Masemola for use in the Idac criminal investigation.
Recent Criminal Charges and Legal Developments
Madondo was previously charged with fraud and corruption alongside Crime Intelligence head General Dumisani Khumalo and Brigadier Dineo Mokwele. Those charges centered on Mokwele’s appointment as head of Technical Support Services in Crime Intelligence. However, the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption withdrew the charges.
Following initial legal proceedings, human resources relied on the officers being cleared to recommend that their temporary transfers be lifted. Madondo’s rank as a major general within the Senior Management Service of the SAPS Division Crime Intelligence makes top-secret security clearance mandatory for her position.
Operational Risks and Witness Integrity Concerns
Matlou argued in her affidavit that allowing Madondo to return to her division would restore her access to individuals connected to the ongoing investigation. She warned that granting such access increases the likelihood that witnesses could be influenced or intimidated.
“By virtue of Madondo’s rank as a major general and employment as a member of the senior management service of the SAPS Division Crime Intelligence, she should have possessed a ‘Top Secret’ security clearance,” Matlou stated. SAPS spokesperson Brigadier Athlenda Mathe declined to comment on the matter.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was Major-General Nozipho Madondo denied top-secret security clearance?
The security vetting panel denied her clearance due to repetitive dishonesty amounting to criminal conduct or acts, citing admissions made in affidavits submitted to vetting officials.
What were the charges against Madondo and other senior officials?
Madondo, Crime Intelligence head Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo, and Brigadier Dineo Mokwele were charged with fraud and corruption over Mokwele’s appointment as head of Technical Support Services in Crime Intelligence. The Investigating Directorate Against Corruption withdrew these charges.
What concerns did SAPS Chief Risk Officer Major-General Charinty Matlou raise regarding Madondo’s return?
Matlou stated that allowing Madondo back into the division would restore her access to people connected to the investigation, which increases the likelihood of witnesses being influenced or intimidated.
How will the SAPS address the operational and legal status of senior officers facing adverse vetting outcomes?
Related reading