EFF demands law-enforcement agencies probe R12-m State Security Agency slush fund

The State Security Agency, or SSA, is the government intelligence agency discussed in the article. Its stated duty is to protect the people of South Africa and the State. That means gathering and handling intelligence for national security, not serving a political party or targeting lawful political activity.

The article gives a direct contrast. It alleges that SSA money was used to spy on and destabilise the EFF, a party represented in Parliament. Godrich Gardee referred to alleged operatives, agents and moles inside the EFF who were paid. He also said the agency had been used for unconstitutional conduct outside its mandate in earlier periods.

The issue is now before several oversight and law-enforcement bodies. The EFF asked them to investigate the alleged payments and identify recipients. The court’s release of selected trial documents may help establish whether SSA officials misused public funds and intelligence powers. The article does not provide a full statutory description of the SSA’s legal mandate.

The EFF’s central allegation is that the State Security Agency used public money against the party instead of protecting South Africa and the State. It wants the alleged payments investigated as possible intelligence abuse, political interference and misuse of taxpayers’ money.

The clearest figure is about R12-million linked to Korolo Investment Holdings in 2014. Two former SSA officials face charges involving that money. Godrich Gardee also alleged that funds were given to “Lady X” and to people operating inside the EFF as agents or moles. The article does not identify those alleged recipients.

The EFF says it will examine the court documents and consult its leadership. It has not announced a witchhunt. It has called for investigations by SARS, the Public Protector, the Auditor-General, Parliament’s intelligence committee and the inspector-general. Those inquiries could test whether the money reached party insiders and whether the SSA acted beyond its lawful purpose.

The article identifies approximately R12-million as the amount at the centre of the allegations. It says the money was linked to Korolo Investment Holdings, a company named in the criminal case involving former SSA officials.

The alleged transactions date to 2014. Patrick Mshothola, previously a project manager in the SSA’s chief directorate for special operations, and Thulani Dlomo, the agency’s former deputy director for counter-intelligence, were charged over the money. The charges include theft, fraud, forgery and uttering.

Their arrests took place on November 30 last year, although the article does not specify the year. The EFF connects the money to alleged efforts to destabilise the party. Court transcripts and the indictment may show how the funds were handled, who authorised them and whether they were tied to activity inside the EFF. Those details remain subject to investigation and court proceedings.

The EFF named five investigative or oversight bodies: the South African Revenue Service, Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka, Auditor-General Tsakani Maluleke, Parliament’s joint standing committee on intelligence, and the office of the inspector-general on intelligence.

SARS can examine whether alleged recipients declared and paid tax on the money. The Public Protector investigates improper conduct and maladministration. The Auditor-General examines public finances and whether money was handled properly. Parliament’s joint standing committee provides political and parliamentary oversight of intelligence services.

The inspector-general on intelligence is responsible for oversight and investigations concerning intelligence services. The article does not assign a separate task to each body, but Gardee specifically said SARS should look for recipients and check whether they paid tax. Together, these bodies could examine the money trail, financial controls, intelligence conduct and possible political misuse. Their involvement does not itself prove the allegations.

Judge Mashudu Munzhelele allowed the EFF to obtain the parts of the criminal-trial transcript that relate to the party. The material covers the proceedings from their commencement to their conclusion, but it will be redacted as the court directs. The EFF will also receive a redacted copy of the indictment.

The case involves Patrick Mshothola and Thulani Dlomo, who face charges connected to about R12-million linked to Korolo Investment Holdings. Trial evidence and the indictment could identify alleged transactions, instructions, documents, officials and other people connected to the money. They may also show how the EFF featured in the prosecution’s case.

The records could therefore help the EFF compare the allegations with its own history of members leaving between 2015 and 2016. They may help investigators trace payments and assess whether intelligence resources were misused. However, access to documents is not a finding of guilt. The court will control what is withheld or redacted.

The criminal case is connected to two major examinations of South Africa’s intelligence and state-capture problems: the High Level Review Panel on the SSA and the Zondo commission of inquiry into state capture. The article identifies the prosecution as the first involving SSA personnel to arise from their findings.

Patrick Mshothola and Thulani Dlomo were charged with theft, fraud, forgery and uttering over about R12-million linked to Korolo Investment Holdings. Their case provides a specific criminal proceeding through which alleged conduct identified by the reviews can be tested in court.

The alleged spying on the EFF occurred during David Mahlobo’s tenure as State Security Minister. The article also says Malema previously revealed an alleged R10-million SSA budget to kill the EFF. The trial documents may clarify the party’s connection to the case, while wider investigations could show whether the conduct was isolated or part of broader abuse. The article does not report a final verdict.

A taxpayer-funded intelligence agency exists to protect the State and the public, not to weaken a legitimately elected political party. If its resources were used against the EFF, public money and secret powers would have been redirected from national security toward political interference.

The article describes alleged agents, operatives and moles inside the EFF, as well as money allegedly used to destabilise the party. Gardee said such conduct would be outside the agency’s mandate. The concern is especially serious because the EFF is represented in Parliament, where parties must be able to compete and scrutinise government without covert state retaliation.

The EFF has asked multiple oversight bodies to investigate. The court’s documents may help establish what happened, while inquiries could examine the money trail and the conduct of officials. The article says it is not known whether this conduct stopped, or whether other people and parties were targeted. Those questions make accountability and safeguards important.