Fadiel Adams asks High Court to overturn decision to withdraw charges against Fannie Masemola - IOL

Fadiel Adams challenges withdrawal of charges against Fannie Masemola.

A legal application has been launched in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria seeking to review and set aside the decision by National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Andy Mothibi to withdraw criminal charges against suspended National Commissioner of Police General Fannie Masemola.

The application was brought by fraud accused and Member of Parliament Fadiel Adams.

Fadiel also faces charges of defeating the administration of justice after he allegedly misrepresented the purpose of a visit to Westville Prison, where he allegedly claimed to be carrying out parliamentary duties while meeting trial-awaiting inmates.

His matter is before the Pinetown Regional Court where he will appear again on October 16, 2026, for a pre-trial conference.

Meanwhile, his application against Masemola, names Mothibi, in his capacity as NDPP, as the first respondent and Masemola as the second respondent.

In his founding affidavit, Adams asks the court to declare the NDPP’s decision unlawful and inconsistent with the Constitution and to order that the decision be reviewed and set aside.

His application comes after the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court withdrew charges against Masemola in connection with the R360 million SAPS health tender awarded to Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala, who has been accused in a separate murder case.

Masemola was charged with four counts of contravening Section 38 of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), relating to his responsibilities as an accounting officer.

The case arose from a police healthcare procurement process involving Matlala’s company, Medicare24 Tshwane District.

The broader procurement was valued at about R360 million, while the contract at the centre of the court proceedings was put at R228 million.

Investigators found irregularities in the procurement process, with at least R50 million paid before SAPS cancelled the contract in May 2025.

Masemola was suspended after allegations that he failed to exercise adequate oversight over the tender.

The NPA review has now concluded that the evidence does not meet the threshold required for a successful prosecution.

Adams argues that the information available to the NDPP when the decision was made demonstrated that there was at least a prima facie case against Masemola.

He asks the High Court to determine whether there was a rational connection between the information before the NDPP and the decision to stop the prosecution.

A substantial portion of the application deals with information allegedly provided to Masemola before the tender was awarded.

According to the affidavit, an Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) investigator met Major General Fred Kekana in April 2026 and provided information concerning alleged corruption, fraud and manipulation of the medical services tender.

The affidavit says the investigation concerned Medicare 24 Tshwane District and its owner, Vusimuzi Matlala.

Adams alleges that information concerning possible irregularities in the tender process was communicated through senior SAPS officials to Masemola.

The affidavit refers to WhatsApp communications and affidavits by Major General Kekana and Major General Senobea Julie Hankins, which Adams says formed part of the court docket available to the NDPP.

Adams argues that these documents demonstrated that Masemola had been alerted to possible irregularities before the tender was awarded.

The National Prosecuting Authority withdrew charges against National Police Commissioner General Fannie Masemola. 

The application also places significant reliance on evidence concerning payments made to Medicare 24.

Adams alleges that, had action been taken when the concerns were raised, approximately R38.16 million in irregular expenditure could have been avoided.

The affidavit refers to payments of approximately R23 million in January 2026, R12 million in March 2026 and a further R1.6 million in April 2026.

It further states that Masemola eventually signed a letter cancelling the contract in May 2026, more than a year after concerns about the tender process had allegedly been raised.

Adams argues that the evidence showed that Masemola could have acted earlier to stop payments and prevent further losses to the state.

The application also relies on a 370-page forensic investigation report into alleged procurement irregularities relating to the tender.

Adams says the forensic report was available to the Case Assessment Panel and therefore formed part of the information available to the NDPP when the decision to withdraw the charges was made.

The affidavit refers to findings in the report concerning the alleged failure to properly investigate complaints about abuse of the SAPS supply-chain management system.

It also cites the report's findings regarding the failure to investigate allegations after they were brought to the attention of senior SAPS officials.

According to Adams, the report recommended steps that could include cancelling the contract, recovering damages or restricting a supplier from doing business with the state.

Adams argues that Masemola, as accounting officer, had a duty to act after receiving information about possible procurement irregularities.

The affidavit alleges that there was no formal investigation initiated by Masemola after allegations concerning the abuse of the supply-chain management system were brought to his attention.

It further argues that the evidence before the NDPP demonstrated that Masemola had received information concerning the tender before it was awarded and that this information should have been considered when deciding whether to prosecute.

In his concluding submissions, Adams says the decision to withdraw the charges against Masemola "cannot stand" and is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of the NDPP.

He asks the High Court to grant an order in terms of the notice of motion and review and set aside the decision.

Adams further indicated that he intends to supplement the grounds of review once the respondents provide the relevant record in terms of the Administrative Review Rules.