A parliamentary inquiry into alleged maladministration and corruption within South Africa’s Crime Intelligence division was rocked on Wednesday by explosive testimony from a former senior commander, who claimed a R45 million procurement for a surveillance device was, in part, a front to channel public funds into the African National Congress’s intensely contested 2017 Nasrec elective conference.
Brigadier Tiyani Lincoln Hlungwani, the former Head of the Crime Intelligence Secret Services Account—a covert fund meant for highly sensitive operations—told the National Assembly’s Ad Hoc Committee on the Subject that he had refused to authorise the multi-million rand payment for a so-called ‘grabber’ device. He asserted that a portion of the money was intended to finance a specific faction vying for leadership at the conference, a watershed moment that saw President Cyril Ramaphosa narrowly defeat Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.
Detailed Allegations: A Covert Fund for Political Warfare
In a tense, hushed committee room, Brigadier Hlungwani provided a detailed account. He stated that in the months leading up to the December 2017 conference, a request was pushed through for the urgent procurement of an “I-Grabber 5G” device, described as a cutting-edge tool capable of intercepting communications across various platforms.
“The paperwork, on the surface, was for essential operational technology,” Hlungwani testified. “But the financial quantum was absurdly inflated, and the pressure to approve it was explicitly political, not operational. I was made to understand that a significant portion of this R45 million was not for any ‘grabber.’ It was a ring-fenced allocation meant to resource campaign activities, including accommodation, transport, and other logistical requirements for delegates aligned with a particular group.”
The Secret Services Account, which Hlungwani oversaw, operates under strict secrecy to protect intelligence sources and methods. Its finances are not subject to standard public audit trails, a necessity for its function but a feature that watchdog groups and this very committee argue has made it a “slush fund” vulnerable to massive abuse.
“When you are told to sign, and the reason given is not national security but party political security, you have a duty to refuse,” Hlungwani said, adding that his refusal led to professional isolation and eventual removal from his position. “My conscience and the Constitution would not allow me to convert state resources, meant for fighting crime, into a war chest for an internal party battle.”
Political Earthquake and Immediate Reactions
The allegations have sent shockwaves through the political landscape, reigniting long-standing but unproven rumours about the illicit use of intelligence resources during the bitter “Nasrec wars.”
The African National Congress responded cautiously through its spokesperson, Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri: “The ANC notes these very serious allegations made before a parliamentary committee. We respect the independence of this process and trust it will be thorough. The ANC itself has never, and will never, condone the use of public funds for its internal activities. Should evidence emerge, the organisation will take appropriate action.”
Opposition parties seized on the testimony as proof of systemic corruption. “This is the most graphic confession yet of how the ANC has cannibalised the state,” said Democratic Alliance MP and committee member, Andrew Whitfield. “It alleges a direct pipeline from a covert crime-fighting fund into the ANC’s internal politics. This demands an immediate, full-scale forensic investigation by the SIU and the Hawks.”
The Economic Freedom Fighters echoed the call for criminal investigation, stating the testimony points to “grand theft and treasonous betrayal of the state’s security apparatus.”
Broader Implications: Intelligence Integrity and Political Accountability
Security analysts warn that Hlungwani’s claims, if proven, represent a catastrophic breach of intelligence ethics and national security protocol.
“The ‘grabber’ allegation is a symptom of a terminal disease within parts of our intelligence community,” said security analyst Jasmine Opperman. “When the covert budget becomes a piggy bank for political patronage, the entire institution is compromised. Its operational effectiveness is destroyed, and public trust evaporates. Who were they surveilling with this device—criminals or political opponents?”
The Ad Hoc Committee chairperson, Cyril Xaba, confirmed that Hlungwani’s testimony would be a central focus of their final report. “The Brigadier has provided specific names, dates, and amounts. It is now incumbent on law enforcement agencies to follow the evidence without fear or favour. Parliament’s role is to expose; theirs is to investigate and prosecute.”
The Hawks confirmed they have “taken note” of the testimony and are “assessing the information.” The Presidency declined to comment, citing the ongoing parliamentary process.
Brigadier Hlungwani’s decision to break his silence places him in a perilous position but has thrown a high-intensity spotlight on the shadowy intersection of politics, power, and secret state funds—a nexus that continues to challenge South Africa’s democratic foundations.
About The Author
