National Coloured Congress MP Fadiel Adams has approached the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria to challenge the decision to withdraw criminal charges against suspended National Police Commissioner General Fannie Masemola.
Adams is asking the court to review and set aside the decision taken by National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Advocate Andy Mothibi, arguing in his founding affidavit that the withdrawal was unlawful, irrational and inconsistent with the Constitution.
Mothibi is cited as the first respondent in the application, with Masemola cited as the second respondent.
The legal challenge comes just days after the Pretoria Magistrates’ Court formally withdrew four Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) charges against Masemola on 22 September 2026.
The charges against Masemola
Masemola was arrested and charged by the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) in April in connection with the controversial SAPS Medicare24 Tshwane District health services tender.
The wider tender was valued at about R360 million, while the contract awarded to Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala’s company was reported at about R228 million. Masemola faced four PFMA-related charges concerning his alleged failure to properly exercise his responsibilities as an accounting officer and provide adequate oversight.
President Cyril Ramaphosa subsequently placed Masemola on precautionary suspension following his court appearance.
The case formed part of a much wider investigation into the controversial SAPS procurement process involving Matlala and senior police officials.
Why the NPA withdrew the case
On 15 September, Mothibi instructed prosecutors to withdraw the charges after a review of the case.
The NPA said the NDPP considered evidence gathered by IDAC, a report by a Case Assessment Panel and an assessment by independent senior counsel.
The conclusion was that there were no reasonable prospects of a successful prosecution against Masemola on the PFMA charges.
Mothibi said the prosecution of a matter where the evidence was insufficient would not be in the public interest.
“Enrolling a case for prosecution where evidence is not sufficient to sustain a successful prosecution is not in the public interest,” Mothibi said.
He added that a prosecution proceeding without sufficient evidence, while omitting material exculpatory considerations, would not accord with the NPA’s mandate.
The NPA said Mothibi exercised his powers under Section 179(5)(c) of the Constitution, read with Section 22(2)(b) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act.
The provisions allow the NDPP to intervene in prosecution processes where NPA policy directives have not been complied with.
Adams disputes the decision
Adams’ High Court application takes issue with the conclusion reached by the NPA and argues that evidence available to the prosecution warranted the continuation of the case.
According to the application, Adams relies on WhatsApp communications and affidavits involving senior SAPS officials, including Major General Fred Kekana and Major General Senobea Julie Hankins.
He argues that the material showed Masemola had allegedly been alerted to concerns surrounding the tender before it was awarded.
Adams also relies on a 370-page forensic investigation report concerning alleged procurement irregularities.
His case is that the report and other material were available to the Case Assessment Panel and therefore formed part of the evidence that should have been considered when the decision to withdraw the charges was made.
The application further alleges that approximately R38.16 million in expenditure could have been avoided had action been taken earlier.
The affidavit refers to payments of approximately R23 million in January 2026, R12 million in March and a further R1.6 million in April.
It also alleges that Masemola eventually signed a letter cancelling the contract in May 2026, after concerns about the procurement process had allegedly already been raised.
These are Adams’ allegations in his court papers and have not been determined by the High Court.
NPA orders further scrutiny
While withdrawing the charges, the NPA did not simply close the door on questions surrounding the original prosecution.
Mothibi said the matter would be reported to the IDAC judge, with the Case Assessment Panel report made available for scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the prosecution team’s assessment of the evidence, the enrolment of the case and the application of the law.
The purpose, according to the NPA, is to establish whether there was any misconduct.
The NPA has also said that its wider assessment and review of cases handled by IDAC will continue under its IDAC Reset Programme.
A political and legal battle that began months ago
The dispute is also part of Adams’ wider confrontation with senior figures in the police service.
In October 2025, Adams laid a criminal complaint against Masemola over separate allegations of nepotism within SAPS. At the time, Adams said he wanted “a clean SAPS” and insisted that his complaints were based on matters that investigators should examine.
His challenge against the withdrawal of the PFMA case now moves the dispute from criminal proceedings into a judicial review.
The High Court will ultimately have to consider the legality of the NDPP’s decision and the process followed in reaching it.
