JMPD's internal affairs unit is responsible for dealing with misconduct involving its members.
Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (JMPD) Superintendent Elmarie de Beer before Madlanga commission at Brigette Mabandla Judicial College in Pretoria on 15 September 2026. Picture: Gallo Images/Frennie Shivambu
Serious allegations of misconduct involving Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (JMPD) officers are being allowed to fall through the cracks, the Madlanga commission has heard.
This was among the concerns raised at the Madlanga commission on Tuesday, 15 September 2026.
Superintendent Elmarie de Beer, head of investigations in the JMPD’s internal affairs unit, testified at the Bridgette Mabandla Justice College in Pretoria as the commission resumed work after a two-week recess.
The inquiry is investigating allegations of criminality, political interference and corruption within the law enforcement structures.
Madlanga commission hears JMPD evidence
De Beer told the commission that the internal affairs unit was responsible for dealing with misconduct involving JMPD members.
This includes criminal allegations such as corruption, as well as employment-related misconduct.
With the JMPD employing between 3 000 and 4 000 people, De Beer said the department’s chief could not handle the volume of cases alone.
The internal affairs unit has only 38 employees.
The unit was aware of allegations involving officers and activities such as human trafficking and drugs, but formal reports were often not made.
“We struggled to get that information,” De Beer said.
She further testified that JMPD members investigating cases were sometimes ordered to stop their work by senior officials.
“The superintendent within that unit would give an instruction to say stand down.”
JMPD officers accused of stealing cash
One of the cases highlighted by De Beer involved three Tactical Response Unit (TRU) officers who allegedly stole R85 000 from a Zimbabwean woman.
The woman was carrying the cash because she intended to use it to pay for a funeral in Zimbabwe.
After initially approaching the South African Police Service (Saps), the woman allegedly encountered resistance and subsequently turned to the JMPD’s internal affairs unit.
De Beer indicated that the three officers were arrested; however, alleged interference began almost immediately.
She told the commission that a charge office employee at Johannesburg Central Police Station allegedly interfered with the case docket.
The officers were subsequently released on bail, after which the complainant allegedly withdrew the charges.
“From the time that they were arrested, the interference started not only with the complainant but also with the investigation docket.”
According to De Beer, investigators later struggled to locate the complainant.
The internal affairs unit eventually discovered that a lawyer had appeared in court on her behalf and had sought to withdraw the case.
It is believed that the Zimbabwean woman had been paid to withdraw the charges.
“We suspected that the officers paid the money back to the complainant, half on the first appearance, and then, after she withdrew or the case was withdrawn in court, the other half of the money.
“This is the modus operandi of most of the incidents where kidnappings happen.”
According to De Beer, the disciplinary case against the three JMPD officers could not proceed due to lack of evidence.
Frustration over misconduct
The superintendent also described her own frustration with attempts to hold JMPD members accountable.
She testified that she had previously gathered information and evidence, including video footage, related to misconduct allegations, but escalating the matter through various police departments failed to produce results.
“I eventually decided to call this person in and say to him, now you sit down, and you listen because nothing gets done about the seriousness of this misconduct,” De Beer said.
Her evidence prompted concern from Commissioner Sesi Baloyi, who questioned whether serious allegations were effectively disappearing within the JMPD’s internal affairs structures.
She suggested that there should be an automatic referral mechanism for criminal allegations to Saps or the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), commonly known as the Hawks, since the internal affairs unit does not have investigative powers equivalent to those of criminal investigation agencies.
“It’s not your job. You’re not detectives. It’s not your job to investigate a docket for criminal prosecution.
“I accept that, and that’s why I say I am concerned that you don’t have a default mechanism where you say, ‘We have this. Here’s where we deliver it to the Saps, and let them deal with it,'” Baloyi said.
“The idea that it dies in the JMPD and nobody ever comes to know about it – and when I say nobody, I mean the DPCI and the Saps – they never even become aware that there’s something to investigate. It’s not comforting at all,” she continued.
Baloyi added that the cases De Beer described raised concerns beyond ordinary internal disciplinary matters.
