On a late December day in 2022, two men walked into the Mall of Africa, one of South Africa’s biggest shopping centres, and were never seen again. Their names were Abdella Hussein Abadiga, a man the United States had designated an alleged Islamic State recruiter and fundraiser, and his bodyguard, Kadir Jemal Abotese. For a long time, their disappearance hovered at the edges of public attention, an unsettling story without a resolution. But now the South African National Defence Force has apparently acknowledged that its Special Forces were involved in an operation linked to their disappearance. That admission, reported in the media, has blown the case wide open. It directly contradicts what was previously suggested in court: that Special Forces members at the Mall of Africa on 29 December 2022 were simply carrying out a training exercise. If that earlier account was false, then the courts were misled. If the new admission is true, then the state’s own soldiers may have been at the centre of a kidnapping and murder conspiracy. This is not a minor administrative error. It goes to the heart of whether South Africa’s security forces obey the law, whether the country’s leaders are willing to tell the public the truth, and whether the Constitution still means what it says. The Democratic Alliance has now submitted parliamentary questions to President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans. The party wants answers, but more than that, it wants accountability. The disappearance of Abadiga and Abotese is not an abstract issue. Families are still waiting. A police officer is dead. Twelve SANDF members are charged with serious crimes. And the South African public is left to wonder how an operation involving elite soldiers could go so wrong, or whether it was wrong from the very beginning. The DA’s move to force the matter into the open is an attempt to ensure that the question does not fade away, and that the President and the Minister are held responsible for what happened.
The legal case against the twelve soldiers is already complicated, and it has become more disturbing with every new detail. They face charges linked to the alleged kidnapping and murder of Abadiga and Abotese, as well as the murder of Hawks investigator Lieutenant Colonel Frans Mathipa. Mathipa was looking into the disappearance of the two men when he was killed. That alone should make any reasonable person pause. A senior police detective is murdered while investigating a case that may involve members of the military. That is not the stuff of ordinary crime. It suggests a determined effort to shut down the investigation before it could reach the truth. The twelve accused deny all allegations. They were initially granted bail in July 2025, but in January 2026 the Gauteng High Court revoked the bail of six of them and ordered them to surrender. So there are now six people ordered to hand themselves over, and six still out on bail. The courts have been dealing with this case as a criminal matter, which is exactly where it belongs. But the reported acknowledgement of Special Forces involvement raises a deeper issue: what exactly were the soldiers doing at the mall that day? The earlier claim that they were on a training exercise now looks threadbare. Why would Special Forces soldiers be training at a busy shopping centre on the same day that two men vanished? Who ordered them to be there? What was the operational objective? Was it a lawful operation authorised at the highest level, or was it something closer to an off-the-books mission? These are the questions that the DA is now putting to the President and the Minister. The answers, or the lack of answers, will tell South Africans whether the state is willing to be transparent about the conduct of its own security forces. There is also the question of the evidence already placed before the courts. If the training exercise story was false, then perjury may have been committed. If evidence was manufactured or adjusted to fit a convenient narrative, then the entire justice process has been corrupted. The DA is right to insist on a full accounting.
Perhaps the most disturbing new development is what has been reported about the National Prosecuting Authority. According to reports, a memorandum from the NPA identified a possible risk of perjury. This is a technical legal term, but in plain language it means someone may have lied under oath. That is a serious crime in itself. If the courts were told that the Special Forces members at the mall were on a training exercise, and if that statement was knowingly false, then the justice system was deliberately deceived. But the reported problem goes further. There are reportedly attempts to move the proceedings from the civilian justice system to military courts. This is not a small procedural detail. Military courts operate within the structure of the South African National Defence Force. They are not independent in the same way as civilian courts. The proceedings are often closed to the public. The presiding officers are part of the military hierarchy. If this case were moved to a military court, it would be far harder for the public and Parliament to see what is happening. It would also be easier for senior officers to exert pressure behind the scenes. The DA is asking the Minister to account for these attempts. Why would anyone want to move a case of alleged kidnapping, murder, and obstruction of justice into a system where the chain of command can influence the outcome? There may be a legitimate legal argument for military jurisdiction in some cases, but this is not a simple discipline matter. It involves the murder of a police officer and the disappearance of two civilians. The civilian justice system has already been handling the case, granting bail and then revoking bail. To shift it now, after all this time, would look like an attempt to hide the truth. The DA’s parliamentary questions are designed to force the Minister to explain whether such a transfer is being considered, who is considering it, and on what legal basis. The public has a right to know if the state is using secrecy to protect its own. The rule of law cannot survive if the government can move uncomfortable cases into closed forums whenever they become politically embarrassing.
The questions directed at President Ramaphosa are particularly important. Under section 201 of the Constitution, the President must authorise any deployment of the South African National Defence Force. This is not optional. It is a constitutional requirement designed to ensure that the military is not used at the whim of individual commanders. The DA wants the President to disclose whether he authorised the employment of the SANDF or Special Forces in connection with the operation that apparently led to the disappearance of Abadiga and Abotese. If he did authorise it, what was the legal and operational purpose? If he did not, then who did? An unauthorised deployment of Special Forces would be a major scandal in itself. The DA is also asking whether the operation involved other state institutions, such as the South African Police Service, the Hawks, or the State Security Agency. This is crucial because the case may not have been a rogue military operation. It may have involved a coordinated effort by multiple agencies, with the knowledge of senior officials. If so, the public needs to know who was in the room and who gave the orders. The President is also being asked whether Parliament was informed. Section 201 also requires the President to inform Parliament of the reasons for any deployment, although there are some exceptions for operational secrecy. But once the case became a criminal investigation, the veil of secrecy should have been lifted. The DA wants to know when the President became aware of Special Forces involvement. Did he know in December 2022? Did he know when the soldiers were arrested? Did he know when the bail applications were happening? The longer the answer takes, the worse it looks. Finally, the President is being asked whether he will establish an investigation independent of the SANDF chain of command. This is the heart of the matter. If the SANDF is asked to investigate itself, there will always be doubt. An independent investigation, whether by a retired judge, a civilian body, or a special tribunal, is the only way to give South Africans confidence that the truth will come out. The President cannot simply rely on military reports. He must show leadership by ordering a transparent inquiry.
The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans also faces pointed questions. The Minister is responsible for the political oversight of the SANDF. If soldiers were involved in a kidnapping and murder, the Minister must explain how that was possible. The DA wants the Minister to account for the nature and authority of the operation. Was it a SANDF operation? Was it authorised by the Minister or the President? Was it a joint operation with police intelligence? The Minister must also address the reported discrepancies in evidence placed before the courts. This is not merely a matter of saying “we are looking into it.” The Minister must explain how the earlier claim of a training exercise came to be made, and whether it was a mistake or a deliberate lie. The Minister also has a duty to explain the reported attempts to transfer the proceedings to military courts. The DA’s questions are direct: Is such a transfer being considered? If so, under what legal authority? Why should a case involving the murder of a police officer and the disappearance of two civilians be heard behind closed doors? The Minister must also answer for the legal representation provided to the accused. In July 2025, the Minister confirmed in response to a DA parliamentary question that all twelve accused SANDF members had received state-funded legal representation under section 60 of the Defence Act. At the time, that may have seemed routine. But now, in light of the reported information about perjury and attempted transfer, the DA has asked whether that assistance has been reconsidered. This is a delicate point. The presumption of innocence must be respected. The accused are entitled to a fair trial and to legal representation. The state often pays for legal defence when officials are charged with acts carried out in the course of duty. But there is a difference between providing a defence and subsidising a cover-up. If the evidence shows that the soldiers were acting outside the law, or that they lied to protect others, the public may reasonably ask why their legal bills are being paid by the taxpayer. The Minister needs to explain the basis for the ongoing funding and whether any review has taken place. Again, this is not about convicting anyone in the court of public opinion. It is about making sure that the government is not using public money to shield its own employees from accountability.
In the end, this is about the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of South Africa, and it applies to everyone, including generals, soldiers, and presidents. Military rank does not place a person above the law. State security does not give the government the right to kidnap, murder, or lie to the courts. The DA has promised to pursue these questions until full answers are placed before Parliament. This is not a luxury. It is a democratic duty. Parliament is the one institution that can hold the executive to account on behalf of the people. If Parliament is silent, if the questions are not asked, then the executive will continue to operate in the dark. The DA is pressing for an independent investigation, not because it assumes the soldiers are guilty, but because the circumstances demand it. The disappearance of Abdella Hussein Abadiga and Kadir Jemal Abotese has never been explained. The murder of Lieutenant Colonel Frans Mathipa has never been solved in a way that reassures the public. The courts have already shown that they are willing to act: six accused lost their bail in January 2026. That is a sign that the judicial system is taking the case seriously. But the judicial system cannot do its work if it is fed false information or if the case is yanked into a closed military court. South Africans deserve to know who authorised this operation. They deserve to know what happened to two men who walked into a shopping centre and never came out. They deserve to know whether Parliament and the courts were deliberately misled. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, and the Minister, as the political head of defence, must answer. The Constitution, not military rank or secrecy, must prevail. This is the message the DA is sending with its parliamentary questions. It is a message that should resonate with every South African who believes in the rule of law. Justice is not a favour. It is a right. And it must be pursued, no matter how powerful the people who stand in its way.