Angelo Agrizzi has asked to appear before the Madlanga Commission, saying he is ready to give fresh sworn evidence about alleged political interference in the investigation and prosecution of the Bosasa corruption case.
The former Bosasa chief operating officer, who became one of the country’s best-known whistleblowers through his testimony before the Zondo Commission, has now turned to the Madlanga Commission with new claims centred on the Hawks, the National Prosecuting Authority and the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption. The document was leaked to IOL by sources who said Agrizzi has asked to testify under witness protection, and sources confirmed to the publication that he has formally requested permission to do so.
In his sworn submission, Agrizzi presents himself as the person whose earlier evidence helped expose corruption inside Bosasa and the bribery of public officials. He said: "I am Angelo Agrizzi, the whistleblower whose voluntary evidence to the Zondo Commission exposed the corruption within Bosasa and the bribery of public officials," Agrizzi said in his sworn submission.
He added: "I respectfully submit the attached statement, under oath, for the consideration of the Commission."
Agrizzi’s submission goes beyond repeating his earlier public claims. He alleges that political interference and manipulation affected investigations linked to Bosasa and the Department of Correctional Services. According to him, those actions raise serious questions about the integrity of the Hawks and the NPA, both of which played key roles in the criminal justice process around the scandal.
He claims investigators failed to pursue important financial leads involving Vulisango and entities linked to the Watson family. He also alleges that intermediaries identified in state reports, including the Mansells and Hoeksma, were never interviewed or prosecuted. In his view, that inaction points to a broader failure to follow the evidence wherever it led.
Another part of his submission concerns perjury allegations involving the late Gavin Watson. Agrizzi says those allegations were never pursued, despite the seriousness of the matter. He also argues that evidence against him was framed in a way that wrongly suggested he benefited from the corruption, rather than acting as a conduit, even though, he says, senior NPA counsel had raised concerns.
Those claims place the spotlight once again on how the Bosasa matter was handled by the authorities, especially in the years after Agrizzi’s explosive testimony shook public debate around state capture and corruption. His evidence before the Zondo Commission was one of the most widely reported revelations of that inquiry, and it helped place Bosasa at the centre of the national conversation about bribery, political influence and procurement abuse.
What makes this latest move significant is that Agrizzi is not merely restating old allegations. He is asking to present them formally to another commission and to do so under witness protection, suggesting that he believes his evidence is both important and potentially risky to give publicly. That request alone underscores the sensitivity of the issues he wants examined.
Agrizzi also says that despite voluntarily assisting investigators, he became the target of prosecution himself. He claims he was denied access to documents needed to prepare his defence, which he says damaged his ability to respond properly to the charges and allegations against him. That complaint touches on one of the most contested parts of corruption cases: the fairness of the process once a whistleblower becomes a state witness or accused person.
The new submission is likely to attract close attention because it raises not only allegations about Bosasa, but also about the conduct of the institutions tasked with pursuing corruption. If accepted, Agrizzi’s appearance could add a fresh and potentially uncomfortable layer to the scrutiny already facing the criminal justice system.
For now, his request places the Madlanga Commission at the centre of a renewed debate about what happened after Bosasa’s corruption came to light, who followed through on the evidence, and who may have stepped back when the trail became politically sensitive. Agrizzi’s latest move suggests he is preparing to say that the truth of the Bosasa scandal is still not fully told.
