IDAC

Mr Matlala has no relationship with Minister Senzo Mchunu, has never met him, had no interactions with him, and does not know him.

“I place on record that I do not have any relationship with Minister Mchunu. I have never met Minister Mchunu and have had no interactions with him, nor have I been at any gatherings where he was present. It suffices to say that I do not know Minister Mchunu.”

Any investigation into the Impalas delivery to General Sibiya may involve IDAC, PKTT or Gauteng Counter Intelligence Operations (GCI Ops).

“It is the, what is it called, GCI, GCI Ops, GCS, GCI Ops, Gauteng Counter Intelligence Operations.”

The reporting structure of IDAC includes the Investigating Director (Advocate Andrea Johnson) at the top, with Head of Investigations and Operations (Mr Matthew Sesoko) reporting directly to the ID, alongside four Deputy Directors who also report to the ID.

“The Investigating Director, Advocate Andrea Johnson, heads the unit. The Head of Investigations and Operations, the position is held by Mr Matthew Sesoko. He sits at the same level as Deputy Directors and reports directly to the Investigating Director.”

Operationally, teams report to Mr Sesoko, who acts like a CEO managing daily operations and briefs the Investigating Director.

“Yes. Chair, we report to Mr Sesoko, we brief him as the investigation, as we are busy with the investigation, we call him, we even make reports, quarterly reports and there is a structure which he is heading where on a monthly basis we meet and we then present these cases to him with a view that he will then brief the ID on how far the cases are, where we need resources will inform him, where we are having challenges, we inform him.”

Advocate Serunye expresses concern about the small size and composition of the team handling the matter and the absence of ID knowledge or involvement.

“ADV SERUNYE”

The IDAC manual was signed in 2024 and guides day-to-day operations of new IDAC employees, serving as an induction manual for new officials.

“I think it was signed in 2024, I am trying to get the date, by Mr Sesoko and the ID.”

The IDAC team consists of seniors as senior state advocates, juniors as junior state advocates, and investigators including two chief investigators named Perumalan and Nico Booi, with investigators reporting monthly to the chief investigators.

“beneath the DDPP’s are the senior state advocates and then the junior state advocates and on the investigative side we then IDAC drew both on investigators seconded from the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation and on contracted civilians who were hired as financial investigators ... including a chief investigator ... currently have two. It is Chief Investigator Perumalan and Chief Investigator Booi, Nico Booi ... all the investigators are reporting directly to the two chief investigators on a monthly basis.”

The two chief investigators are spread across all four IDAC groups, with monthly reports via a structure chaired by the Head of Investigation Operations Mr Sesoko.

“they are spread within all four groups ... deputies, chief investigators and project managers report on each matter through a structure chaired by the Head of Investigation Operations, Mr Sesoko”

The financial year for contracts with individuals in IDAC runs from 1 April to 1 March, requiring quarterly performance assessments and communication between Deputies when prosecutors or investigators move between groups.

“our financial year runs from 1 April to 1st of March ... on a quarterly basis we do performance assessments ... therefore when we are having a person ... in this group and in that group ... for that specific year the person has signed a contract”

In the Mokwele case, there were arrests made which would have implied investigations had already taken place within IDAC, but Advocate Serunye was not aware of such investigations because the case was not in their group.

“Once an IDAC matter reaches the stage of an arrest, there would surely have been some investigations already ... That is what has to happen ... You cannot arrest without doing investigations ... I was not aware because this case was not in my group.”

Despite resigning last week, Advocate Johnson's good work at IDAC allowed the organisation to continue functioning well without a permanent head.

“She resigned last week ... the organisation can continue to run itself with the help of, obviously, the CEO Mr Sesoko, and the three deputies that are there ... all because of the good work that she has put in”

ADV SERUNYE has known Advocate Johnson for many years and describes her as a good prosecutor and manager with a high level of management.

“I have known Advocate Johnson for many years ... she is a very good prosecutor, hard worker. When she came in as a manager at IDAC, the management was of a very high level”

The arrest related to the case was premature and the preliminary investigation was not properly conducted, resulting in unanswered questions and uncertainty about the case's basis within IDAC's mandate.

“It demonstrated that the arrest had been premature... the preliminary investigation had not been properly conducted... I also raised the question as to the basis upon which the matter fell within IDAC's mandate.”

ADV Serunye questioned whether, discounting corruption, the remaining fraud allegations related to Ms Mokwele fall within IDAC's mandate, concluding it does not.

“If you remove corruption and you leave whatever that remains, would that fall within the mandate of IDAC? Definitely not, Commissioner Khumalo, because if I discount the corruption, then let us say what I am left with is fraud, and that would be the fraud against the civilian. Because in that case, then, the Generals would have been my witnesses... and it is clearly a Lower Court matter.”

ADV Serunye asserts that if the case is only about fraud, it does not belong in IDAC's jurisdiction and was questioned by the Magistrate on this point during the first appearance.

“If I ended up only with fraud, then clearly it does not belong in the IDAC space. It was not, even the Magistrate questioned it on the first appearance.”

The question asked to BMW regarding Ms Mokwele's managerial status was the wrong question because the role does not require being a manager at BMW, but having appropriate managerial experience above supervisor level.

“what IDAC people did was they went and obtained a 4 July 2025 affidavit from Mr Simon at BMW. But the question they asked is the wrong question because their question was, is Ms Mokwele a manager at BMW? But that is not what the role requires.”

Adv Serunye questioned whether the matter fell within IDAC's mandate and considered that matters involving serious allegations against senior officers in the Intelligence environment could appropriately be handled within IDAC's scope if there was evidence of corruption.

“I questioned whether this fell within the IDAC mandate ... if they followed the queries of ... they did an investigation and they found evidence of corruption, then that is where it comes up to say ... it then falls within the mandate of the IDAC”

There was no evidence to break up the case to say it belonged within IDAC; the allegations were serious but not backed by evidence.

“the problem is there was no evidence to break it up to say this case belongs here ... once you start reading the docket, you do not find evidence to back those allegations”

Adv Serunye said that if a case involves gratification against senior officials and meets criteria of corruption involving high-level persons, it would fall within IDAC's mandate.

“it would have been meeting this requirement of corruption involving high-level persons to appoint that it then falls within the mandate of the IDAC”

The Section 27 referral affidavit appeared to be inconsistently commissioned, with the place signed and commissioned not matching, raising concerns.

“I observed what appeared to me to be an inconsistency in the commissioning of the document, in that the place at which it appeared to have been signed did not accord with the place at which it appears to have been commissioned”

Advocate Serunye did not insist on obtaining a copy of the section 27 referral affidavit for Advocate Hlatshwayo or prosecution because he thought the affidavit contained nothing substantial and had been instructed to back off.

“I did not think of making a copy because when I read the statement, there was nothing substantial for me... We had a very good relationship with Mr Perumal... I was told to back off from demanding this section 27”

Advocate Serunye was instructed by IDAC to back off from demanding the section 27 referral and only do his job without further inquiries.

“The ID says, I have seen it, are you not believing my investigators? So I was not going to ask for a copy of that because I got clear instructions to stay away from this, just do your job, and then leave it”

ADV Baloyi SC asserts that the document 'the 27' is a Mr Fadiel Adams document from outside the IDAC and is not an internal document as claimed by the ID.

“But you knew she is wrong. It is not an internal document. It is a Mr Fadiel Adams document, so it comes from outside into the IDAC.”

Gratification charges seem to be a common fallback position used by IDAC and prosecutors when other charges are problematic.

“gratifications seem to be your favourite – IDAC 's favourite fall back or default position . If you do not like someone , you charge them with gratification .”

The Lushaba matter is not considered an IDAC matter by Advocate Serunye because it does not meet IDAC's criteria for cases to be handled by that unit.

“According to me, Commissioner Baloyi, it does not fall in that category of cases that must be, and I stated it in one of the emails.”

Advocate Serunye and two prosecutors, Hlatshwayo and Ramsamy, raised complaints about investigators not listening to prosecutors and other issues in their emails and memos around August 2025.

“I was also getting complaints from the prosecutors, Advocate Hlatshwayo and Advocate Ramsamy, saying about how the investigators are not listening ... some of the issues that I have been raising in my emails and in my memos, the two prosecutors also did the same. They showed me a document directed to the office of the ID with a lot of queries around August 2025.”

Incompetence is not accepted as a reason for people looking away or not addressing corruption or misconduct in the IDAC, indicating issues are deliberate rather than accidental.

“I do not subscribe to incompetence on these facts here especially for an organisation like IDAC ... one would have to give up upon IDAC if one thought you are that incompetent ...”

Adv Baloyi asserts that the bail condition was not asked for in court, and although the Magistrate imposed it on his own initiative, the prosecuting body opposed the appeal despite not being able to address the Magistrate or the accused at the time.

“I was in court . That condition was not asked for . ... The Magistrate gave it of his own initiative . We did not get to address him . The accused did not . And as an ethical prosecutor or prosecuting body that we are , IDAC , we cannot or we should not oppose this appeal .”

Advocate Serunye states powers to impose bail conditions are with the magistrate, but the IDAC wanted the bail condition and the head told her to defend it.

“The powers are with the Magistrate. It appears the IDAC wanted that condition. The head says to me, go and defend this.”

Mr Raphesu was accused of leaking information by phoning a person of interest, Mr Cedric Nkabinde, informing him about an ongoing investigation against him and naming the investigator.

“I was being accused of leaking information ... it was indicated that I phoned a person of interest ... I informed him about information that is investigated by IDAC ... and I gave him the name of the investigator who was investigating him”

Mr Raphesu has never seen a Section 41(6) inquiry conducted internally at IDAC before; if it existed, he was unaware of it.

“No, I have never. This should be the first one. Alternatively, maybe if there was, I was not aware of.”

Ms Ramasamy was a Regional Court prosecutor in Pretoria CBD before joining IDAC on 1 March 2023.

“I was a Regional Court prosecutor in Pretoria Court, CBD, and I was then appointed as a state advocate on the 1st of March 2023 in the Investigating Directorate, IDAC.”

The Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) has an operational manual disseminated via email to all employees and staff upon arrival, indicating the existence of operating procedures.

“This is disseminated via email to every person that works at IDAC. It is also re-disseminated to every staff member upon the arrival of a new staff member. So it cannot be said that there are no operating procedures or SOPs within IDAC.”

Advocate Johnson did not respond to a memo requesting withdrawal of a matter based on evidence involving the 'A team' and IDAC not following rules.

“I still have not received a reply from Advocate Johnson... the matter needs to be withdrawn... Advocate Johnson calls Perumal's team the A team, and then there is IDAC. So, the A team, they do not follow the rules and that is why we did not... I still have not seen the physical docket.”

There is a non-disclosure rule in IDAC concerning the Rule 27 affidavit, which Advocate Johnson asserts does not get disclosed and a legal opinion has been sought but not yet received.

“Advocate Johnson's instructions is a 27 referral does not get disclosed. However, I am aware that a legal opinion on this has been sought. We have not received it yet.”

The operational manual of IDAC sets out procedures for investigations, referrals, team constitutions, reporting, presentations and briefings according to sections 7, 27, 28 and 29 of the NPA Act, but Advocate Johnson frequently deviated from it and did things her own way causing constant deviation and intimidation.

“The operational manual is supposed to, ... And when I use the word supposedly, if I may, Advocate Segels, continue? Advocate Johnson would deviate constantly. It was a situation where we had this, but she would also have her own way of doing things with different groups, different investigations, different structures. So there was a constant deviation from what was in black and white and it was always from her office that the deviation was done. And when the deviation was done, it always came with intimidation.”

The operational manual of IDAC exists but is not actually applied, and the organization operates by discretion in meetings rather than following prescribed procedures.

“There is such a document, but we do not operate according to it. So the impression I had was, you know, it is sitting somewhere in your computer or on your mainframe, but in fact it is more, you just go about doing your things and people exercise their discretion at any one time, in meetings, without this ever being applied.”

When one defied Advocate Johnson's instruction, there was a regime of wrath leading to emotional stress and counseling among IDAC staff, with many employees affected.

“If you defy an instruction of Advocate Johnson, or you contradict her, the regime or the wrath, if you have to – may I speak about – if you have to go and check the records at the wellness programme that NPA provides for its employees with regards to just work stress, home stress, you know, counselling, you will be shocked at the amount of prosecutors and employees, admin staff from IDAC that are receiving counselling.”

On or about 30 June 2025, after the Mokwele arrest and first appearance, the witness contacted a DPCI officer to report problems at IDAC and to initiate protected disclosure by arranging a meeting on 2 July 2025.

“On or about the 30th of June 2025, after the Mokwele arrest and the first appearance, I contacted a DPCI officer... to inform him that there is a problem at IDAC and that I need to see him and explain and show him the documentation that I had in my possession, I asked if I could do protected disclosure. We agreed to meet on the 2nd of July 2025, where I showed him a prosecutorial memo prepared by me...”

The flighted section 27 referral affidavit was produced after Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi's press briefing on 6 July 2025 where he stated that IDAC was investigating the PKTT.

“My suspicion is that the flighted section 27 referral affidavit was produced at that stage and after Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi's press briefing on the 6th of July 2025, where he stated that IDAC was investigating the PKTT.”

ADV Johnson and Mr Perumal launched an orchestrated attack on General Masemola and General Khumalo using IDAC's investigation tools.

“Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal launched an orchestrated attack on General Masemola and General Khumalo, using IDAC 's powerful investigation tools . And this wil l become evident in my statement and testimony.”

Advocate Johnson was the favored prosecutor of Advocate Shamila Batohi and could do no wrong, and grievances about IDAC from staff were suppressed to the extent that people resigned or applied for other posts.

“Advocate Johnson was the blue-eyed girl of Advocate Batohi. She could do no wrong. ... If you look at any grievance that was sent about IDAC from the staff members, it was quashed to an extent where people started just resigning. People were applying for posts.”

IDAC's mandate includes investigating and prosecuting serious, high-profile, or complex corruption and related commercial or financial crimes, as well as related common law offences including fraud, forgery, theft, and offences involving dishonesty.

“IDAC's mandate, as I understand it, is to investigate and where sufficient evidence of criminality is established to prosecute matters of serious, high-profile, or complex corruption and related commercial or financial crime. Asset out in section 7 of the NPA Act, the mandate extends to related common law offences, including fraud, forgery, uttering, theft, and any offence involving dishonesty and related to offences including contravention of PRECCA, POCA, PFMA, and the Local Government Municipal Financial Management Act, the Financial Intelligence Centre Act.”

IDAC also institutes the resulting criminal proceedings from its investigations.

“Where appropriate, IDAC also institutes the resulting criminal proceedings.”

Ms Ramsamy understood there is some debate about the interpretation of section 7(1)(A) of the NPA Act but explains IDAC interprets it as concerning serious or high-profile or complex corruption or financial criminal cases.

“My understanding is that IDAC interprets this section to mean that IDAC's mandate, insofar as section 7(1)(A) is concerned, is to investigate serious corruption or serious commercial or serious financial criminal cases, high-profile corruption or serious commercial or serious financial criminal cases, complex corruption or serious commercial or serious financial criminal cases.”

IDAC's case referrals mostly consist of cases from other units like the Specialised Commercial Crime Unit or from reports of Commissions of Inquiry such as the State Capture or Nugent Commission.

“At the time of the Adams referral, the bulk of IDAC's cases were either existing cases from other units, such as the Specialised Commercial Crime Unit, or cases emanating from the reports of Commissions of Inquiry, such as the State Capture Commission or the Nugent Commission.”

Advocate Johnson supervised certain special projects not following ordinary SOPs and titled them as Matter X, Project Golden, and Section 41(6) investigation into internal people within IDAC.

“Projects that ran out of Advocate Johnson's office that were not within the ordinary SOP's, the ones that Advocate Johnson supervised herself, she gave titles to, Matter X, Project Golden, there is even a project, Section 41(6), which she is investigating internal people within IDAC.”

IDAC operates on the principle of prosecution-led investigations, but this method is left open to manipulation of suspects, evidence, and witnesses, and has been manipulated by Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal.

“IDAC operates on the principle of prosecution-led investigations... And it has been manipulated by and used by Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal.”

There are no checks and balances currently within IDAC's prosecution-led investigation process, which leads to present shortcomings.

“There is no checks and balances ... I am giving evidence today because of the manipulation of section 20 and the prosecution led.”

The SOPs require a multidisciplinary panel including investigation and prosecution to collectively make decisions but this panel is not applied in practice within IDAC.

“The SOPs speak to a panel, a panel that includes investigation, prosecution, and other multidisciplinary... And that panel was supposed to make decisions collectively... It is not applied.”

A general prosecution unit like the OCC has many checks and balances that prevent manipulation, unlike IDAC where such protections are missing.

“...a general prosecution, OCC, OCC is prosecution guided. There are so many checks and balances in place to prevent this very thing we are talking about today ... prevented in that unit because there is checks and balances.”

In IDAC, the SOPs exist but there is no adherence to them, and if they were complied with, current issues would not occur.

“...there is no adherence to that, and if we complied with it and adhered to it, then what is happening now would not happen because we do have written down checks and balances.”

The investigation process for section 27 referrals is supposed to follow strict SOPs, but in practice, there is no strict compliance, though failure to adhere does not necessarily mean the process is irregular as long as it complies in substance.

“The investigation process is supposed to follow a sequence as set out in the SOPs... but even in other section 27 referral... there was no strict compliance with this process... failure to adhere strictly to the SOP does not mean that the process is irregular, as long as it complies in substance.”

Dockets go missing, get bought, or destroyed, and there is no CAS-in system at IDAC to track them.

“We all know dockets go missing, get bought, destroyed. So that is the reason. We do not have a CAS - in system at IDAC.”

The process for handling the referral involved copying statements, interrogating affidavits to decide if they fell within ID mandate, drafting certificate of mandate, applying for section 28(13) investigation authorization, and drafting an investigation plan with investigators.

“We were to make copies of the statement, the prosecutor and myself, that she had handed to us and return the original to her office...The prosecutors were to interrogate the affidavit and decide whether it fell within the mandate of ID...Once the certificate of mandate was signed, the prosecutors were to attend to drafting the application of authorisation of a section 28(13) investigation...and once authorisation was signed, we were to consult with the investigators and draft an investigation plan.”

Ms Ramsamy and another advocate were given one week to interrogate the evidence in the section 27 referral and found sufficient evidence that it fell within the IDAC mandate, relating to a high-profile individual and serious corruption.

“Myself and the other advocate...when we were given this 27 referral, we were given a week to interrogate the evidence contained in the affidavit referral. We then drafted this, indicating that we had found sufficient evidence that it did fall within the IDAC mandate. Not only under high-profile individual, but also serious corruption.”

The 27 referral is a complaint statement not currently implemented within IDAC.

“It is a complaint received, but that is my understanding. It is not implemented within IDAC.”

Draft affidavits for witnesses usually come from investigating officers and prosecutors only expect drafts if the investigator indicates the person is a 204 (suspect).

“It is generally in IDAC space at the moment that people or prosecutors get draft affidavits. When most prosecutors preferred draft only if the investigating officer is suggesting that this person is a 204, then it would be a draft. But we generally, because we are prosecution led, if the investigators say he needs to consult with you and he goes to you, I will constantly be updated about what is in the draft.”

Fadiel referred not only the section 7 referral affidavit but also referred existing dockets to IDAC, which was not understood by the witness that way.

“Fadiel did not only make a referral to us, Mr Adams ... but he referred those existing dockets to IDAC. I did not understand it that way.”

General Matlou is Head of Risk at SAPS, has personal ties to Perumal and is a witness in many IDAC matters.

“General Matlou is a witness on many matters within the IDAC... She has a very close personal relationship with Mr Perumal... He is also former SAPS...”

The timeline shows Mr Adams received the documents under his door in September but only referred them to IDAC in mid/end November, implying he possessed them for two months before referral.

“I questioned, you received in September, under your door, you opened your cases at the end of October. Your referred to IDAC middle / end of November. That is a very long time to be in possession of those documents.”

The charges against General Masemola and other accused arise from serious complex corruption and commercial crime in the Medicare matter.

“But they all arise out of the serious complex corruption and commercial crime matter, which is the Medicare matter.”

Adv Sello SC asserted that IDAC's investigations targeting Generals and the PKTT fell wholly outside IDAC's mandate under section 7(1)(A) and flouted legislative prescriptions, risking the destabilisation of law enforcement institutions.

“all that we have discussed about these investigations and aiming at the Generals and the PKTT is wholly outside the mandate of IDAC as we understand it, as contemplated in terms of section 7(1)(A). That is my assessment. And if you strongly deny that there is a hand in this, I would like you to explain to the Commissioners on what basis, because this entire effort and exercise cannot have been to the benefit of IDAC. It is not to the benefit of the country to flout legislative prescriptions in the manner that it would appear have been flouted by IDAC consistently and deliberately, and then to offer an explanation for why IDAC would conduct itself in such a manner, which conduct has the risk to destabilise the law enforcement environment and institutions.”

IDAC investigators went to ORTIA to inform Lieutenant General Khumalo of an arrest warrant and to have him hand himself over before accompanying them to Brooklyn Police Station.

“They went to ORTIA to inform him that there is a warrant for his arrest, for him to hand himself over, and he then accompanied them to the Brooklyn police station.”

Brian Padayachee submitted an affidavit on behalf of IDAC opposing the amendment of bail conditions for Accused 3 (Madondo), arguing it was not in the interest of justice as she lacked top secret security clearance and had a propensity to commit criminal offenses.

“The purpose of this affidavit is to inform the Honourable Court why it is not in the interest of justice to admit the bail conditions of accused 3.”

Mr Padayachee and General Matlou used reckless claims and accusations to impugn General Madondo's integrity in opposition to a bail condition amendment application.

“this resistance to an amendment of that condition has invited Mr Padayachee, General, what is their name, Matlou, to seriously impugn General Madondo's integrity and by throwing wanton claims against her and accusations.”

The appointment of Lieutenant General Khumalo by the former Minister of Police falls outside the mandate of IDAC and does not necessarily imply fraud or corruption within the scope of the investigation.

“this is purely a question of how General Khumalo was appointed by the former Minister of Police, and I think we have agreed that that would not necessarily fall within the mandate of IDAC”

There is concern that the affidavits containing alleged fraud and corruption information may have been fabricated within IDAC as investigators who engaged Mr Adams disavow these documents including the one relied upon.

“There is a question, a serious question, whether or not they were fabricated within IDAC because the two of the three main team of investigators that engage Mr Adams completely disavow these documents, including the very one you have just relied upon.”

IDAC has the power of investigation and prosecution under section 20 and 22, with power to institute and conduct criminal proceedings and certain separate authorizations for summonses.

“I D A h a s g o t b o t h p o w e r s . Power of investigation and power of prosecution. ... which relates to criminal proceedings, which is the prosecutorial part of the NPA.”

Summonses under section 28, especially 28(6) read with 28(7) of the NPA Act require signature by ID or authorized person and such summonses are used to demand information related to investigations.

“you see at the top of that document it says it is a summons in terms of section 28(6) read with 28(7) of the NPA Act”

IDAC issued a section 28 summons demanding travel documents relating to the PKTT team's travel to the Western Cape for the arrest of Mr Fadiel Adams between 30 April and 8 May 2026, signed by Advocate Manilall.

“demanding details and documents pertaining to the PKTT team's travel to the Western Cape to arrest Mr Fadiel Adams ... It is signed by Advocate Manilall.”

ADV Johnson confirms that IDAC informs prosecution teams collegially when witnesses are arrested in other matters but was unaware of any internal investigation into Mr Adams' arrest.

“We inform that prosecution team, colleague to colleague ... if you take ... when Mr Matlala was arrested in Johannesburg on other matters ... I just would like you to know IDAC is only vested with this matter into Mr Matlala ... and we are not aware of what you are doing, but if you need anything, ours is purely a corruption matter and vice versa.”

ADV Johnson does not know why IDAC would inquire about who traveled for Mr Adams' arrest or the costs, seeing no relevance or legal basis in this inquiry.

“I cannot see the relevance of why we would ask who travelled ... I have no idea why a team would have been deliberated on something like this ... I think it is not just about the anything ... what was being sought ... I do not know why this happened ...”

ADV Baloyi suggests that if ADV Johnson does not know about investigations from IDAC into Mr Adams' arrest, it implies investigations are conducted without his knowledge, which he questions.

“if you do not know anything about this, it then suggests that there are investigations that are being conducted by an organization that you do not know about. Is that how IDAC operates?”

ADV Johnson states there is no legal basis within IDAC investigations for any inquiry into who arrested Mr Adams, why, or the details of the arrest.

“there is no legal basis for the existing investigations in IDAC where Mr Adams made a 27 referral and however many supplementary A1's. It cannot take the matter further knowing who arrested him, why they arrested him, and so on.”

ADV Johnson clarified he had no prior knowledge of PKTT being a subject of inquiry by IDAC before seeing the affidavit on 6 January 2025, a discrepancy from being aware in the summons briefing.

“in the affidavit, yes. I had not seen that in the affidavit ... I had not seen that ...”

Commissioner Khumalo asked why IDAC was investigating promotions and appointments within the PKTT and what interest IDAC had in the PKTT.

“What was IDAC's interest in the PKTT?”

The summons or investigation documentation issued on behalf of IDAC relating to the PKTT was prepared by Mr. Perumal and approved without clear justification, raising questions about a probable "hidden hand" or undisclosed motives.

“this subpoena was prepared by Mr Perumal ... may be acting on the instruction of a hidden hand”

There is an allegation that IDAC is actively participating in a well-coordinated attack against General Mkhwanazi, General Masemola, and General Khumalo.

“There is an allegation that IDAC actively participating in a well-coordinated attack against General Mkhwanazi, General Masemola, and General Khumalo.”

ADV Johnson denies the truth of the allegation but acknowledges there are criminal matters in IDAC's scope and there was no sufficient evidence to arrest the generals mentioned.

“I have heard the allegation. There is no truth to the allegation. ... We did not do that because there was not sufficient evidence in the matters we have.”

There is a witch hunt against Lieutenant General Khumalo because no matters were brought to IDAC before Mr Adams' referral.

“There is also no witch hunt against Lieutenant General Khumalo, because there were no matters brought to IDAC prior to the referral by Mr Adams.”

The manner in which IDAC responded to Mr Adams' complaints feeds the narrative of a coordinated attack against General Khumalo and perhaps General Mkhwanazi linked to PKTT, as supported by evidence seen so far.

“the manner in which IDAC responded to Mr Adams' complaint at the very least is feeding the narrative ... there appears to be an active coordinated attack, at least against General Khumalo ... General Mkhwanazi, to the extent that he is associated with PKTT, perhaps.”

An IDAC summons including PKTT was issued without apparent basis, reinforcing suspicions PKTT was targeted.

“There is also the summons that you signed where there does not seem to be any basis for the inclusion of the PKTT. So that is another dot that feeds into the suspicion of the PKTT being targeted.”

When ADV Johnson took office in March 2022, there were IPID investigators at ID who had transferred their matters, mostly corruption in SAPS supply chain management, PFM, to IDAC.

“When I took office in March 2022, there were already some IPID investigators at the then ID and they had come over with their matters... the matters they came over with ... were ... corruption matters in the South African Police Services ... Supply Chain Management issues, corruption, PFMA and all of those things.”

IDAC took over cases/dockets from IPID and investigated them, even those traditionally within SAPS jurisdiction, presumably under accepted protocols or memorandums of understanding among agencies.

“IDAC, in its former formulation, took over matters from IPID which fall within the jurisdiction of IPID... There are protocols ... memorandums of understanding or service level agreements to ensure legitimacy for why we are asking from somebody else.”

There is a propensity within IDAC to issue section 28 summons perhaps unauthorized, using any case or reference number whether or not related to the case the summons relates to.

“there is a propensity within IDAC to issue this section 28's, perhaps unauthorized by the ID, and use any case number or reference number, whether or not what is sought in terms of those summons relates to the particular case”

The internal audit report referenced in paragraph 5 of a referral affidavit was only made available to IDAC in June 2026.

“the comprehensive internal audit report referenced in paragraph 5, was only availed to IDAC in June 2026”

Advocate Johnson stated he was not aware of an investigation into PKTT despite documents related to PKTT being obtained from IDAC, implying IDAC was investigating PKTT.

“Chair , as I indicated , I was not aware of an investigation into the PKTT . I have made sure I have checked with those who are the custodians of the documents that if I missed something , the project manager would at the very least have been able to refresh my mind and indicate we actually do have an investigation and this is what it is .”

Documents from 3373 to 3383 in the file relate to performance assessments of PKTT from 2018 to 2022, suggesting IDAC was investigating PKTT.

“if you take it from 3373 all the way to 3383 , those are all PKTT documents and IDAC can only obtain these documents if IDAC is conducting an investigation into the PKTT . That must follow .”

A letter from a predecessor set out why certain matters should come to IDAC and specified which investigators should carry those matters.

“So if one looks at the letter that my predecessor wrote, she did set out why those matters should come to IDAC. And I would assume that if the counterpart to whom she wrote felt, we get you, but we are on it, we are good, if we need resources, we would rather ask you for resources, but we are good on ours. They did not do that. They gave over the matters, plus they gave over the investigators, their very own resources to come and do the investigations in the then ID.”

After establishment of IDAC, IPID retained its original mandate unless stipulated otherwise in law, so transfer of investigations to IDAC must be specified clearly.

“The establishment of IDAC, an acquisition of certain power by IDAC did not strip IPID of its original mandate, as I understand the law, unless you can show me a provision in the Act, in any Act that stipulates that henceforth the nature of these matters will fall strictly within the purview of IDAC only. I am not aware of such. So if it had the authority, even after IDAC was established, it retained the authority, so I am trying to understand how the investigation then transfers to IDAC. That is why I say the emphasis cannot be on the investigators, it can be on, it can only be on the investigations themselves. And that letter I then expect would have identified the respective investigations that IPID transfers to IDAC, because having effected that transfer, then IPID no longer bears responsibility for the further execution of those investigations and acting upon any outcome.”

The list of cases currently investigated by IPID that are to be transferred to IDAC could not be found despite requests.

“At paragraph 3, there is supposed to be a document that lists the cases currently under investigation by IPID, but which are being requested to be transferred to IDAC. That is the list we do not have.”

The investigators who were seconded to IDAC did not bring their investigations with them as investigations and investigative files belong to the institution, not to investigators personally.

“They do not have investigations. They get seconded. Paragraph 3 tells us which cases go to IDAC. There are no “their” investigations, surely, because when we express ourselves in those terms, it suggests that these investigators own the investigations and that is wholly wrong. It is the institution that owns the investigations.”

When matters were transferred from IPID to IDAC, they had to be assessed to determine if they fall within IDAC's mandate, and many had section 28 authorizations to continue investigations.

“That when these matters came in to, when the matters came from IPID into IDAC, the matters had to be assessed in terms of whether or not they fell within the IDAC mandate, as she said in paragraph 1.2 and in 2.1. That exercise would have had to have been done. These matters are now where. Do they fall within the mandate? And if they fall within the mandate of the ID, those matters would then have had to be declared in IDAC in order for them to continue in IDAC. And I am given to understand that in many of those matters, there were section 28 authorizations for those matters to continue.”

IDAC does not operate in terms of section 28 authorizations; that is an IDAC authorization mechanism.

“IDAC does not operate in terms of section 28. That is an IDAC authorization mechanism.”

Advocate Johnson denied that alarm bells were going off in his mind about PKTT issues at the time because it was a police matter and IDAC was not working with PKTT.

“No, Chair, the alarm bells not going on ... This had been a, it was a police matter at the time that it was being canvassed. We were not working with the PKTT at the time.”

There was a lot of disagreement between police, police ministry and Provincial Head for KZN about PKTT, but it did not raise alarm bells for IDAC at the time.

“There was a lot of discussions, Chair, some unpleasant, and there was a lot of toing and froing between the police and the police ministry and the Provincial Head for KZN. That was alive and clear, but it did not raise alarm bells for IDAC at the time.”

The investigations originally under IPID were transferred to IDAC and continue under that umbrella without needing a section 28(1) to trigger an investigation.

“the investigation continues. It does not need a 28 (1) to trigger an investigation. The investigation is ongoing, except now it is under a different umbrella”

There is no record of any investigation within IDAC following an extensive search with Mr Sesoko.

“there is absolutely no record of any investigation within IDAC following your extensive search with Mr Sesoko”

The Medicare contract matter was referred to IDAC in February 2025, in a section 107 referral.

“we are now in November 2025... you say that is when it was referred to IDAC... you say that is when it was referred... I take it is a section 107 referral”

The Medicare matter was referred to IDAC earlier in 2025 and the General was asked to depose to an affidavit for the referral to proceed, which explains the delay in the affidavit submission.

“I know that they referred the matter earlier in that year and the General was then asked to depose to an affidavit in terms of section 27... They wanted to refer the matter to IDAC and we then indicated that in order for the matter to be referred to IDAC she would have to depose to an affidavit for that referral ... I cannot tell you why she took so long to do that”

There was a letter indicating there would be a section 27 referral to IDAC from General Dimpane, the CFO at the time, but this referral was insufficient without an affidavit.

“there was a letter indicating that there is going to be a section 27 referral to IDAC... I think who was the CFO at the time... General Dimpane... and we then had to indicate that it would have to be an affidavit”

Chairperson found it strange that Advocate Johnson and IDAC did not raise alarm bells about an issue that was topical and controversial around PKTT.

“I must just conclude this by saying I find it strange that it did not, as you suggested, did not.”

Advocate Johnson stands by his view that IDAC did not raise alarm bells about PKTT matters at the relevant time.

“I stand by what I say about it did not raise alarm bells for me.”

Advocate Johnson said IDAC operates strictly within its mandate and has not dealt with matters outside of its mandate.

“IDAC strictly operates within its mandate.”

After discussion with Chair and Commissioner Baloyi, Advocate Johnson no longer says IDAC has not dealt with matters outside its mandate.

“No, Chair.”

The meeting between Advocate Johnson and Minister Mchunu involved a criminal allegation, and Johnson left it to General Lebeya and the Minister of Justice to handle it.

“I told that I am unable to deal with it and IDAC resorts under the Minister of Justice and I left General Lebeya with the Minister to deal with the matter and to finish it up.”

The Chairperson clarifies that IDAC was not investigating PKTT, implying a distinction between awareness of an investigation and the existence of an investigation.

“IDAC was not investigating the PKTT. Just now, you said you were not aware of an investigation. Big difference.”

Adv Johnson had no discussions with anyone from IDAC, Civil Society, or Crime Intelligence about the PKTT and related allegations.

“Have you had any discussion at all about the PKTT and allegations against the PKTT ... ? Not yet.”

Adv Johnson is aware that Mr O'Sullivan may have had some engagement from time to time with IDAC investigators, but he himself has had no such conversations.

“I am aware ... that he would have had from time to time engagements with investigators. ... I have not had conversations.”

A letter triggering a referral and request for affidavit was received by Adv Johnson's office from General Dimpane's office relating to a possible investigation.

“I am saying that the letter would have come from General Dimpane's office referring the matter to us. We would have acknowledged the receipt of the letter”

IDAC has received and sought a comprehensive internal audit report as part of its investigation.

“In 5, the General refers to an internal audit report. Has that been received or sought by IDAC as part of its investigation ? Yes. We have that.”

IDAC did not have the internal audit report as at March 2026; the report was only acquired in June after the charges were laid.

“As at March 2026, IDAC did not have that internal audit report. So whatever benefit that report provided, IDAC only acquired in June after the charges were laid.”

IDAC was created with the mandate to investigate serious high profile or complex corruption, commercial or financial crime cases, not to duplicate SAPS investigations.

“IDAC was created... otherwise you are going to be investigating exactly what SAPS is investigating. So we have to read your 7(1A) within mind what is in fact the purpose of IDAC, why it was created”

The plea deal that IDAC had concluded with Mr Matlala was rejected by the court on the morning of 13 July 2026, leading to the collapse of the entire plea agreement.

“the section 205, no, 105 plea deal that IDAC had concluded with Mr Matlala was firstly rejected by the court prior to that and the court counter offered a sentence which Mr Matlala on the morning of the 13th of July on record, rejected that, leading to the collapse of the entire plea agreement.”

Mr O'Sullivan, associated with law enforcement, purportedly engaged with IDAC possibly by providing information to IDAC investigators, not discussing ongoing investigations.

“If Mr O'Sullivan spoke to IDAC investigators purporting to give them information. That would have been the only basis on which he would have had to engage.”

ADV JOHNSON has not personally had engagements with Mr O'Sullivan on behalf of IDAC but acknowledges prior engagements in other capacities.

“As the Head of IDAC, no. I had engagements with him in the past, on other matters when we were in the DSO...”

Mr O'Sullivan stated on Newsroom Africa on 27 June 2025 that he met with IDAC several times and gave them documents.

“On Newsroom Africa ... he said there: 'I have met with IDAC several times and I have given them documents.'”

Commissioner Baloyi correctly stated that irregular appointments in Crime Intelligence were investigated by the Public Service Commission, not IDAC, and related complaints had been previously addressed by the PSC with recommendations to the National Commissioner and Minister.

“... By the time Mr Adams brings these things to IDAC, the Public Service Commission has already investigated them and made recommendations... It is not IDAC's mandate to be investigating these issues because there are other bodies that are responsible for these investigations.”

In a meet and greet meeting, the Minister of Police wanted to know about IDAC, how it works and operates, and briefly discussed IDAC's relationship with the police and stated they get along with the DPCI.

“I recall that as a meet and greet. He wanted to know what we do at IDAC. ... I think we did talk about IDAC's relationship very briefly with the police and I said we all got along together with the DPCI.”

Advocate Johnson clarifies that a meeting wanted by someone to discuss a criminal matter was unrelated to IDAC and was about figuring out if the matter should go to IDAC or the DPCI; he declined to stay as it did not fall within IDAC's mandate.

“He wanted to, it was nothing to do with IDAC. It was not even a matter within IDAC and I think he was trying to figure out whether this matter, this referral, however he was going to do it, must go to IDAC or to the DPCI. And within probably 10 minutes of the way the matter was introduced, I was able to say, apologies, this does not fall within the mandate of IDAC and that, Lebeya, if you do not mind, you stay and I am going to leave and I had left.”

The mandate of IDAC requires a link to corruption for financial crimes investigations, restricting their powers to the provisions in the PFMA to avoid overreach.

“there has to be a link of corruption, it seems to me, because that is the very mandate of IDAC ... otherwise you are extending your powers beyond the PFMA and beyond your act”

The PFMA contravention alone does not trigger IDAC's disciplinary mandate; certain charges, like Count 4, do not belong under IDAC's mandate.

“Contravention, simple. ... but what does IDAC have to do with that? How does its mandate get triggered? ... Even if you could justify the other three, Count 4 you could never justify. But my view is even the others, they do not belong under IDAC's mandate”

A complaint dated 21 July 2026 was submitted to the Commission from attorneys Malebye & Maleho Incorporated on behalf of Sergeant FEN Kosi about unlawful conduct by IDAC during an investigation linked to the Medicare 24 contract.

“I would like to invite you to CJC 387 ... complaint addressed to the Commission ... dated the 21st of July 2026 ... complaint in relation to unlawful conduct by IDAC ... on behalf of Sergeant FEN kosi”

The complaint alleges that nine IDAC officials conducted a prison interview with Sergeant FEN Kosi to obtain demanded information about connections between Vusimuzi Matlala, National Commissioner General Masemola, and Lieutenant General Khumalo as part of investigations into the Medicare 24 contract.

“upon or about the 3th of July 2026, a delegation comprising of nine IDAC officials visited our client in prison ... to conduct an interview with him in relation to ongoing investigations ... regarding ties between Vusimuzi Matlala, National Commissioner, General Masemola and Lieutenant General Khumalo”

Mr Johnson does not hold an official position with IDAC as of the date of the hearing and is not the Investigating Director.

“As of yesterday, I do not hold an official position. I am not the ID.”

Mr Johnson made a formal arrangement to ensure the flow of documents to the Commission would continue after his departure by designating Mr Matthew Sesoko, Head of Operations at IDAC, as the next point of contact for document procurement.

“What I did indicate to Counsel is that when I am not there, the next person to be able to approach for documents would be Mr Matthew Sesoko. He is the Head of Operations at IDAC and in terms of the structure, falls immediately below the Investigating Director.”

In the wake of Ms Johnson's departure, Mr Mthunzi Mhaga of the NPA has undertaken to follow up on outstanding documents relevant to the inquiry in keeping with protocols within IDAC and NPA.

“Now in the wake of Ms Johnson's departure from office, he has undertaken to follow up on these documents in keeping with the relevant protocols within IDAC and the NPA.”

IDAC had possession of the PSC report on Khumalo's appointment prior to making investigatory and charging decisions, indicating a crossing of lines between HR matters and investigation.

“this report was already within IDAC because it comes from IDAC... so what it seems, Ms Johnson, lastly, from me at least, is that your organisation had this report of the PSC as you made the decision to investigate and to send that summons on purely HR matters.”

ADV Johnson admits it would have been irresponsible for IDAC not to have brought the PSC report to her attention and to have had proper adjudication on it before proceeding with charges related to Khumalo's appointment.

“It is irresponsible for us as IDAC, if the investigators had this, not to have brought it to my attention and for us to have had then a proper adjudication of what did we get in, what has happened in the interim, and does this still find place, ...”

Following section 28, IDAC was furnished with full documents for investigation, and there is a question about whether IDAC has formally put to bed concerns raised by section 27 regarding Khumalo's appointment.

“IDAC is then furnished with full documents ... indicating that any complaint or concerns raised by section 27 referral, particularly in paragraph 5 relating to the appointment or the regularity of the appointment of General Khumalo, has been put to bed.”

ADV Johnson states that any matters still under investigation should be set aside as the report puts the concerns outside the realm of investigation.

“The recommendation to the Head of IDAC would be that all these matters, where they are still under investigation, would have to be set aside because this is what it is.”

IDAC was not furnished with the comprehensive internal audit report before June 2026, and arrests related to the matter had already occurred by that time.

“I will find out this afternoon still ... no earlier than the 25th of June 2026 ... that was furnished to IDAC in June 2026 ... by June 026 , there had been arrests”

Investigations and prosecutions resulting in arrests were initiated prior to the receipt of the internal audit report by IDAC.

“…upon receipt to this particular affidavit, investigations were triggered, resulting in arrests and I think appearances in court already. And after all that happened, then the internal audit report came in.”

General Masemola’s involvement in corruption related to the contract became known to IDAC only after November 2025.

“General Masemola’s involvement in the corruption relating to the contract came to the fore in so far as IDAC is concerned, only after November 2025.”

An audit report was made available to IDAC in June 2026, and by then charges had already been laid against individuals involved.

“that audit report was made available to IDAC no earlier than June 2026, and by then they had been charged already.”

ADV SELLO SC suggested there was a coordinated attack by IDAC against Generals Masemola, Khumalo and Mkhwanazi in November 2025, which Advocate Johnson initially denied.

“Mr Nqola asked you whether there is a coordinated attack by IDAC against Generals Masemola, Khumalo and Mkhwanazi, and I think it was Ms Sangoni as well asked about the investigations against Masemola and Mkhwanazi and you said there was nothing at the time. This is November 2025.”

The affidavit concludes that nobody has the right to defraud and commit crimes against SAPS and therefore reports the matter to IDAC for criminal investigation, including defrauding SAPS.

“nobody has the right to defraud and commit crimes against SAPS and I therefore report this matter to the IDAC to conduct the criminal investigation. So I take the crime includes defrauding SAPS”

The suspicion that funds were unlawfully taken from the secret fund to former Minister Bheki Cele falls within IDAC's mandate to investigate.

“The first part of that paragraph 5, the suspicion of funds being unlawfully taken from the secret fund to former Minister Bheki Cele, it seems to me that out of this whole affidavit, this would be the one that obviously would fall within the mandate of IDAC to investigate.”

ADV Johnson accepts that the suspicion about the unlawful taking of funds from the secret fund to Minister Cele falls within IDAC's mandate.

“Correct. I accept that.”

No clear evidence or briefing was received by ADV Johnson regarding an investigation into the unlawful taking of funds related to Minister Cele, leading to suspicion that no investigation was done or it was deliberately not disclosed.

“I did not receive a briefing on this ... it is fair to surmise that nothing came out of this.”

As Head of IDAC, Advocate Johnson should have been more hands-on and briefed on the J-50 allegations made a year ago against IDAC.

“My expectation would have been certainly after 6 July last year and allegations made against IDAC, that as Head of IDAC, you would be more hands-on, because the J-50 we are talking about goes to the heart of the allegation made against IDAC a year ago.”

The Head of IDAC could not provide written answers about activities related to IDAC despite summonses, making accountability difficult to assess.

“...when you come here, you are unable to answer because all you can point to are the briefings, nothing in writing that was given to you. And it makes it difficult for us to then assess who is accountable for these decisions, who is accountable for this conduct and if there are rogue elements within IDAC, who holds those rogue elements accountable if it is not the Head of IDAC.”

Investigation into the lateral transfer of Major General Madondo from KZN to CI, assisted by General Khumalo and others, knowing she failed to secure a top secret clearance, is outside IDAC's mandate because IDAC does not investigate vetting processes.

“And assume all of that is correct. Assume all of that is correct. What does it have to do with IDAC? Is it IDAC's mandate to investigate lateral transfers within SAPS, and whether they were regularly done or not? ...But does IDAC investigate whether somebody's vetting is correct or not? Is that IDAC's mandate? No...”

The conduct of IDAC amounts to intimidation of witnesses and abuse of power, according to the complaint represented to the Commission on behalf of Sergeant FEN Kosi.

“the conduct of IDAC not only amounts to intimidation of witnesses of the Commission, but also amounts to an abuse of power”

The Mdluli matter is currently a hard matter in the Johannesburg High Court involving IDAC investigators and prosecutors assisting the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Pretoria.

“The Mdluli matter is within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Pretoria, but there were IDAC investigators, prosecutors, that assisted in prosecuting that matter as it currently stands.”

Investigations into secret/ slush fund abuse began around 2006 and continued prior to advent of IDAC in 2019, handled by agencies including the Directorate of Special Operations (Scorpions).

“These matters arose way back in 2006/2007 when Advocate Gerrie Nel prosecuted ... There were not such investigations at the time in IDAC, but there had been investigations previously in other law enforcement agencies like the Directorate of Special Operations, DSO or colloquially the Scorpions.”

If any investigations into secret/ slush fund abuse happened prior to IDAC's establishment in 2019, they would have been referred to the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigations (DPCI).

“Any of those matters then would have happened before the advent of the ID in 2019, if there were such matters, they would have gone to the DPCI, the Director of Priority Crimes Investigations, to deal with those matters.”

The document originated from Advocates Manilala and Ramsami but lacked their signatures, which is unusual compared to normal IDAC practice where their signature and space for comments is expected before approval/sign off by others.

“I hear you , but the document does come from them , with the date . It just did not have the signature . But I take your point . It is done , in IDAC they do put it in a memorandum request , and it is usually signed , there is space for comment , and then form to indicate whether approved or not approved , and then the application is also attached .”

If no basis is found in the file for allegations against certain officers, this raises a legal issue for IDAC and the Commission.

“if we find that there is no basis for what is contained in Annexure B against these officers, what does that mean for IDAC and the Commission and the law?”

The investigation into whether suppliers delivered per awarded tenders is ongoing with IDAC, but it is suggested that the matter should be closed and returned to Crime Intelligence to deal with as a contract compliance issue.

“it is currently under investigation ... this matter should be closed ... it should go back to Crime Intelligence ... it is their contract ... it is non-compliance ... it should go back there”

IDAC should close the investigation and return the matter and documentation to Crime Intelligence for further action to recover monies and address non-compliance.

“it gets closed in IDAC ... it should go back there ... also to copy the CFO to indicate that there was non-compliance and monies need to be recovered ... it will be for Crime Intelligence to take action and to ensure the money is recovered”

There is no crime involved in the supplier's failure to deliver; it is a case of malperformance and money lost by Crime Intelligence, so IDAC has no jurisdiction to investigate.

“If there is a case of malperformance by a service provider ... Crime Intelligence lost money ... what is there to refer by IDAC? IDAC should simply say we have no jurisdiction ... It has nothing to do with our mandate”

At the time the summons was signed, the investigating body IDAC had evidence based on a section 27 referral and supplementary affidavits from January 2025.

“According to me, it would have had to have been the section 27 referral and it would have had to have been the supplementary affidavits that had been taken in January of 2025.”

The summons document requests complete applications for security clearances and vetting files for various officers including General Khumalo, General Lushaba and General Madondo, despite documentation gaps in IDAC's records at the time.

“This summons effectively asks for complete applications for security clearances and vetting files for the officers listed therein, starting with General Khumalo, in respect of all the ranks he has held, starting with the Brigadier, Major General and Lieutenant General, and the pattern repeats itself. ... I think he is mentioned by name in the section 27 referral. So is General Lushaba and General Madondo. ... we have that problem of names that do not appear from documentation that IDAC has at the moment it takes this drastic step, appearing in, you know, in such documents as these summonses.”

IDAC was not aware of investigations or allegations made against PKTT members such as Mr Matlala and Katiso Molefe.

“IDAC is not aware of these cases that were made, be they by Mr Matlala about the ft, by Katiso Molefe, the ballistic case, or any other case that has been made against any of the PKTT members. They are not all allegations that IDAC is looking at.”

IDAC's investigators withheld details of investigations into PKTT from management, resulting in a lack of awareness of such investigations.

“I can accept that, but then it suggests that your investigators withheld from you some detail on some of these investigations. From the reading of your transcript at AdHoc, it would appear that you are not even aware that PKTT was being investigated, or considered for investigation.”

It is suggested that IDAC is preparing charges and an arrest for former Minister Bheki Cele and General Masemola for General Khumalo's vetting shortcomings.

“IDAC is preparing to charge and arrest former Minister Bheki Cele and General Masemola for General Khumalo's own vetting shortcomings.”

IDAC only has a national office in Pretoria, which explains why the official signatures mention Pretoria despite some statements being signed in Cape Town.

“IDAC only has a national office which is Pretoria...”

IDAC is investigating fraud related to Major General Madondo’s lateral transfer, specifically allegations she committed fraud to obtain the transfer, but the charge is not mentioned in the discussed paragraph.

“I understand that that which is being investigated in 43/6/2025, is fraud committed in getting, she committed fraud...”

IDAC has a charge sheet listing fraud and corruption offences relating to the case of Major General Madondo and General Khumalo.

“At 3478, it lists fraud and corruption as the offences...”

IDAC is investigating charges recommending arrest for General Madondo and General Khumalo in June 2026 under CAS 543/6/2025.

“If you look at 3481 and 3482, that is Brooklyn CAS 543/6/2025, and that is the CAS that then refers to Madondo and Khumalo.”

General Madondo was given a lateral transfer without top secret clearance, posing a risk to Crime Intelligence (CI), South African Police Service (SAPS), and the country, according to an IDAC charge.

“We know the complaint is that she got this lateral transfer without a top clearance, top secret clearance certificate. At paragraph 3 it states: "Madondo poses a risk to CI, the SAPS and the country."”

General Madondo was charged by IDAC as part of an investigation into unauthorized possession of intelligence documents.

“I D A C charged General Madondo in terms of CAS 453/06/2025...”

Mr Adams is also being charged in the same investigation concerning unauthorized access to intelligence documents as General Madondo.

“If General Madondo not having that clearance certificate poses a risk... equally too must Mr Adams... handling documents seemingly that come from Crime Intelligence and for which he does not have lawful access...”

General Madondo was arrested in connection to this contravention but not by IDAC directly; IDAC sought his arrest.

“He is arrested I think amongst others for this contravention... Not by IDAC... It is IDAC who sought to arrest General Madondo.”

IDAC possesses documents marked FA 1 related to Madondo's application for security clearance, which Mr Adams says were shoved under his door at Parliament.

“Mr Adams says... those which relate to Madondo's application for security clearance marked FA 1. That tells me that IDAC has those documents. They are within IDAC.”

IDAC had no grounds to investigate PKTT as per allegations heard by Advocate Johnson, indicating no evidence to support interference claims.

“According to me, there is nothing for us to look at in PKTT, regardless of what allegations may have come to the fore.”

The Section 27 referral document initiates the intake of a matter and is confidential, only disclosed to the accused if requested, and has not been disclosed to the Defence relevant to IDAC investigations, being the basis for initiating investigations.

“The section 27 is the intake document. According to me, the section 27 referrals are not disclosed unless they are requested by the accused. Now, when I went to Parliament, we had not disclosed this document at all to the accused. We have not disclosed section 27s, the referrals, to the Defence because it is the basis on which we initiate our investigations.”

The Section 27 referral affidavit is considered an internal confidential document similar to memos in the NPA and IDAC, thus not publicly disclosed.

“You say to the AdHoc Committee it is a confidential document similar to how we have memos in the NPA and not just IDAC. So, you are describing an internal ...”

The affidavit of 22 November 2024 triggers the referral to IDAC and broadly sets out allegations, but the affidavit dated 6 January 2025 has not been disclosed.

“On 22 November we had a referral affidavit. That refers the matter to IDAC and sets out in broad strokes the allegations... you do insist that on 22 November we had a referral affidavit... The affidavit of the 6th of January 025 is an original affidavit... that document has not been made available to any of the accused.”

General Khumalo asserted that if the Inspectorate is already investigating the dockets, it should be their mandate and IDAC should not have to deal with it.

“When IDAC was told that the dockets are with the Inspectorate did it not cross IDAC's mind that ... if the Inspectorate is already investigating these issues, then it is their mandate. We do not have to deal with this”

General Senthumule came back to indicate that the Inspectorate was vested with the investigation, looking at a service delivery complaint, not necessarily the allegations that Adams made in his section 27 referral.

“General Senthumule came back to indicate that the Inspectorate was vested with the investigation and what that investigation was, and sorry, IDAC, goodbye, you cannot get those...The Inspectorate, from how I understand it, Commissioner Khumalo, and if I am incorrect, my understanding is they were looking at a service delivery complaint.”

Funds access in the covert environment is an issue of concern due to alleged motivations and previous cases of state funds looting in similar environments, not directly related to IDAC.

“I have no sympathy for people who loot state funds ... But this case ... is a serious abuse of power by IDAC to target a civilian...”

General Senthumule indicated that the docket numbers related to complaints were with the Inspectorate, as facilitated by Commissioner Khumalo, and IDAC would not have requested those dockets without that understanding.

“General Senthumule indicated, and this was a telephone conversation, Commissioner Baloyi, she indicated that she was not aware herself, that the dockets were with the Inspectorate, she would find out, and she would come back. When she later came back, she had facilitated, then the dockets to IDAC ... had she at that stage said, I am sorry, ID, these are with the Inspectorate for a very specific purpose, based on the points that Commissioner Khumalo has made, IDAC would not have asked for those dockets”

IDAC did not intend to dispossess the Inspectorate of the dockets but sought to determine where those dockets were, acting under section 27 and subsequent authorization.

“IDAC did not intend to dispossess the Inspectorate of those dockets . What IDAC did is , acting upon the section 27 , and the subsequent authorization , IDAC sought to determine where those dockets were .”

IDAC's request for access to dockets could have been denied as they did not have the authority to demand them outright without subpoena through the National Commissioner.

“The request could easily have been denied for access to those dockets .”

IDAC received the dockets on 9th December after requesting them on 6th December, and they were received by Investigator Rapetsu who shared them with Advocate Ramsami for appraisal.

“We requested them on the 6th of December . They were received on the 9th of December . The dockets when they were received , were received by Investigator Rapetsu . Investigator Rapetsu then shared those dockets with Advocate Ramsami , who already had the 27 and she appraised those dockets together with the section 7 .”

IDAC did not intend to dispossess the Inspectorate of the dockets but sought to determine where the dockets were according to section 27 and subsequent authorization.

“IDAC did not intend to dispossess the Inspectorate of those dockets . What IDAC did is , acting upon the section 27 , and the subsequent authorization , IDAC sought to determine where those dockets were .”

IDAC's request for dockets was a request that could have been denied; it did not have compulsory authority to take possession without consent.

“Which request did not have to be acceded to , Counsel . The request could easily have been denied for access to those dockets .”

IDAC worked through the usual channels to request dockets via the Divisional Commissioner of Detectives and not directly to Lieutenant General Jacobs.

“I worked through the channel that we do when we request dockets , which would have been the Divisional Commissioner , Detectives .”

The dockets were requested on 6 December and received on 9 December.

“We requested them on the 6th of December . They were received on the 9th of December .”

There is no evident factual basis for the paragraph alleging unlawful access to funds through appointments made by Lieutenant General Khumalo and co-accused persons, according to IDAC's own investigations.

“there is simply no basis for what is stated in that paragraph. No actual basis.”

IDAC is not familiar with National Instruction 11 of 2017 as evidenced by Colonel Padayachee struggling to answer questions regarding this document.

“IDAC is not even familiar with this National Instruction because when Colonel Padayachee was here, he struggled to give answers in relation to this document”

The IDAC investigation improperly targeted a civilian alleged in connection with events from April to June 2024, which was not justified by the referral, statement, or affidavit.

“IDAC's investigation goes to April, it goes to May, it goes to June, and it targets this individual civilian in circumstances that are simply not justified by the referral or the statement or the affidavit itself”

IDAC investigators failed to pay attention to National Instruction 11 of 2017 which governs appointments to senior management posts in SAPS, ignoring the proper processes and definitions therein.

“your investigators did not even pay attention to a national instruction which governs appointments at this level...your investigators say nothing about this. In fact, they pay no regard to it”

IDAC's investigation improperly targeted an individual civilian in relation to a matter dated October 2024, which was not justified by the referral or affidavit itself.

“IDAC's investigation goes to April, it goes to May, it goes to June, and it targets this individual civilian in circumstances that are simply not justified by the referral or the statement or the affidavit itself.”

The referral affidavit limits the offence date and location, but IDAC's investigation extended far beyond those limits without justification.

“Mr Adams limits himself to ... a particular date ... and the scene of the offence...But IDAC's investigation goes to April, it goes to May, it goes to June...”

IDAC can only investigate fraud, forgery, uttering, or theft if these are related to serious, high profile, or complex corruption or commercial or financial crime cases as envisaged in paragraph A.

“So it must be additional to what is envisaged in paragraph A.”

IDAC undertook a fishing exercise by investigating despite lacking a reasonable basis or jurisdiction as required by the trigger provisions; the investigation was not properly triggered.

“This is a typical fishing exercise. Your mandate and your powers do not contemplate you doing that. That is why there is that trigger provision. But in this case, it seems there was a failure in that trigger, you just did not have enough to trigger that investigation...”

No lawyer in the IDAC office advised that they lacked jurisdiction to investigate based on section 27, even after receiving the affidavit.

“It is simply unimaginable that in your office no one would have said to you, ID, we do not have the trigger, the triggering requirements. It is simply unimaginable that no lawyer in your office said, we do not have jurisdiction to investigate...”

As of 6 January, there were no grounds to conduct a preparatory investigation because the matter did not fall within IDAC mandate.

“As of the 6th January, there are not even any grounds at all to conduct a preparatory investigation... the matter does not fall within IDAC mandate.”

The mandate of IDAC includes serious, high-profile, complex corruption as well as commercial or financial crimes, primarily fraud and undue benefit.

“under Capital 1 A , we have relating to serious high-profile or complex corruption , and then it has commercial or financial crimes . And that then takes you to the additional , which is in B , which is fraud”

IDAC's mandate overlaps with SAPS and Hawks regarding investigating serious high-profile fraud and corruption, with no difference in their mandate.

“No difference between you and SAPS ? No difference between you and Hawks ? No .”

IDAC was formed specifically to deal with serious, complex, high-profile corruption matters.

“IDAC was formulated to deal with serious , complex , high-profile corruption matters .”

The theft of a motor vehicle is not within IDAC's mandate but within SAPS's mandate.

“No . Because that matter falls within a different mandate , and that matter falls within the mandate of SAPS .”

Further investigations into the docket revealed additional statements relating to theft of funds and allegations of undue benefit in connection with an appointment.

“They took additional statements in each of those docket . This would have been the one that relates to the allegations of the appointment , but that there would have been other statements that would relate to the theft of the funds , etc .”

IDAC's entry point for investigations must be based on criteria of seriousness, high-profile status, or complexity related to corruption or financial crime, which is reflected in Subsection A of section 7(1).

“IDAC's entry point has got to be A .”

When General Khumalo came to know about the incident involving General Lushaba, he did not act promptly for disciplinary reasons; disciplinary action was only taken after the IDAC charge.

“when it did come to the attention of General Khumalo , he did not act for this reason ... disciplinary action was taken , but well after the fact . I think it was after he was charged by IDAC”

Disciplinary action against General Lushaba was delayed and only occurred after criminal charges by IDAC were filed.

“disciplinary action was taken , but well after the fact . I think it was after he was charged by IDAC”

Advocate Johnson clarifies that IDAC's mandate is to deal with serious, high-profile or complex corruption and related commercial or financial crimes, especially those arising from Commissions of Inquiry like state-capture investigations.

“...serious high-profile or complex corruption is precisely what we were formulated for... to deal with those that arise from these Commissions of Inquiry, the state-captured Mpati and Nugent...”

Advocate Johnson states that theft of a motor vehicle is not within IDAC’s mandate but falls within SAPS mandate.

“No. Because that matter falls within a different mandate, and that matter falls within the mandate of SAPS.”

IDAC investigates serious high profile or complex corruption or commercial or financial crime cases specifically related to fraud.

“related to serious high profile or complex corruption or commercial or financial crime cases. I take the commercial or financial crime cases relating to fraud”

IDAC cannot investigate any fraud, forgery, uttering or theft unless these are additional and related to serious high profile or complex corruption or commercial or financial crimes as envisaged in paragraph A.

“at least you accept that IDAC cannot just jump and investigate any fraud, any forgery, any uttering, any theft ... It must be additional to what is envisaged in paragraph A”

IDAC exercised discretion to request further substantiation from a referee before initiating an investigation due to incompleteness of the initial Section 27 documents.

“you exercised your discretion... which is to request further substantiation from a referee. Now you have it.”

IDAC's mandate and powers do not contemplate conducting fishing expeditions or investigations without reasonable grounds or trigger requirements met by the Section 27 affidavit.

“your mandate and your powers do not contemplate you doing that... typical fishing exercise... that is why there is that trigger provision...”

No lawyer in the office advised that IDAC lacked jurisdiction to investigate based on Section 27, despite vague evidence and lack of clear grounds in the affidavit.

“does it mean no single lawyer in your offices said to you, we do not have jurisdiction to investigate... and even after you received this affidavit no one said, we lack jurisdiction?”

IDAC conducted a preparatory investigation as allowed by Section 28(13) of the NPA Act to determine if there were reasonable grounds for a formal investigation.

“That is the preparatory investigation... conducted so that ... to determine if there are reasonable grounds ...”

After the preparatory investigation, no lawyer said IDAC lacked jurisdiction to prepare charges.

“no single lawyer in the offices said to you, we do not have jurisdiction to prepare these charges? No.”

As of 6 January, there were no grounds to conduct a preparatory investigation because the matter did not fall within IDAC's mandate.

“as of the 6 th of January, there are not even any grounds at all to conduct a preparatory investigation to determine whether to conduct a full blown investigation because the matter does not fall within IDAC mandate”

There must be a formal, recorded process of seeking clarifications with witnesses or referees happening before a case is taken on for investigation, ensuring accountability.

“in that process of seeking clarifications, that is a formal process, it is recorded . It is a formal process . You may not at that point yet have decided to take on the case, but I would expect that there would be a record that Chief Perumal spoke to Mr Adamson this day , and this is what was discussed between them”

Chief Perumal received a list of names from Mr Adamson that were not included in the section 27 referral affidavit but were implicated in the investigation authorization.

“I got the section 27 from the ID on this date, right, and we determined, or I determined, that it requires particulars . I met with Mr Adamson this day, right, and here is what I discussed with him . These are the questions I asked him , and this is where I got these names . I am talking about that kind of process.”

IDAC used section 28(13) to conduct a full investigation before proper authorization, then granted authorization post-facto on 30 May to apply for arrest warrants and arrest suspects.

“it appears to me, and perhaps I am looking at it wrong, that IDAC used the mechanics of section 28(13) to conduct a full-blown investigation which would render it wholly unauthorised. And then to post-facto grant the authorisation on the 30th of May, which opened the way for applying for arrest warrants and actually arresting them.”