Referred to as: Investigating Directorate · ID · Investigating Director · Investigating Directorate Corruption · Investigator/Director · investigating department
Advocate Serunye states that in their experience, the Investigating Director (ID) has never instructed them to draft applications under sections 28(1) or (13), but the ID makes recommendations and notes on such applications.
“No, it has never happened to me in that sense, but there are instances where, let us say, my memo would ask her to authorize the matter in terms of 28(1A), but after going through what would have been presented before him, she, I know of one matter where she would have said, no ... she then makes notes on the memo. She sort of recommends or does not recommend. When she recommends, she makes notes, or if she does not recommend, she also makes notes saying why.”
Advocate Serunye confirms that any application to the ID is made by them first, and the ID then makes a recommendation; the ID has never approached them to initiate an application independently.
“Indeed, Commissioner, I would have made an application and she then makes a recommendation. She has never approached me to say I ...”
Adv Serunye deliberately limited her involvement after bail application because she was not formally part of the team and did not want to question decisions of the ID.
After the bail application, Adv Serunye was not supposed to be part of the team and ended her involvement there; her involvement resumed only when formally included by the ID on 8 August 2025.
Adv Serunye did not ask why she was involved and Mr. Louw was not, but speculates it may be because she helped on the first day at court and left a message with the ID's PA.
Advocate Serunye did not make a report to the ID or Mr Sesokoo on the developments or concerns relating to the bail proceedings on that day due to insufficient information and not being part of the case.
“personally, I did not, because at least at this stage I did not have enough information ... Personally, I did not at least at this stage make any report because I was not part of the case”
Permission was obtained from the Investigating Director (ID) to oppose the Section 65 application and all affidavits including that of Mr Brian Padayachee were sent to the ID.
“and then she gave us permission to go ahead with the opposition on thesection 65 ... all the affidavits of the accused were sent to the ID ... ourresponding affidavit of Mr Brian Padayachee was sent to the ID”
General Masemola provided an affidavit supporting the application indicating relocation of offices, which was also sent to the ID.
“Page 92 of 276 by General Masemolain support of the application, indicating that he had lifted their relocation to other offices and that affidavit as well was given to the ID”
Further affidavits from two other officials were prepared and filed in support of the opposition, keeping the ID updated at all times.
“we got further information which then allowed us to prepare additional affidavits of two other officials, which affidavits we then also handed in in support of our opposition. So she was kept abreast at all times of what was happening.”
There was difficulty for junior colleagues to raise issues directly with Advocate Johnson due to power dynamics and seniority, leading them to raise complaints with ADV SERUNYE.
“The two colleagues are juniors and it is not easy for them to go straight to the ID to raise issues ... Not that it was easy for me as well to approach Advocate Johnson ... I respect her a lot ... management style as well ... she could be unpredictable at times ...”
There was no engagement by the ID (Independent Directorate) or feedback that there was a prima facie case, only role recitations of the Act without addressing the substantive questions.
“I was never engaged by the ID on this memo...what they did basically was just to recite what the Acts says and not to deal with the questions.”
A D V S E R U N Y E describes communication practice within the ID office, where emails are typically sent to the PA who then sends them to the Advocate. Urgent matters are directly communicated to the Advocate by sender.
“When I send it to Ms Sekhukhune, I am not, I am sending it to her to forward it to the ID. That was the practice, or that is the practice in the office... if it is urgent, urgent, then you even call her, say, ID, I have sent you an email, please check.”
A D V S E R U N Y E says prosecutors summarize evidence in a docket which is sent to the ID and the Head of Operations who decide if a warrant application should be made.
“They make a presentation to the ID and with the CEO, Head of Operations, the so-called sitting in. So it is at that level where decisions are taken to apply for a warrant... But in the actual engagements with the ID, they must say to her, we are ready. These are the charges that we want to proceed on. Our application for a warrant is ready.”
The witness was raising issues by email about cases being rushed to court and questioning them with investigators and Mr Sesoko at the ID (likely investigating department).
“my emails are telling the story. I am questioning and raising these issues, not only with the investigators, but with the ID, with Mr Sesoko, that these cases were rushed to court, and I am raising a lot of issues here.”
The cases discussed are exposing the investigation department to reflection; wrongdoing by ID officials, including premature arrests, required strategic planning and proper processes to be put in place.
“these two cases are exposing us ... ID officials to do wrong things, arrest people prematurely ... We must go back ... have our strategic planning ... like you are saying ... know when a person is not doing things in accordance with the rules ...”
Mr. Raphesu collected the original dockets from General Jacob's office on December 9 after the signing of a letter by the ID and its sending to General Senthumule.
“On the 9th I reported to the office of General Jacobs. When I get there, I was informed that the letter has not been signed already or provided already, so I had to wait outside for the office to process the signing of the letter. Some few minutes, about 10 to 15, I was informed that the ID has signed the letter and it has been sent to General Senthumule...I signed for the docket and took them back to the office.”
Section 28 of the legislation is invasive and lacks checks and balances, allowing unlimited control by one person without checks, leading to severe abuse since the start of the witness's tenure at ID.
“Section 28 does not have any checks and balances and it can be likened to a section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is invasive. It is exceptionally invasive, but section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act allows for a person to make submissions to a Magistrate or a Judge to explain why we are now invading this person’s privacy, or we need this information. Section 8 allows unlimited control by one person without any checks or balances, and that is how we were investigated, throughout that.”
Mr. Ramsamy distanced himself from the section 28's documents because he had advised Mr. Raphesu who had received instructions from the Head of office, and felt explicating the section 28's in court would be difficult.
“I advised Mr Raphesu, he has received his instructions from the ID. I had addressed his concerns. He had received instructions from the Head of office and I then distanced myself from these 28's because how were you going to explain this at court and who was going to explain it at”
As of December 2024, no investigation in terms of section 28(1)(a) had been authorized by the ID on the Crime Intelligence matters.
“As at the date of this summons, which is December 2024, there was no decision yet in terms of 28(1) in respect of these Crime Intelligence matters? Correct.”
A letter dated 16 June 2019 identified cases already being investigated by IPID proposed for prioritization and transfer for investigation by IDAC under section 28 of the NPA Act, but the actual list of cases was not found by the current parties.
““With reference to my letter with subject request for a meeting to discuss the operational cooperation between the Independent Police Investigative Directorate and Investigating Directorate Corruption… I have identified a number of cases that I understand are already being investigated by IPID. I hope to prioritize them as short-term, medium-term and long-term cases for the ID... I propose we setup a meeting to discuss the cases that the ID will investigate within its mandate using the powers conferred by section 28 of the NPA Act.” ... She does identify that there are matters that would come. We did look for that letter because I was also confused that there is a whole table setting out who must come, but there was nothing about the cases.”
The summons authorizing the ID to investigate certain Crime Intelligence officers is prepared by specific individuals (Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee, Mr Mantha, or Mr Mlambo).
The person who drafts a summons briefs the ID on the necessity of the summons as part of the investigation, specifically relating to manipulation of security vetting.
“the person who issues or drafts the summons would come and brief the ID on, we need to issue a summons to this person, part of the investigation relates to them manipulation of the security vetting”
The ultimate authorizer of the summons (the ID) must also ensure satisfaction with the contents and evidence supporting the summons before signing.
“It would have to be you as well. Ultimately, you are the person that authorised. Only your signature appears here, not this other person that you are referring to. So we, as we sit here, look to you to furnish the information that you say someone else would have to furnish”
The rules of the Commission apply to Ms. Johnson who is before the Commission, meaning those rules supersede any other rights she might have elsewhere.
“The rules of the Commission apply. She is not before IDAC. She is not before the ID. It may very well be that the Act accords her more rights than she otherwise would have, or vice versa, but the rules of the Commission are the rules of the Commission, and that is what applies.”