Peter Serunye is currently reassigned to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) of the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa and has personal knowledge of IDAC's criminal investigations into allegations against Lieutenant General Samuel Dumisani Khumalo and six other Crime Intelligence officials regarding the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele.
“I have been subpoenaed by the Commission to give evidence regarding my involvement in and knowledge of IDAC's criminal investigation into the allegations against Lieutenant General Samuel Dumisani Khumalo and six other Crime Intelligence officials regarding the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele, commonly referred to as the Mokwele matter (State versus Khumalo and others) and the matter of Major General Lushaba.”
Adv Serunye questioned why six SAPS Generals risked their jobs to appoint a 29-year-old inexperienced civilian, Mokwele, as Brigadier in Crime Intelligence, implying potential quid pro quo corruption for a gratification.
“Why did these Generals in the SAPS go out of their way, risk their jobs... to appoint a 29-year-old inexperienced civilian to the rank of Brigadier in Crime Intelligence? Who is this young lady (Mokwele) for whom six Generals in the SAPS are risking losing their jobs? What did they stand to gain... by giving her gratification, which is the position or the job? What did they stand to gain?”
Adv Serunye alleged that Mokwele's appointment was suspicious and possibly fraudulent due to her inexperience and misrepresentations in her CV, suggesting a quid pro quo arrangement with the Generals.
“The appointment of this young lady to such a position does not make sense and is suspicious, but suspicion alone is not enough... the appointment was fraudulent because she was inexperienced (a requirement for the position), ... She also made representations in her CV (fraud) ... The quid pro quo ... We must look for it.”
Adv Serunye noted that Mokwele's MBA course completion was unclear in her application and only confirmed later during the investigation; the project management certificate validity should also be followed up.
“She also claims to have been top of her class for MBA. She does not say where she was registered for the MBA and whether she eventually completed it... With the investigation, it became clear that she had finished the MBA ... The investigators should follow up the validity of the project management certificate at Stellenbosch University.”
The memorandum contains basic questions that a prosecutor would ask before an arrest and charging, but no evidence of corruption was found in the docket's four volumes.
“I am looking for the evidence of corruption in the four volumes in the docket. I cannot find any evidence of corruption.”
There was no prima facie case of corruption at the time of arrest, and the arrest seemed premature given the lack of sufficient evidence and ongoing investigations.
“My view at the time, Commissioner Baloyi, was that no. They should have been asked right from the beginning, but then you arrest.”
Responses by the investigation team did not appear in the court docket and were not evidently relevant to the charges.
“The responses referred to Ms Mokwele's father said to the suspended Brigadier in the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, who had attempted to corrupt investigators, and to a theory concerning the capture of a sensitive intelligence resource. I could find no evidential foundation for these assertions in the docket, and their irrelevance to the charges was not apparent.”
No evidential foundation was found for assertions about Ms Mokwele's father being a suspended Brigadier or attempts to corrupt investigators in the docket.
“...this is not supported by any evidence and it does not really take the case any further.”
Investigators questioned the validity of Ms Mokwele's CV and were urged by Mr Perumal to urgently authorise and conclude section 28 by 26 December.
“The answer to your question 6, where you say she also made misrepresentations in her CV, fraud in brackets, the investigators should follow up upon the validity. And then the answer from Mr Perumal is section 28 to be authorised urgently and be concluded on 26 December.”
Verification of Ms Mokwele's project management certificate and MBA was only obtained after the arrest, after repeated prompting, and no HR expert was engaged to assess all applications for correctness before appointments.
“Her project management certificate and her MBA were not verified at the time. Verification was only obtained belatedly after the arrest and after my repeated prompting. In addition, no HR expert had been engaged to assess the full body of some 6 applications so as to determine whether the disqualification of other candidates and Ms Mokwele's progression to the shortlist and appointment had been proper. Determination of that nature could not be made without such expertise.”
Ms Mokwele's matric, diploma, and engineering degree were confirmed by SAQA, while project management and MBA certificates were verified only after initial questioning.
“The affidavit we got from SAQA confirmed the matric and the diploma and the engineering degree. Yes. And these two that I had questioned about, the certificates that I questioned about, the project management and the MBA were verified.”
Advocate Serunye expresses frustration that responses to questions about the allegation of gratification involving Ms Mokwele are evasive and not supported by evidence.
“Instead of providing me with answers, I am provided with a citation of PRECCA. I know what section 1, 2, 3, and 24 of PRECCA say. I do not want to sound critical, but reference to section 24 is misguided and misunderstood. ... Why are we saying it is a gratification? They do not provide me with the evidence.”
The corruption charge against the Generals and Ms Mokwele is defective and liable to be challenged as it does not comply with PRECCA and the Criminal Procedure Act.
“I concluded that the corruption charge, as it stood, was defective and did not comply with the definitional elements of PRECCA and was liable to be challenged in terms of section 85 of the Criminal Procedure Act.”
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.”
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.”
On August 17th, ADV SERUNYE's position was that the alleged conduct did not meet the definitional elements of an offence, thus no corruption was committed, but further investigation might uncover evidence of corruption by the Generals through bank statements, cellphone records, and computer data.
“Once the alleged conduct committed does not meet the definitional elements of the offence ... that means no crime (corruption has been committed)... if we investigate further and dig more, we are going to find the evidence of corruption of the Generals by Mokwele and not vice versa... in the bank statement, cellphone records, and computer data of the Generals.”
The original chargesheet against Ms Mokwele was flawed because the corruption counts inverted the roles of giver and receiver, alleging she accepted a gratification in the form of an appointment without identifying any unlawful act she was to pay for in return.
“First, the corruption counts inverted the giver and the receiver ... did not identify any unlawful act which Ms Mokwele was to pay for in return”
The chargesheet included a repeated corruption count against Ms Mokwele regarding the same gratification.
“Second, a further corruption count appeared to be a repetition of the count against accused number 7 being directed against her in respect of the same gratification”
The fraud counts on the chargesheet contain contradictions, including allegations that Ms Mokwele misrepresented information in her curriculum vitae and SAPS application form, while the General was alleged both to be a victim and a perpetrator of the fraud.
“Thirdly, the fraud counts gave rise to a contradiction ... alleged that Ms Mokwele had misrepresented in her curriculum vitae ... and SAPS application form ... General ... victim ... and perpetrators ... rigged the process in her favour”
The charge that the Generals colluded to appoint Ms Mokwele, if true, would amount at most to conspiracy rather than fraud, and the same persons cannot be both victims and parties to the fraud.
“If, as the chargesheet alleged, the Generals colluded to appoint her, they were not deceived by her ... conduct would not be fraud ... but at most a conspiracy”
The alternative count of fraud alleges collusion and conspiracy among seven accused, involving a late application submission by accused 7 Mokwele, which was accepted despite being received after the closing date.
“if one looks at the misrepresentations, the first one on page 70, because I said conspiracy, section 21, they conspired, all seven of them, alternatively fraud... the application of accused number, Mokwele, was submitted late”
The application of Mokwele was received a day late after the closing date but despite that, she was not disqualified by the panel, leading to allegations of favouritism or collusion.
“if indeed Mokwele's application was received on the 26th, then she ought to have been disqualified, and she was not... if she is not disqualified, then she is being favoured by the panel”
The arrests related to the investigation were premature and made before the investigation was complete.
“ADV SERUNYE said that the verification of Ms Mokwele's qualifications, the analysis of financial and communication records, and the assessment of the appointment process should have preceded and not followed the arrest.”
Mr. Raphesu spoke to Mr. O'Sullivan, who provided him with a letter (unclear if from or to the Minister) and a report including CPB details about Brigadier Mokwele; details were sent via email already to Andrea Johnson on 5 December 2025.
“he gave me a letter . I am not sure whether it was the letter to the Minister or from the Minister ... He also provided me with a report ... On that report ... there is something that you call CPB ... So those details , he provided them via email ... that information was sent to Andrea Johnson on the 5th ... of December 2025 already”
Mr O'Sullivan sent two emails on 13 January 2025; the first with a ministerial directive annexure and the second containing details of Ms Mokwele.
“The first is sent at 14.11 and there is the directive of the Minister attached... The second email was sent on the same day... which contains Ms Mokwele's details.”
Attached to the email from Mr O'Sullivan to Ms Mokwele is the ministerial directive dated 31 December 2024 relating to Crime Intelligence, Points of Entry and Political Killings Task Team (PKTT).
“Attached to the email, perhap the Annexure MRR 13, is the directive of the Minister relating to Crime Intelligence, Points of Entry and Political Killings Task Team, dated 31 December 2024.”
The four supplementary affidavits did not include any mention of Mokwele; the name Mokwele was not known or mentioned when they went to Mr Adams for those supplementaries.
“the four supplementaries did not include Mokwele ... The Mokwele name was never mentioned”
Evidence collected shows that SAPS members accused 1 to 6 contravened National Instruction provisions without just or reasonable cause to benefit accused 7.
“Evidence collected proves that accused 1 to 6 … contravened the provisions of the above quoted sections to the benefit … of accused 7; … without just or reasonable cause.”
Accused 7 (Mrs Mokwele) made fraudulent averments in her CV, submitting false and misleading information that was deliberately ignored during the selection process.
“there was fraud, a fraudulent averment in the CV, which was deliberately not picked up so that a candidate could go through”
The charge sheet contains allegations at points 12.12 to 12.14 regarding Mrs Mokwele submitting false CV information, misrepresentations regarding vetting, and abuse of authority under SAPS National Instruction by accused 2 to 6.
“12.12, and that is Mrs Mokwele, submitting false and misleading information in the application and curriculum vitae. 12.13 is misrepresentations made by the accused with regards to the vetting of accused number 7. And 12.14 speaks to accused, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 abusing authority vested in them by disregarding and not complying with SAPS National Instruction.”
Advocate Johnson conceded that the DPP could not have properly exercised their mind in approving the specific vetting count against Brigadier Mokwele when the details were present in the charge sheet but entirely absent from the prosecution memorandum.
“I accept that.”
ADV JOHNSONDay 150 · 29 Jul 2026Evidence: charge sheet page 3279, count against Accused 6 and 7
An IDAC memorandum alleged that accused individuals committed crimes involving dishonesty, abuse of authority, and state capture by circumventing systems and processes to unduly benefit another.
“Th e c a s e r e l a t e s t o c r i m e s i n v o l v i n g d i s h o n e s t y a n d a b u s e o f a u t h o r i t y t h a t w e r e c o m m i t t e d a g a i n s t a n o r g a n o f s t a t e . T h e a l l e g a t i o n s a l s o a f f i r m t h a t t h e a c c u s e d r e l a t e s t o s t a t e c a p t u r e i n t h a t [p86 #1] t h e y s o u g h t t h r o u g h t h e i r a c t i o n s a n d i n t h e f u r t h e r a n c e o f a c o m m o n p u r p o s e t o c i r c u m v e n t s y s t e m s a n d p r o c e s s e s t o u n d u l y b e n e f i t a n o t h e r .”
Advocate Johnson signed and sent a letter dated 30 June 2025 to the National Commissioner stating that Generals Lushaba, Khumalo, Madondo, Lekalakala, Gabela, Ncube, and Brigadier Mokwele were prohibited by court order from entering any Crime Intelligence premises or contacting its personnel.
“On the 30th of June 2025, you penned, signed, and addressed a letter to the National Commissioner informing him that General Lushaba, General Khumalo, General Madondo, it is going to be projected here, General Lekalakala, and General Gabela, as well as Ncube, I apologise, I do not remember her rank, and Brigadier Mokwele. You state in this document... “Kindly note that none of the above named officers are allowed to enter any premises or office which forms part of the Division Crime Intelligence, or have any contact with its personnel as ordered by the Court.””
ADV SELLO SCDay 150 · 29 Jul 2026Refers to: 2025-06-30Location: Division Crime IntelligenceEvidence: letter dated 30 June 2025
Colonel Padayachee testified before the Commission that the investigation was confined to the recommendation and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele and he could not account for how other names got included in the summons.
“Colonel Padayachee appeared before the Commission and was engaged on this document testified that this investigation was confined to the recommendation and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele... he could not account for how the names of 1.1 to 1.5 and 1.7 found its way into this summons”
The vetting problem is mainly related to Mokwele, and the reference to Major General Lushaba involves a separate issue about a housebreaking and a laptop.
“so it is the Mokwele issue where the vetting is a problem. And then reference to Lushaba is in paragraph 6 on 514 is the issue of the housebreaking and the laptop”
There was an ongoing investigation into alleged manipulation of security vetting processes, recruitment, and employment regarding persons within Crime Intelligence including Brigadier Mokwele.
“complaint about manipulation of security vetting processes , but then it goes further to talk about recruitment and employment and manipulation in respect of other people besides Brigadier Mokwele”
An inquiry file exists concerning manipulation of appointment processes, intending to appoint individuals other than Brigadier Mokwele.
“inquiry file containing all relevant information pertaining to the alleged manipulation of appointment processes with a view to appointing individuals other than Brigadier Mokwele”
The investigation involving Brigadier Mokwele's case is still in its investigation phase, operating under CIN reference number, not yet registered as a docket.
“the inquiry file contains evidence , documentation ... it has not been registered as a docket . That is why it still operates under the CIN number”
The Van Vuuren referred to in the investigation is a Crime Intelligence officer already within the department and is not the Van Vuuren who applied for a job with Mrs Mokwele.
“Van Vuuren referred to here is a Crime Intelligence officer already within Crime Intelligence. It is not the Van Vuuren that applied for the job with Mrs Mokwele.”
Ms Mokwele did not fail to apply for or get top secret clearance where required. The matter of failing to apply for top secret clearances is under review in relation to General Madondo.
“No ... That is the other matter that is under review. That is the matter of General Madondo.”
Several highly skilled and qualified senior police officers were overlooked in favor of Mrs Mokwele for the position, with involvement from generals Khumalo CI Head, Lushaba CI, Madondo CI, and Ligagala CI.
“there were several highly skilled and qualified senior police officers who applied for the post , but were overlooked by the CI management , who favoured Mrs Mokwele over them . The generals involved are Khumalo CI Head , Lushaba , CI , Madondo , CI , Ligagala CI , amongst others .”
Ms Mokwele was positioned in Technical Support Services (TSS), a covert environment with a very big budget, where money for projects like property purchases could be accessed from debt under circumstances where she might feel the need to act due to disappointment.
“I recall that when it came to where she was positioned in TS S , TS S is a covert environment with a very big budget and the allegation was that if monies were needed , as an example for the purchase of properties , monies would be able to come out of debt and that if she was asked , because of disappointment , she would have felt the need to act .”
If Ms Mokwele is approached to make funds available in the covert environment of TSS but does not approve funding knowing the motivations, she would not approve the funding.
“if she was approached for access of the TS S funds, knowing that whatever that motivation was, she should not approve that funding”
The allegation that Ms Mokwele would loot state funds by approving requests in accordance with prescriptions is unfounded; complying with prescribed procedures is not criminal conduct.
“If she is approving a request and she is doing it in accordance with the prescripts , there is nothing wrong with that .”
Ms Mokwele would be approached to make monies available under circumstances where she would not have made them available, indicating possible improper conduct in accessing funds.
“that she would have been approached to make monies available under circumstances where she would not have made them available”
ADV Sello SC accuses ADV Johnson of being unfair to Ms Mokwele by attributing knowledge of conduct to her that she has no knowledge of and impugning her credibility unjustly by suggesting she would loot state funds.
“No , no , no . You are being grossly unfair to Ms Mokwele . Now you are attributing conduct of persons she has no knowledge of to her ... You are seriously impugning her credibility and we are trying to find the basis on which you says she was going to loot”
ADV Johnson states he is not intentionally impeding on Ms Mokwele's reputation or credibility and apologizes if it appears so.
“I think it is also wholly unfair. There is no intention to impede on her dignity. I am merely expressing or amplifying on the question... I do apologise if that is how it comes out...”
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...”
There is a review and representation process ongoing regarding Ms Mokwele's case, which may lead to correction if the wrong decision was made.
“It does not detract from the fact that there is a case for which they have now made representations. Mokwele ... and as you said , it is not just the representations. There is also the review process that you referred to ... fairness and justice must prevail ... if we have made the wrong decision , then that decision will be corrected.”
Both the vetting processes and allegations of recruitment and gratification are still under investigation.
“the vetting processes , those allegations of the vetting processes , as well as the allegations of recruitment and gratification for the matters still under investigation”
Colonel Padayachee accepted that the vetting process disadvantaged Ms Mokwele because it was conducted before the interview, whereas requirements stipulated vetting six months after appointment.
“Colonel Padayachee accepted that the way CID did it , the way the panel did it , disadvantaged Ms Mokwele . It did not benefit her because the requirements said she must subject herself to vetting six months after the appointment . So the fact that they were doing it before the interview was in fact disadvantaging her, not benefiting her. I think with Colonel Padayachee we settled on that and he accepted.”
Persons not suitably qualified/experienced and vetting issues must be urgently looked at in investigations on recruitment and gratification.
“the averment of persons not suitably qualified and / or experienced , and / or with regards to vetting , if they still find place in those other investigations not yet completed , those would have to be looked at as a matter of urgency and dealt with”
Appointment of Ms Mokwele is alleged to be a form of gratification to enable capture of crime intelligence funds.
“so the way you have constructed the charges against Ms Mokwele is that she was given the position so that she can do something . So she has been rewarded with a position to do something , and that is something you have described as a capture of crime intelligence”
PRECCA offense includes appointment given in return for gratification, regardless of qualification.
“It is employment in return for something . That provision in PRECCA does not say someone who is not qualified . It does not . So she may well be qualified , and yet she gets appointed precisely so that she can assist to achieve certain ends .”
Appointment of persons not suitably qualified and/or experienced may constitute gratification for collusion in future looting of state funds.
“The appointment of persons not suitably qualified and / or experience as a form of gratification for their collusion later on , I have to see what that investigation says . I cannot tell you that there is , in fact , evidence that there is collusion.”
Information was that Ms Mokwele would be part of a process where monies would be taken from secret funds to purchase properties and her placement would assist that process.
“the information that we had at the time was that in the process , she would have been part of a process where monies would have been taken from the secret funds in order to purchase properties and that her placement there would have assisted that process . That was the contention or the allegation .”
Ms Mokwele is suitably qualified and experienced but her appointment could still be a form of gratification for collusion in looting state funds later.
“She is suitably qualified and experienced . The appointment of persons not suitably qualified and / or experience as a form of gratification for their collusion later in the looting of state funds .”
There was a charge of gratification against Ms Mokwele under PRECCA, but no factual basis was provided by Mr Adams or in his affidavit supporting that charge.
“Page 183 of 203 have charged with an offence of gratification as defined in PRECCA. And it comes from, but there are no facts alleged by Mr Adams. There are not. Not in his section 27. Not in the affidavit, that paragraph 2 that speaks only about Ms Mokwele's appointment.”
The appointment and installation of Ms Mokwele was alleged to be strategic to access funding without following proper processes, but the evidence for this allegation fell away due to lack of factual support.
“the appointment and installation of certain persons … by Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused persons, help them strategically to access funding without following proper processes… her token appointment would not stop them from their unlawful acts... falls away in terms of the appointment... short of there being documents to prove the rest of the paragraph, then that falls away.”
Several highly skilled and qualified senior police officers who applied for the post were overlooked by CI management in favour of Mrs Mokwele.
“there were several highly skilled and qualified senior police officers who applied for the post, but were overlooked by the CI management, who favoured Mrs Mokwele over them. The generals involved are Khumalo CI Head, Lushaba, CI, Madondo, CI, Ligalagala CI, amongst others.”
A lot of the discussion about capture and appointments revolved around the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele, which was the key allegation regarding systems capture.
“it does revolve around the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele , which we have now dealt with . That was the systems and the capture . Those were the allegations .”
There is further information after the authorization for section 28 that points to authorized manipulation of processes to appoint persons other than Brigadier Mokwele.
“There is further information post the authorisation for a section 28 that points to an authorised manipulation of processes to appoint the persons other than Brigadier Mokwele?”
Advocate Johnson admits not knowing all the qualifications of Ms. Mokwele and had not seen the national instruction detailing required qualifications at the time of making statements about her suitability.
“I cannot tell you off my head. I would have to have sight of the advert ... you do not know what the processes are because they are set out in that national instruction ... I accept that ... that is fair ... No, not all her qualifications, no ... I have not gone through her ... application for this job ... No.”
Advocate Khumalo claims the national instruction requires a person appointed to have at least a three-year degree or diploma in specified fields such as policing, public administration, criminology, intelligence, or engineering.
“It requires that the person must have at least a three-year degree or diploma ... in policing or public administration or criminology or intelligence or electrical or mechanical engineering ...”
Advocate Johnson clarifies that the required applicable qualifications include a minimum three years' managerial experience relevant to the post, and that experience alone is not considered a qualification.
“She must have at least three years in applicable postgraduate qualification... must have a minimum period of three years of appropriate managerial experience in the field of the post... I do not know her qualifications but the fact that you point me to that means they must be there ... Must have a minimum period of three years appropriate managerial experience... No, it was just a requirement... No, it was just a requirement.”
Advocate Khumalo accuses IDAC of targeting Ms. Mokwele by inaccurately alleging she lacks seven years' senior management experience and that she was subjected to criminal proceedings and humiliation.
“And that is the basis for IDAC targeting this female person and subjecting her to criminal proceedings and humiliation ... investigators have said Ms. Mokwele does not have seven years’ senior management experience and therefore she does not qualify.”
Advocate Johnson states he has not reviewed Ms. Mokwele's application for the role and is not aware she is studying for an MBA.
“No, I have not gone through her ... application for this job ... No ... No, I have not gone through her ... I know she has I was called Megatronics ...”
Advocate Johnson admits he relied on incorrect briefing from his team regarding fraud allegations against Ms Mokwele and would need to review the facts.
“I relied on the briefing from my team. ... the facts ... were incorrect.”
Advocate Baloyi SC accuses Advocate Johnson of relying on briefings rather than reviewing documents before preparing his affidavit, and questions the validity of Johnson’s statements about the appointment being manipulated.
“Even allowing for your explanation that you did not look at the documents ... you relied on briefing ... You still repeat the statement that she was appointed as a result of manipulation of processes.”
Advocate Johnson acknowledges in hindsight he should have corrected the statements in his affidavit that Ms Mokwele was appointed as a result of manipulation, but did not.
“In my preparation, and in hindsight, I should have corrected it.”
On Friday prior to the hearing, the accused, Brigadier Mokwele, submitted an additional document to the National Director and Advocate Bell, which references evidence of Mr Padayachee relevant to completing representations.
“On Friday, the Friday that passed, the accused, Brigadier Mokwele, did submit in writing, for the attention of the National Director, as well as Advocate Bell, who now oversees these matters, an additional document wherein her legal team alludes to the evidence of Mr Padayachee especially in relation to aspects elicited during the examination at the Commission on the section 27, and makes it clear that these cannot be ignored for purposes of completing the representations.”
Advocate Johnson invoked the issue of sub judice in her testimony before the Ad Hoc Committee and indicated she would not respond to certain questions on charges tied to Brigadier Mokwele's appointment because those matters are sub judice.
“I am unable to expand on ... those matters are in court and sub judice... I read it as to that question I would not respond ... in the Ad Hoc Committee ... issues relating to Brigadier Mokwele’s appointment and the subsequent charging of the five or six people involved”
The accused, Brigadier Mokwele, submitted an additional document for the attention of the National Director and Advocate Bell, which alludes to the evidence of Colonel Padayachee and indicates that the evidence cannot be ignored for purposes of completing the representations.
“on Friday, the Friday that passed, the accused, Brigadier Mokwele, did submit in writing, for the attention of the National Director, as well as Advocate Bell, who now oversees these matters, an additional document wherein her legal team alludes to the evidence of Mr Padayachee ... and makes it clear that these cannot be ignored for purposes of completing the representations”
A section 28 summons dated 6 February 2025 required original complete applications for security clearances and vetting files for senior officers of the South African Police Service including Generals Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo, Ncube, and others.
“section 28 summons dated the 6th of February 2025 ... required original complete applications for security clearances and vetting files ... for the following senior officers of the South African Police Service ... Lieutenant General Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo, Ncube, Janse van Vuuren ...”
The only complaint about appointments that is referred to IDAC relates to the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele, with no other complaints or referrals concerning others in different positions.
“The only complaint I am aware of ... is the complaint about the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele. ... No out of this, no.”
IDAC identified issues relating to vetting and appointments from the referral by Mr Adams, including the complaint about Brigadier Mokwele’s appointment and one other matter concerning appointment vetting non-compliance.
“They were able to identify that there are issues relating to vetting and appointments. The appointment of Brigadier Mokwele was one of them, but the other, there are, I think there is one other matter where there is issue of an appointment is also part of the complaint, a part of the investigation that was dealt with.”
The sole complaint to IDAC about an appointment relates to Brigadier Mokwele’s placement, which arose from non-compliance with vetting positions and questions her appointment as unlawful.
“Perhaps it is complaint about the placement of a person in a position that arose out of the non-compliance with the vetting positions. So it is not, the only complaint about an actual appointment was the Mokwele, that were, the allegation is she should not have been appointed.”
The only complaint about appointment referred to IDAC involved Brigadier Mokwele, and no referral to IDAC regarding other appointments.
“the only complaint I am aware of , I may be mistake , is the complaint about the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele . Are there any other appointments in respect of which there are complaints ?”
IDAC referral from Mr Adams included issues relating to vetting and appointments, with Brigadier Mokwele's appointment being one of the matters.
“When we got the referral from Mr Adams and it was given to the prosecutors together with those dockets , they were able to identify that there are issues relating to vetting and appointments . The appointment of Brigadier Mokwele was one of them , but the other , there are , I think there is one other matter where the issue of an appointment is also part of the complaint , a part of the investigation that was dealt with .”
There were complaints about nepotism involving other Colonels in Crime Intelligence, and complaints about defeating the ends of justice, but no case was opened in Cape Town, Soweto, Orlando, or the Villieria precinct relating to corruption and fraud involving Brigadier Mokwele's appointment.
“there is one about nepotism , but it relates to the other Colonels in Crime Intelligence . That is what the story is . And there is complaints about defeating the ends of justice . That is what the other complaint is about in the dockets . But there was no case opened , either in Cape Town or in Soweto , Orlando , of corruption and fraud relating to the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele .”
Rapetsu assisted in the investigation team by retrieving dockets and working on the Lushaba matter and the Brooklyn CAS 542 docket related to Mokwele.
“with Rapetsu, he assisted on the first one and the second one, meaning with the Brooklyn CAS 542, which is the appointment of Mokwele. His starting point was getting the dockets, and I know that he worked on the Lushaba matter”
The complainant alleges manipulation of promotional and security vetting processes to unduly benefit a civilian person employed by BMW who was appointed as a Brigadier and Head of Technical Support Service in Crime Intelligence without policing or management experience.
“Here is an allegation of a high-ranking officer involved in manipulating promotional and security vetting, so the undue benefit of a civilian person who worked for BMW South Africa before being appointed as a Brigadier and CI... She had no policing experience, no management experience and was appointed as the Head of Technical Support Services.”
The initial summons to BMW in the investigation was issued on 31 January 2025 and was the starting point of requesting employment-related documents for Mrs. Mokwele.
The investigation process identified Mrs. Mokwele as the subject related to BMW through inquiries even though initial documents only referenced BMW generally.
“By the time we prepared the summons, we knew who she was. Through investigation we identified her and we knew who she was.”
The investigations relied on an A1 statement that mentioned BMW but did not name Mrs. Mokwele initially, requiring further investigation to identify her.
“First of all, on the A1 statement, paragraph 2, there is no name of Mrs Mokwele on there, just BMW”
Name and identification details of Mrs. Mokwele were obtained through investigative inquiries and speaking to relevant personnel, not initially included in the docket files.
“Through that investigation and asking questions and stuff like that I got these details. But it was not full details.”
The detail about Mrs. Mokwele's identity within Crime Intelligence was provided by Colonel Holtzhausen who gave a statement that is later included in the docket.
“The person that came up with Mokwele and the details is when, which, who I called and interviewed and eventually took a statement from, which is in the docket, was Colonel Holtzhausen.”
The investigation started with only the name Mrs Mokwele and the general link to BMW, and only later were detailed documents and identities obtained from the National Commissioner and BMW in February 2025.
“All we had was the name. We did not know exactly initially which BMW it was ... It is when we got the actual documents from the National Commissioner and that you will see we got it in February.”
Investigations involve issuing subpoenas to National Commissioner for specific documents related to security clearances and vetting files of implicated individuals including Mrs Mokwele.
“you issue a summons to the National Commissioner... It is security clearances and vetting files for seven people. This is the six SAPS members plus Mokwele”
The investigation focused on Mrs Mokwele's file regarding possible manipulation of the vetting process for her appointment and requested all vetting and clearance documents relevant to implicated people.
“we are investigating the appointment of Mrs Mokwele and we know from A1 that there is an issue about possible manipulation of vetting processes... We do one subpoena for all the files of people that we are investigating... When you see Mrs Mokwele , on this document there for the 8, so this section 28 with all her documents is in this docket”
Seven people including Ms Mokwele and General Khumalo are implicated as part of a scheme to capture Crime Intelligence.
“There are seven people ... one of them is Mokwele ... General Khumalo ... all of those you have accused of being part of the plan to capture Crime Intelligence.”
Ms Johnson's affidavit suggests a competitor to the position to which Ms Mokwele was appointed was also implicated in planning to capture Crime Intelligence.
“Ms Sellos says that was a competitor for the position that Ms Mokwele was finally appointed to ... Ms Johnson says ... they are planning to capture Crime Intelligence if they have not already.”
If corrupt or fraudulent appointment processes are found within investigations, these will be investigated as well.
“If we find, for example, there is another Brigadier, right, a person that is appointed irregularly, processes were manipulated, appointments, too were manipulated in the sense that there was corruption, there was fraud, there was misrepresentation, we will investigate that, too, as well whilst we are there.”
The vetting process for Brigadier Mokwele's appointment did not follow the normal process and she did not have a PERSAL number at the time.
“she was a civilian and there was a certain process that followed , that did not follow the normal process . For example , she did not have a PERSAL number , but it is stated there that her vetting was captured on the system”
The summons issued on 6 February 2025 signed by Advocate Johnson requests original personnel files for senior officers of SAPS including Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo, Moyana, Ncube, Van Vuuren, Mokwele, and Bobi, regarding promotions and appointments.
“This summons requires all original files , records , correspondence , and documents regarding the promotions , appointments of the following senior officers , Khumalo , Lushaba , Madondo , Ncube , Van Vuuren , Mokwele , Bobi .”
The appointments of the persons listed including Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo, Moyana, Ncube, Van Vuuren, Mokwele, and Bobi are under investigation, specifically their promotions.
“During the briefing by Chief Investigator Perumal , the appointments of these people mentioned here , right , and this is what we were requested to subpoena because the appointments are also under investigation .”
The investigation into these appointments focuses on possible unlawful promotions and manipulation of recruitment and vetting processes.
“You will agree it is way beyond the scope of determining whether or not the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele was as a result of manipulated processes , recruitment processes and vetting processes .”
There is a complaint about appointments of Lushaba, Madondo, Moyana, Ncube, Van Vuuren, Mokwele, and Bobi, which is the subject of a lawful investigation by IDAC.
“The same with Lushaba, Madondo, Moyana, Ncube... Van Vuuren, Mokwele and Bobi. There is such a complaint.”
Colonel Padayachee, as lead investigator for the relevant docket, is responsible for identifying and requesting specific documents and information such as personnel files for individuals including Mokwele and General Khumalo; some documents related to Khumalo fall under investigations handled by others like Chief Perumal.
“you are the lead investigator ... you are responsible for these requests”
General Madondo and other people are also involved in other docket cases, so the Chief handles those, while the witness's specific matter concerns a request for Mokwele and Lushaba.
“because General Madondo and the other people are also in other dockets, so the Chief handles that. But my specific one would be a request for Mokwele and Lushaba”
The ongoing broad investigation into Crime Intelligence includes the appointments and promotions of General Khumalo, General Madondo, and others, integrated under CIN 130/02/12/2024 inquiry number opened in December 2024.
“We now have come to understand that you are investigating specifically the Mokwele appointment, but that happens in the context of a broader investigation... with many legs. So we are trying to find documents pertaining to the investigations of the appointments and promotions of General Khumalo, General Madondo, all those people listed there... that investigation will be part of that CIN number 130/02/12/2024”
There has been no complete request for the entire record of decision from advertisement through to appointment of Mrs Mokwele; only portions including questions and assessments posed to the final interview candidates have been requested.
“In all these summonses, at no point do I see you requesting the entire, I will call it, record of decision from advertisement through to appointment of Mrs Mokwele... You call for some parts of the file, including, as I say”
Colonel Padayachee asserts that they served the whole appointment process, including the advertisement and questions posed to candidates, in the original subpoena in February.
“Chair, Commissioner, we did. We have that in the original subpoena that we served in February, where we have the whole appointment process from the advert right down to the final part where it is, Mokwele is appointed.”
The post in question was filled on the third attempt after two previous unsuccessful attempts in 2022 and 2023, culminating in the recommendation of Ms Mokwele in 2024.
“You are aware that this particular post was filled on the third attempt, the first having been in 2022, the second in 2023 and finally now in 2024, culminating in the recommendation of Ms Mokwele. You are aware of that? Correct. Correct, Chair.”
The appointment and constitution of a selection panel that appointed Mrs Mokwele followed the usual approval process, and there is no concern about its legitimacy.
“the same process was followed in 024, resulting in the appointment of Mrs Mokwele. So would you agree that ... there is no concern there?”
Colonel Padayachee expressed concern over the panel that appointed Mrs Mokwele, because although General Khumalo selected the panel members, the panel was not approved by him but only by Head Office, and the recommendations rarely changed upon Head Office approval.
“when we look at the panel of Mokwele, we had concerns there because he selected those people ... but the recommendations of the panels sent to Head Office for approval ... hardly changed”
Khumo, Madondo, Lekalakala, and Gabela unduly favoured Mokwele above experienced Colonels within the immediate environment who met all the requirements during the panel sittings.
“Khumalo, Madondo, Lekalakala, and Gabela, unduly favoured Mokwele above experienced Colonels within the immediate environment who met all the requirements during the panel sittings.”
Ncube compiled a letter falsely representing that Mokwele had applied to be vetted, which was untrue because she did not have a PERSAL number and could not apply.
“Ncube compiled a letter wherein she represented that Mokwele had applied to be vetted. This was not true, as it would have been impossible for Mokwele to apply as she did not have a PERSAL number.”
The invitation letters for recruitment required candidates to present original certificates, copies of qualifications, driver's license, and proof of security clearance application at the interview stage.
“The invitation letter actually instructs her to bring proof of such application. She does not have a PERSAL number.”
Ms Mokwele, a civilian candidate without a PERSAL number, could not apply for security clearance via the e-Vetting system, which requires a force number and a commander sign-off.
“She is a civilian. She cannot apply via the e-Vetting system. So this should have been brought to the attention of the panel when she went to the assessment centre... She does not have a force number, right? So what Brigadier Ncube did is that she went and did it via how you appoint a service provider... It cannot be captured on the e-Vetting system because she does not have a PERSAL number.”
Brigadier Ncube wrote a letter saying Ms Mokwele is a civilian who cannot apply via the e-Vetting system and that her vetting application was completed via a service provider at Inkwezi, which is unnecessary.
“Brigadier Ncube went and did it on the Inkwazi. Then she writes a letter, and in the letter she lies.”
Candidates without a PERSAL number or commander cannot be vetted via the e-Vetting system, which is problematic for civilians like Ms Mokwele applying for security clearance.
“You cannot get into the e-Vetting and log it because you do not have a PERSAL number and you do not have a Commander.”
Brigadier Ncube, head of the vetting system, should have known better than to improperly handle Ms Mokwele's vetting application by using Inkwazi service provider and writing an inaccurate letter.
“We are talking about Brigadier Mokwele who is the head of the vetting system that should have known better... But Brigadier Ncube went and took the same thing and done it on the Inkwazi. Then she writes a letter, and in the letter she lies.”
Ms Mokwele is charged based on a letter from Brigadier Ncube stating she was registered on the e-Vetting system, but she is actually registered on the Inkwazi system, and the letter makes no reference to her collusion or involvement.
“we have a letter from Ncube where she is saying that Ms Mokwele has been registered on the e-Vetting system, and Ms Mokwele herself knows that is not the fact. She is registered on the Inkwazi system. ... you do not implicate her in the Ncube letter because that letter says nothing about her”
The charge sheet includes a charge implying Ms Mokwele colluded with Brigadier Ncube to place her on the Inkwazi platform, but there are no facts to support this and the letter does not state it.
“You say she was in a conspiracy, she colluded with Ncube in a document... The Court sees, the Magistrate sees a charge sheet that says she colluded with Brigadier Ncube to be placed on this platform when you have absolutely zero facts that justify that... You made it up to include her in this charge”
Charging Ms Mokwele for being on the Inkwazi platform is petty and suggests an abuse of power and authority to victimize an innocent person since there are no facts to implicate her.
“It suggests something much more sinister because you do not have facts that implicate her in being on the Inkwazi platform... it speaks to an abuse of your power and authority to victimize an innocent person, at least on this charge, when you have no facts about it”
Colonel Padayachee acknowledges including Ms Mokwele on the charge sheet based on his affidavit and investigation, but he does not draft charge sheets or decide who is charged; that is the prosecutor's role.
“I note you say I included her on the charge sheet. I am at pains at that. It is my affidavit, my investigation, my affidavit... I do not draft the charge sheets and say whom must be charged... that is at the prosecutor's door”
A letter dated 25 July 2024 from Brigadier Ncube confirms Ms Mokwele submitted an online application on the SAPS e-Vetting system for top security clearance but states her eligibility is pending and not yet finalized.
“This confirmation letter... states that on 25 July 2024, the applicant Ms Mokwele submitted an online application on the South African Police Service, SAPS, e-Vetting system for top clearance security... the top secret security clearance application of Ms Mokwele... eligibility is pending and not yet finalised”
The letters reviewed do not constitute approval or grant of top secret clearance to Ms Mokwele; they only acknowledge that a process was initiated.
“None of these two letters constitute giving Ms Mokwele a clearance certificate... They are just recognising and acknowledging that a process was initiated”
Ms Mokwele could not register on the e-Vetting system because she did not have a force number and no Commander to assist; the vetting process had not started when she complied with the letter.
“What she did to get through and comply with the letter, she could not register on the e-Vetting system because she has no force number and no Commander.”
The earlier letter sent to Ms Mokwele before the normal vetting invitation letter was disadvantageous to her because it required her to do something not required at that stage.
“The fact that that letter was sent to her means it was disadvantaging her because it was requiring her to go through something which was actually not required.”
The charge sheet against Ms Mokwele was based on an affidavit compiled by Ncube, which included misrepresentations regarding Ms Mokwele's application on the e-Vetting system.
“In 8.9, Ncube compiled a letter, she misrepresented that Mokwele had applied on the e-Vetting system. This was not true... Through Ncube's unlawful and intentional action, Mokwele's application was registered to trigger the vetting process. And that formed the basis of the charge sheet.”
The charge sheet inaccurately suggests Ms Mokwele had involvement in Ncube's alleged wrongdoing, which the affidavit does not support.
“Did you not see that there were inaccuracies in the charge sheet to the extent that the charge sheet suggests that Ms Mokwele had anything to do with what is set out in 8.9, 8.10 and 8.11 of your affidavit?... Did you not ask the same question that Commissioner Baloyi asked, why is she included in the charge if she had nothing to do with that?”
Colonel Padayachee did not notice inaccuracies regarding Ms Mokwele's involvement on the draft charge sheet and attached affidavit, proceeding without addressing potential errors.
“I did not take notice of it on the charge sheet... I did not take notice of it on the charge sheet. It was a draft charge sheet, I attached my affidavit to it and I went forward from there.”
Ms Mokwele's appointment was conditional on her being cleared within six months and she was arrested before that period expired.
“Having been recommended, she had six months to get through the vetting process... She was charged before that six months even expired... She was arrested before that six months even expired.”
Colonel Padayachee wanted the bail condition restricting the accused from going to the office because investigations were ongoing on the Secret Service Fund documents and related cases including the recruitment and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele.
“we were busy with investigations on the Secret Service Fund documents ... this case was about the recruitment and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele”
Highly skilled and qualified senior police officers who applied for a post were overlooked by management who favored Ms Mokwele over them.
“highly skilled and qualified senior police officers who applied for the post being overlooked by the CIM management who favoured Ms Mokwele over them”
The affidavit signed by Colonel Padayachee on 24 June 2025 includes a draft chargesheet alleging corruption, defeating or obstructing the administration of justice, and perjury against General Khumalo and others.
“The attached draft chargesheet outlines the acts committed by each of the seven suspects in a very comprehensive way, which includes charges of corruption, defeating or obstructing the administration of justice and perjury.”
Colonel Padayachee stated Mokwele received employment as gratification which was not due and that there was manipulation in the appointment process.
“The gratification that she received was the employment which was not due. The investigation and evidence that we looked at, we looked at the documents, we looked at the application and where we could clearly see that the applicant should have not been appointed. There was manipulation.”
The gratification given to Mokwele is understood to be returned at some future date due to the powerful post she was appointed to and under the authority of the panel chairperson.
“The giving back or return for the gratification does not have to be immediately. It can be at some other time. And given the situation that she is appointed in a very powerful post and the Chairperson of the PANEL who was the Commander of that whole section.”
The employment contract for Mokwele starting in November 2024 requires her to provide services to the South African Government, implying legitimate service rather than illegal acts in return for the gratification.
“In this case where your offer of employment and contract of employment says your job is to provide services the South African Government because we have the contract of employment here commencing 1 November 2024.”
Colonel Padayachee agreed that the return for the gratification given to Mokwele might not be immediate but could be at a later stage given her powerful appointed position.
“What she is supposed to give back was not going to be immediately, but can be given at a later stage because of the position that she was appointed in.”
Adv Khumalo highlighted the problematic timeline where alleged offence date is October 2024 but contract signed two months later in December 2024, posing challenges to the acceptance of gratification charge.
“My concern is that the date of the offence is listed in A1 in the supporting annexure as October 2024, but she signs the contract of employment in December 2024, so two months after the date of the offence.”
The panel chaired by General Khumalo appointed Ms Mokwele through a manipulated appointment process and as part of a scheme to capture Crime Intelligence.
“It is that particular panel, chaired by General Khumalo, appointed by General Khumalo, chaired by General Khumalo, that appointed Ms Mokwele ... when you look at that, here is another appointee coming into Crime Intelligence ... appointed for a specific purpose ... from a capture point of view.”
Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi publicly alleged on 6 July 2025 that Colonel Padayachee was appointed to a senior position in IDAC despite lacking the required skills, experience, and qualifications, and that he used his role to influence and control investigative outcomes and court proceedings, particularly regarding the criminal charges against Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused related to Brigadier Mokwele's employment.
“The notice requires me to deal with the following issues on which Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi testified . First , I was appointed to a senior position within IDAC despite lacking the required skills , experience , and qualifications . I have used my role to influence and control investigative outcomes , court proceedings , in particular the criminal charges against Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused .”
The second matter involved an arrest of several senior Crime Intelligence members: Generals Khumalo, Lekalakala, Lushaba, Madondo, Brigadiers Mokwele and Ncube.
“The second matter was General Khumalo, General Lekalakala, General Lushaba, General Madondo, Brigadier Mokwele, and Brigadier Ncube.”
Colonel Padayachee submits he is qualified for his role as senior investigator at IDAC with 44 years of experience and has no foundation to a conclusion that he used his position to influence investigative outcomes or court proceedings, especially in relation to charges against General Khumalo and his co-accused Brigadier Mokwele.
“I am more than qualified for the work that I am doing as a senior investigator at IDAC... I have taken the trouble to read the transcript of the evidence of Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi. There is no foundation for his conclusion that I use and/or have used my position to influence and control investigative outcomes and court proceedings. In particular, the criminal charges against Lieutenant General Khumalo, his co-accused as related to the employment of Brigadier Mokwele...”
Colonel Padayachee was designated by Advocate Johnson, the Investigating Director at head office, to be part of a Section 28(13) preliminary investigation team for a prosecution-led investigation related to Ms Mokwele's case.
“I was designated by the investigating director as the head of office ... I was designated on that ... Advocate Johnson ... the investigation starts from the referral where section 28(13) preliminary investigation starts ... designate investigators, prosecutors to that particular team ... I was designated on that”
Colonel Padayachee clarifies that for the specific case involving Brigadier Mokwele, he is a docket carrier and not the lead investigator, but accepts the terms lead, docket carrier as effectively the same for ease of reference.
“I look at myself as not a lead investigator. I look at myself as a docket carrier ... lead, docket carrier, one and the same thing ... I will accept it as that way”
Mr Adams filed an affidavit on January 6, 2025, alleging anonymous information about fraud and corruption within Crime Intelligence involving high-ranking police officials manipulating promotional and security vetting processes to benefit a civilian appointed as brigadier despite no policing or management experience.
“On or about early October 2024, I received information anonymously surrounding alleged fraud and corruption being perpetrated within Crime Intelligence ... manipulating promotional and security vetting processes to unduly benefit a civilian person ... appointed as a Brigadier in South Africa ... no policing experience and no management experience and was appointed as Head of the technical support service.”
ADV KHUMALO SC quoting Mr Adams' affidavitDay 139 · 14 Jul 2026Refers to: early October 2024Location: Crime Intelligence, South Africa
The complaint of fraud and corruption relates to the irregular appointment of Brigadier Mokwele, a civilian with no policing or management experience, appointed as Head of the technical support services in Crime Intelligence.
“Description of offence ... fraud, corruption, irregular appointment of Brigadier Mokwele ... no policing experience and no management experience and was appointed as Head of the technical support services.”
The complaints about Brigadier Mokwele's appointment, including allegations of no policing experience for a Brigadier, were also laid by a Member of Parliament and others.
“I do not believe I was the only person that laid a complaint. I believe a member of Parliament also laid a complaint ... unsubstantiated complaint that someone with no policing experience had been appointed as a Brigadier”
Mr O'Sullivan received a tip-off implicating a woman recruited without going through proper recruitment procedures and made a complaint to the OIGI about it.
“My complaint was that she had been recruited without going through proper recruitment procedures. The informant that came to us told us that this person had been recruited to a position which other people had applied for and were competent to do, but that they had bypassed the procedures.”
