Mr Adams

ADV Serunye admits that after reading what was shown to him he did not think it contained sensitive information and was surprised it had not been shown to him earlier; he implies he stopped asking about it after being told not to question it.

“after reading what was shown to me, it was like I was reading one of the affidavits of Mr Adams which I saw in the docket ... it was like a two or three-page statement which really did not say much ... I was amazed why has it not been shown to me all along ... if they had given me this all along, I would have stopped asking for it.”

Mr Raphesu confirmed the matter under discussion related to a briefing that emanated from a member of Parliament, which would have been Mr Adams to confirm.

“the matter emanated from a member of Parliament and that to confirm would have been Mr Adams”

The consultation with Mr. Adams in Cape Town was to clarify issues about the dockets, to obtain supplementary affidavits, but did not provide any information beyond what was already in the A1 statements.

“The purpose of the consultation was to provide Mr Adams with an opportunity to clarify issues about the dockets... we obtained supplementary affidavits ... but the purpose ... was not for us to tell him what to tell us. We wanted to get from him what he is going to give us ... he gave us the same thing that was in the A1 here ...”

Mr. Raphesu stated that Mr. Adams indicated he did not have documents to attach to the affidavit, despite efforts to have him provide them for substantiation of allegations.

“when we were busy typing his affidavit ... he indicated that he did not have documents to give us to attach”

The messages were WhatsApp messages forwarded to Mr Adams via Minister Mcunu or Mr Cedric Nkabinde.

“P a g e 7 2 o f 1 3 1 ( a t t r i b u t e d t o L i e u t e n a n t G e n e r a l M k h w a n a z i a n d f o r w a r d e d t o M r A d a m s v i a M i n i s t e r M c u n u o r M r C e d r i c N k a b i n d e”

MR RAPHESU stated the messages were attributed to General Mkhwanazi by Mr Adams and forwarded that the message came from the Chief of Staff, Mr Nkabinde.

“You say the messages were attributed to General Mkhwanazi . Was it Mr Adams who attribute the messages to General Mkhwanazi ? That is correct , Chair . And what did he say regarding the forwarding ? What exactly did Mr Adams say ? So regarding the forwarding , he seemed to be saying that he got the message from the Chief of Staff , Mr Nkabinde .”

There was no occasion when Chief Perumal was alone with Mr Adams, without MR RAPHESU or Advocate present.

“Was there an occasion or a moment when the two of you were somewhere else , and Mr Perumal was alone with Mr Adams ? No , that never occurred , Chair .”

There was no arrangement made to meet again on the same day with Mr Adams after the meeting where the supplementary affidavit was taken.

“After your meeting where you took the supplementary affidavit , was there an arrangement perhaps to meet again on the same day with Mr Adams , by any one of you , that was made in your presence ? No , Chair , and Commissioners , there was no arrangement .”

Mr Raphesu states that in a meeting with Mr Adams and Mr Perumal he did not see the original 27 affidavit concerning the PKTT and that he never saw such affidavit when meeting with Mr Adams.

“You have not seen the original 27 affidavit which speaks about the PKTT. You had not seen it. As far as Mr Perumal and Ms Johnson are concerned, you have never seen that affidavit when you meet with Mr Adams, right? Thank you, Commissioner, yes.”

Mr Adams may have made a statement alleging the involvement of General Masemola in the COVID fund abuse, but Mr Raphesu cannot recall or denies this.

“Do you recall Mr Adams saying that in your consultation? ... I cannot recall this part, but also I can dispute that it might have been said.”

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”

It would not have been proper for Mr Perumal to consult with Mr Adams separately and take a statement and commission it in the absence of MS Ramsamy and Mr Mantsha.

“would it have been proper ... for Mr Perumal to consult with Mr Adams separately and take a statement and commission it in your absence ... No, it would not be. It would be irregular.”

Mr Adams showed messages during a meeting purportedly received from Minister Mchunu or Mr Cedric Nkabinde from Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi of the PKTT, which Ramsamy did not read or find interesting and returned the phone.

“I recall that during the meeting Mr Adams showed us messages that he had received from either Minister Mchunu directly or from Mr Cedric Nkabinde. ... These messages were allegedly from Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi from the PKTT. I did not read the messages. If frankly was not interested. And I just handed the phone back to Mr Adams.”

Mr Adams said the messages threatened to arrest Minister Mchunu if PKTT were shut down on 6 January 2025.

“Mr Adams said that the messages were Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi threatening to arrest Minister Mchunu if the PKTT were shut down.”

The allegations about the PKTT were included prominently in Mr Adams's section 27 affidavit, but the flighted version of that affidavit made no mention of the PKTT.

“The allegations about the PKTT featured prominently in Mr Adams's section 27 affidavit, yet the one flighted makes no mention of the PKTT.”

Consultation with Mr Adams regarding the affidavits is set for 19 December in Gauteng to allow better preparation of summonses.

“the consultation is set for the 19th of December in Gauteng, GP”

A full and detailed draft affidavit related to the subject matter was requested from Advocate Adams before any prosecution plan could be discussed, and one of the two prosecutors must be present during consultations.

“"If Adams is to be consulted, full and detailed draft affidavits to be obtained before prosecution plan can be discussed. One of the two prosecutors must be present when this consultation takes place."”

All information, documentation, and witness names need to be contained in the affidavit draft from Advocate Adams.

“"All information, documentation, and witness names, etcetera, to be contained in the affidavit draft from F Adams."”

Advocate Adams claims to have proof of evidence and alleges some material was surreptitiously slipped under his door.

“"He is saying that he has proof. He is saying that someone slotted things under his door."”

There was a memorandum of understanding, or referral, involving Mr Adams referred to as the section 7 referral affidavit to dockets, and Mr Perumal said one cannot have the dockets before section 8(13) is authorized.

“Mr Adams is referring in his section 7 referral affidavit to dockets and what Mr Perumal is saying is that you cannot have the dockets before the 8(13) is authorized, then you have authority to go and get the dockets.”

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.”

On 19 December 2024, the team was scheduled to meet Mr Adams but Mr Perumal stated that there was a miscommunication and Mr Adams was at Sun City Resort; arrangements were then made for 6 January 2025 in Cape Town.

“On the 19th of December 2024, the team was scheduled to meet with Mr Adams. However, Mr Perumal stated that there was a miscommunication and Mr Adams was at Sun City Resort... arrangements were then made to meet in Cape Town on the 6th of January 2025.”

Mr Adams alleges confidential Crime Intelligence documents were pushed under his door; Mr Perumal was to provide the documents for perusal.

“... confidential documents that Mr Adams alleges was pushed under his door. Mr Perumal was to provide me with the documents to peruse.”

Mr Adams was in possession of Crime Intelligence documents containing sensitive personal information, which the witness considered a criminal offence as the documents were slipped under his door.

“If it were up to me, I would have considered charging Mr Adams for possession of these documents. ... A vetting document ... contains your address, your ID numbers, ... your banking detail, and this document is ... in possession of it.”

Mr Adams reported an incident to the Police Portfolio Committee and was shut down by Mr Ian Cameron, the Chairperson of the committee.

“He stated that he reported the incident to the Police Portfolio Committee and was shut down by Mr Ian Cameron, the Chairperson of the committee.”

Mr Adams retained copies of Crime Intelligence documents and gave original documents to Mr Perumal, who is also implicated in handling those documents.

“He said that he had retained copies and given the documents to Mr Perumal.”

The names in the Crime Intelligence documents did not entirely correlate with the list of names given by Advocate Johnson on 10 December 2024.

“The names in the documents did not correlate with the list of names that Advocate Johnson gave me on the 10th December 2024.”

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.”

According to Mr Adams, the documents were slipped under his door at the office in Parliament; he claimed there were no cameras in the corridor and the register of sign-ins was futile due to many people signing in and out.

“He said to me that it was slotted under his door in an envelope. ... Mr Adams' reply was, there is no camera on that, in his corridors where his office is. ... Mr Perumal told me it would be futile because of how many people signed in and out.”

Mr Adams could not supplement his A1 statement with any further useful substantiation as he did not have anything beyond what was slipped under his door.

“He could not supplement. No useful substantiation. Because he did not have anything further than what was slipped under his door.”

Mr Adams gave the documents to Mr Perumal, who confirmed possession of the documents during a consultation recorded by Ms Ramsamy.

“When I start asking Mr Adams ... I kept copies, but I had given the documents to Dylan, and Dylan confirmed, yes, yes, no, we have them, we have them.”

Advocate Johnson signed off on a Section 28 summons following a complaint by Mr Adams that requested irrelevant documents, including lists of Divisional Crime Intelligence heads, performance assessments of Major Generals, advertisements, audio recordings, interview records, and documents General Jacobs refused to return.

“you signed off on a summons that asked for a litany of documents that had no bearing on the complaint, including a list of all Provincial Heads and Section Heads who were stationed in Division Crime Intelligence, the performance assessment of all Major Generals for that year, the advertisements for that position, audio recordings and interviews. Then you want documentary records that General Jacobs refused to return.”

Advocate Johnson requested documentary files and applications for promotions regarding commanders and members of the PKTT via Section 28 summons beyond the scope of Mr Adams' original complaint.

“you ask in the same summons for documentary files and applications for promotions and Commanders and members of the Political Task Teams through deviation. According to you, the PKTTT did not feature anywhere. So once again, that is way beyond the scope of the original complaint by Mr Adams.”

Advocate Manilall signed a Section 28 summons under the CAS number relating to the Mokwele appointment, requesting identities and travel documents of PKTT members who arrested Mr Adams.

“That is the section 28 summons signed by Advocate Manilall, which wanted the identities and certified travel documents of PKTTT members who went to arrest Mr Adams, and he does so under the CAS number relating to the Mokwele appointment.”

Advocate Manilall claimed the Section 28 summons was issued to determine if Lieutenant General Khumalo breached bail conditions by authorizing PKTT members to arrest Mr Adams, who was a state witness.

“the purpose behind it from the prosecutor was to determine whether someone else within the PKTT approved those trips, that is fine, and that if it was in fact General Khumalo who authorized those trips, then he was sending people to deal with Adams, and it could have a potential of interfering with the bail condition.”

Advocate Manilall's explanation for issuing the Section 28 summons was false because PKTT members were under no bail condition preventing them from dealing with witnesses or arresting Mr Adams.

“I want to say if that is the explanation he gave you it is a false explanation. Those individual members and anyone else in the world was under no bail condition that they could not, that is one reason, that they could not deal with any witnesses. There was nothing like that.”

IDAC prosecutors misused bail conditions against General Khumalo to insulate Mr Adams from legitimate arrest or investigation by the PKTT.

“So you are brandishing that condition over General Khumalo to say whatever wrong he commits, you dare not touch him, because he is my witness and if you do, you will be breaching a bail condition.”

The Chairperson stated that Adv Johnson acted wrongfully as Head of IDAC by authorizing an investigation based on a section 7 referral affidavit containing nothing except factual conclusions.

“On a document or on an affidavit that had nothing except for factual conclusions, you acted. It had to be your decision, you as the Head of IDAC. It had to be your decision, and indeed it was, for any investigation to have gone on in the first place. To cut a long story short, I do not understand why you would want to blame others. As it should have, the buck stopped with you, and indeed from where I am sitting, it did.”

Adv Johnson accepted full responsibility for the decisions and actions taken by IDAC regarding the Adams matter and section 7 referral.

“I sit here today knowing that I have to take responsibility for all the actions that we do, intentionally or unintentionally, and I will be judged for those actions.”

IDAC applied for arrest warrants against the accused following an investigation into Mr Adams's section 27 referral, after which a prosecution memorandum and draft charge sheet were prepared for the Director of Prosecutions.

“IDAC then applied for warrants of arrest against the accused. I then prepared a prosecution memorandum and submitted the same to the Director of Prosecutions, together with a draft charge sheet and a request for the enrolment of the matter.”

Adv Johnson confirmed she had communication, including a letter, with DPP Advocate Harrison from KZN regarding Mr Adams' arrest to clarify his status as an IDAC witness and how NPA should manage him.

“I did. I also think I wrote her a letter. The gist of the conversation was just to indicate, I am not sure if you are aware that Mr Adams is a witness, and in an IDAC matter, and I just wanted to know whether or not he is going to be arrested, just so that we know how to handle him, because we are one NPA.”

Adv Johnson explained that her letter to DPP Harrison clearly stated IDAC was not suggesting Mr Adams should avoid arrest if he committed a crime, but requested a heads up because he was an IDAC witness.

“I said I do not want her at any stage to think that IDAC is indicating that he should not be arrested if he committed a crime. I just thought that because it was open knowledge that he was a witness to IDAC, just give us a heads up, because witnesses become difficult, and they become difficult to manage.”

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.”

Supplementary affidavits by Mr Adams claimed to be true are not accepted as genuine by investigating team members such as Advocate Ramsamy and Investigator Rapetsu who do not know the origin of these documents.

“You have Advocate Ramsamy and Investigator Rapetsu who say they do not know where these documents come from.”

Appointment of General Khumalo who did not qualify and others as promoted through alleged corrupt practices is questioned and signed summons require information about provincial and section heads, but relevant affidavit does not mention performance assessments.

“Mr Adams does not say anything about performance assessments. He says the appointment of General Khumalo, who did not qualify to be appointed and other Generals, and he does not say who, you sign off on a summons that requires information of provincial heads and section heads. You want the performance assessments. I do not see how that arises from Mr Adams' affidavit.”

Lieutenant General Jacob was not mentioned in Mr. Adams' affidavit and it was inaccurate to assert he had refused to return to Crime Intelligence based on the affidavit evidence.

“He is not mentioned at all. You single him out and you know that he has refused to return to Crime Intelligence, even though Mr Adams does not say that in his affidavit. He does not mention him at all, let alone that he has refused to return to Crime Intelligence.”

The investigation into the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT) was not initiated based on a complaint by Mr. Adams, but rather appears to be driven by other motives or a "hidden hand" within Crime Intelligence.

“this is not Mr Adams' complaint ... this is now something else altogether”

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.”

A summons wanted details of all members of the Political Killings Task Team involved in the arrest of Mr Adams.

“this summons that wanted details of all members of PKTT who were involved in the arrest of Mr Adams”

The arrest of Mr Adams by PKTT was associated with the Mokwele criminal matter already enrolled in court, causing confusion about the investigation reference number used.

“what does the arrest of Mr Adams have to do, by PKTT, have to do with the Mokwele criminal matter that was already enrolled and in court?”

Mr Johnson called a meeting on Friday to obtain requested information including the A1 Statement of Adams, making a formal request at that meeting and briefing Mr Sesoko to follow up.

“I did call a team meeting on Friday in order to also get information that was requested amongst others, the A1 Statement of Adams, that is how I got it. I did make the request there. Advocate Ramsamy was not in that meeting and the project manager undertook that he will find out from her if she has that file. Given that I had done that, I would just send Mr Sesoko a reminder as soon as we have an adjournment to please follow up on that process.”

Mr Adams suspects that some funds were taken unlawfully from the Secret Service fund and given to Police Minister Bheki Cele.

“Mr Adams states that he suspects that some funds became taken unlawfully from the secret fund and given to Police Minister, Bheki Cele.”

ADV Sellos states that an affidavit (section 27) suggested the appointment of General Khumalo was irregular, unlawful or otherwise, with the affidavit dated 3 April 2025.

“That one that suggested that the very appointment of General Khumalo to this position was either irregular, unlawful or otherwise. That was Mr Adams'. Now, we know that section 28 is dated the 3rd of April 2025.”

ADV Johnson was never informed by Chief Perumal that statements had been taken from Mr Adams, Mr Rapetsu, and Advocate Ramsamy.

“No. I never came to know about that.”

The affidavit that initiated the investigation and culminates in prosecution related to General Madondo's security clearance was commissioned by Mr Perumal and may contain questionable signatures possibly not belonging to Mr Adams.

“...the affidavit that initiates the investigation and culminates in the prosecution, correct? ... both the preamble statement and the affidavit, in respect of which it was suggested to Colonel Padayachee that there seems to be something wrong with the signatures there and that it looks like the signature that purports to be of Mr Adams may not be his. The affidavit is commissioned by Mr Perumal.”

Allegations of fraud and corruption related to awarding tenders and contracts involve Generals Khumalo, Madondo, and Lushaba suspected of manipulating procurement processes according to Mr Adams.

“Mr Adams says he suspects that General Khumalo, Generals Khumalo, Madondo and Lushaba were manipulating procurement processes”

Mr Adams suspects that secret service funds were taken unlawfully and given to former Police Minister Bheki Cele.

“His suspicion that the funds ... became taken unlawfully from the secret funds account to be given to the former Police Minister, Minister Bheki Cele”

Investigation files related to Mr Adams' complaint include investigation of procurement of contracts.

“Part of the file that must be made available is a complaint that was lodged by Mr Adams ... that is where the investigations lie in terms of the procurement of contracts ...”

The tracing and investigation of missing dockets is urgent to determine their whereabouts and register an investigation.

“The tracing of the docket su rgen t, y es... The investigation is now registered in terms of 28 (13), and the first exercise out of that in order to go forward is to trace the dockets.”

The allegation by Adams concerns missing dockets, leading to a referral and registration of an investigation under section 28(13).

“The dockets, the allegation by Adams is the dockets are already missing. We are given a referral. We need to register an investigation. The investigation is now registered in terms of 28 (13)”

Advocate Ramsamy made extensive notes from the section 27 and categorized questions for structured investigation follow-up with Mr Adams.

“Advocate Ramsamy had made extensive notes out of the section 27 and having read the inadequate lack of A1s. So she had categorised the questions around groupings of matters to be looked at, aspects to be canvassed with Mr Adams, so that when they went there, it was a structured approach.”

Chief Perumal wrote his own statement behind the backs of the other investigators and commissioned Mr Adams to depose on it, which may lead to conflicting official records.

“Mr Perumal, Chief Perumal, behind their backs, because there is no better way of saying this, behind their backs he goes and he decides to write his own statement that he commissions without the other two knowing, and he gets Mr Adams to depose.”

If Chief Perumal's statement, not produced with the other investigators, forms the basis for warrants and charges in the Mokwele matter, it would be misleading and undermine the ends of justice.

“If in fact, as we know has happened in the Mokwele matter, if the docket that is before the Court and that is disclosed to the accused and that is the basis for the warrants that were obtained for instituting for the charges, it is in fact Perumal's questionable statements, not the ones that were properly taken. That would amount to, it seems to me, that that would have amounted to defeating the ends of justice, lying to the Court, lying to you, misleading everyone that is involved with this and failure to disclose the true contents of the docket. Am I correct in all of that? I am assuming Perumal's are in fact a manufactured statement that is being used.”

Mr Adams received information about General Madondo's security clearance application from documents pushed under his door in Parliament, which was not lawfully obtained.

“In his affidavit ... he says: “I attach hereto documents which were pushed under my office door at Parliament, and which relate to Madondo's application.””

The information about Madondo's security clearance was Crime Intelligence information that was not lawfully given to Mr Adams.

“It is Crime Intelligence information, he did not get it lawfully ... and he is telling your investigator ... that this was not given to me by General Madondo.”

The information was physically put under Advocate Baloyi's door, evidencing that it was not properly obtained.

“It was put under my door, so we know he did not get it properly.”

If a document is classified, Mr Adams should not have been in possession of it, and if it is not classified it is less problematic but still a concern because it contains personal information.

“If the document is, in fact, a classified document, there are two things. One, Mr Adams should not have been in possession of the classified document. If it is not a classified document ... it is still a problem ... it contains personal information of a person.”

Mr Adams is in possession of Crime Intelligence documents that are not in the public domain and were not lawfully obtained.

“Those steps would be against Mr Adams for being in possession of Crime Intelligence documents that are not ... in the public domain.”

General Madondo and Mr Adams do not have top secret clearance certificates but are handling intelligence documents they are not authorized to access, posing risks.

“General Madondo not having that clearance certificate poses a risk to CI, the SAPS and the country... equally too must Mr Adams. You agreed that he does not have a top secret clearance certificate, and yet he is handling documents seemingly that come from Crime Intelligence and for which he does not have lawful access or authorised access.”

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...”

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.”

Investigators Advocate Ramsamy, Investigator Rapetsu, and Investigator Perumal went to Cape Town on 6 January 2025 to obtain statements from Mr Adams, gathering around five statements.

“Advocate Ramsamy, Investigator Rapetsu, Investigator Perumal, went to Cape Town on the 6th of January... obtained statements from Mr Adams... I think five in total.”

Witnesses testifying to CJC394 deny knowledge of statements commissioned by Mr Perumal and state Mr Perumal took statements from Mr Adams, not on 6 January 2025 but at other times when Mr Adams and Rapetsu were together.

“they deny any knowledge of those statements as commissioned by Mr Perumal ... it definitely is not on the 6th of January 2025, because they were together at all times”

Mr Perumal's commissioning of statements involved signatures that appear to have been tampered with, described as 'jigga'd'.

“he said the signatures were jigga’d, means they were tampered with or they are not a true reflection of Mr Adams 's signature”

The affidavit dated 6 January 2025 by Honourable Adams is an original affidavit that has not been disclosed even to the Defence, and requires them to apply to access it due to a Section 27 referral confidentiality.

“The affidavit of the 6th of January 025 is an original affidavit. It was signed by Mr Adams on 6 January 2025... This document has not even been disclosed to the Defence, and it is one of those documents where even the Defence would have to apply for the document to be made available to them. The section 27 referral cannot be made available”

Mr Adams indicated he had opened dockets in Orlando, which falls under Gauteng, prompting letters to be sent both to General Khumalo and to Lieutenant General Senthumule to facilitate dockets' receipt.

“Adam had indicated he had opened dockets in Orlando, Chair. That falls under Gauteng, so we had to write to the Commissioner ... General Senthumule as the national custodian of the dockets, and General Senthumule facilitated the receipt of those dockets”

Section 27 referral affidavit from Mr Adams stated he opened dockets in Western Cape and later opened three more cases at Orlando Police Station, Gauteng.

“In his affidavit, the section 27 referral, he initially ... refers to the dockets he opened in the Western Cape, and thereafter ... few days after I opened the three cases at the Cape Town Police Station, I decided to go to Gauteng, and I went to Orlando Police Station, where I opened another three cases”

Mr Adams laid complaints with SAPS but the Inspectorate did not initially enquire with SAPS about these complaints, delaying the investigation process.

“When Mr Adams gives you an affidavit, the section 27, and he says, I have laid these complaints, and nothing is happening, or they have been intercepted, before you make the decision to investigate, is there a reason you do not enquire with the SAPS? They are your sister agency...Why is it not the first reaction, to find out where the complaint has been laid, before you demand the dockets?”

The investigations authorized under section 8(13) by the Investigating Director pertained to all allegations of fraud and corruption as per dockets reviewed, but the initial statements by Mr Adams were considered flimsy and other dockets required additional statements.

“The investigation was authorised by the Investigating Director in terms of section 8(13) of the NPA Act into allegations of fraud and corruption... original dockets by Adams were exactly what General Chamane says. They were flimsy. So they took additional statements”

Counsel solicits all statements by Mr Adams from January 2025 related to various dockets for the inquiry's review.

“May I add then to the list of documents we request, can we get each and every such statement by Mr Adams of, you say it was in January 2025?”

There was further engagement in January between Advocate Johnson, Investigator Rapetsu, Advocate Ramsami and Mr Adams to supplement the statements in the dockets.

“what did happen later on in January is that Mr Rapetsu , Advocate Ramsami and Mr Perumal , after having gone through those dockets together with the section 27 , then had further engagements with Mr Adams in order to amplify or supplement the statements that were in the docket”

After initial appraisal, Mr Rapetsu, Advocate Ramsami, and Mr Perumal engaged with Mr Adams to supplement statements that were not up to standard or sufficient.

“Mr Rapetsu , Advocate Ramsami and Mr Perumal , after having gone through those dockets together with the section 27 , then had further engagements with Mr Adams in order to amplify or supplement the statements that were in the docket , which I guess by interpretation means they were not up to standard or sufficient .”

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 investigations, not just Mr Adams' complaint, depict the capture of systems and processes for private interests by General Khumalo and other senior managers.

“the investigations , I will take it the investigations , not only his complaint , depict the capture of systems and processes for private interest by General Khumalo and other senior managers”

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...”

The authorization application for investigation implicated more people than were listed in the initial section 27 affidavit, raising questions about the factual basis for including the additional names.

“Now, if all Mr Adams gives Mr Perumal is a list of names and it is now 12 people, what is the factual basis for you coming to a conclusion as you do on 3283 that you have reason to believe that the persons in the annexure have committed the offences you mentioned on page one”

The investigators used SAPS to obtain documents to address deficiencies in a section 27 affidavit that lacked supporting documentation.

“The shortcomings ... can only be addressed by us obtaining the necessary documentation to either support or to dispute the claims made by Mr Adams ... these shortcomings in the section 27 do not have supporting documentation.”

Only the first three people in Annexure A were referred to in the section 27 affidavit by Mr Adams, and names from item 4 to 12 were not independently investigated by IDAC.

“only the first three people in that Annexure A were referred to in the section 27 affidavit by Mr Adams ... no independent investigation had been undertaken by IDAC”

Advocate Ramsami obtained the list of names from Mr Perumal after engaging with Mr Adams regarding the section 27 affidavit and application.

“Advocate Ramsami indicated last night that she had got the list of names from my office, wherein I had indicated that this list had been provided by Mr Perumal after his having engaged with Mr Adams”

Mr Perumal engaged with Mr Adams and obtained the section 27 affidavit despite no authorization for the investigation from IDAC or Section 28.

“Mr Perumal was already engaging with Mr Adams ... IDAC itself had not even authorized an investigation ...”

Mr Perumal contacted Mr Adams to obtain further information to begin his investigation, indicating he started the investigation without formal authorization.

“He would have spoken to Mr Adams, had him provide the section 27 ... technically, he has begun the investigation unless he was informed by you”

There is no formal process or legislation authorizing Mr Perumal to engage with Mr Adams or start an investigation prior to authorization.

“There is no process for that action ... there is no legality that I can point to”

There must be formal process and recording when seeking clarifications from referees in section 27 inquiries; casual or undocumented engagements create a lack of accountability.

“I would expect that in that process of seeking clarifications, that is a formal process, it is recorded ... otherwise ... there is no accountability whatsoever”

Advocate Khumalo argues that a Section 27 affidavit containing only a list of names without linking them to specific offences or providing any complaint or allegations against them is insufficient to form a view that these people have committed serious offences and should be investigated.

“But if the prosecutor has not engaged with Mr Adams, and all you have given the prosecutor is the section 27 affidavit, how can the prosecutor come to you and say, I have reason to believe that people whose names are not mentioned in the affidavit, whose conduct is not mentioned in the affidavit, have committed such serious offences as you list in 1.1 to 1.11 on page 3282.”

There is a contradiction between the witness's statement to the ad hoc committee and current statement about receiving a referral from Mr Adams and triggering an internal process.

“You did not receive the referral yourself when it was received by IDAC”

The witness was unaware that Mr Adams referred the matter to the National Commissioner of Police, the National Commissioner or the Minister.

“You are not aware of Mr Adams also referring this matter to the national Commissioner of Police , the National Commissioner or the Minister ? No , not at all .”

The witness instructed Chief Perumal to get an affidavit from Mr Adams following an unhelpful letter from the Minister.

“The Minister's letter was unhelpful and you instructed Perumal to get an affidavit from Adams .”

IDAC reached out to Mr Adams based on the Minister's letter, contrary to the impression that Mr Adams came to IDAC on his own.

“It is IDAC that reached out to Mr Adams ... it is not Mr Adams who came to IDAC but yesterday you were quite clear that it is the Minister who came to IDAC”

Advocate Johnson testified before an ad hoc committee that he did not receive the referral affidavit from Mr Adams personally but received it through IDAC's nominal document receiver process.

“My office did receive the section 27 . That is the position . I received a section 27 deposed to by Mr Adams and dated the 21 st of November 2024 .”

Advocate Johnson clarified he received the referral from IDAC and not directly from Mr Adams by hand.

“You did not receive it directly from Mr Adams by hand , you received it from IDAC .”

Advocate Johnson stated that he was not aware of Mr Adams referring the matter to the National Commissioner of Police or the Minister.

“You are not aware of Mr Adams also referring this matter to the national Commissioner of Police , the National Commissioner or the Minister ? No , not at all .”

There was confusion about whether the Minister or Mr Adams approached IDAC regarding the matter; Advocate Johnson initially said the Minister sent a letter that was unhelpful and then instructions were given to Mr Perumal to get an affidavit from Mr Adams.

“the Minister 's letter was unhelpful and you instructed Perumal to get an affidavit from Adams .”

Advocate Johnson clarified that Mr Adams wanted IDAC to deal with his matter and that the office first received a letter from the Minister, but without attachments.

“it is the position of having first received a letter from the Minister . I did indicate that there were no attachments , I therefore asked Mr Perumal to please engage Mr Adams as Mr Adams wanted IDAC to deal with his matter .”

Mr Adams stated he has intelligence documents that were placed under ADV BALOY ISC's door which suggest General Khumalo and others have committed offences.

“Mr Adams tells you that I have intelligence documents that were shoved under my door and from those documents, I have even more reason to believe that Khumalo and them, General Khumalo and them have committed offences”

ADV JOHNSON did not refer the possession of intelligence documents mentioned by Mr Adams to the appropriate agency for investigation because he had no knowledge or sight of the documents.

“Did you refer this possession of intelligence documents that were on Mr Adams' own account, were not properly given to him or lawfully given to him, did you refer it to the appropriate agency for investigation? I did not, Commissioner, not having any knowledge or sight of the documents here referred to.”

ADV BALOY ISC asserts that ADV JOHNSON acted on Mr Adams' affidavit solely on suspicion without having factual basis and failed to refer the intelligence documents to the proper authority.

“You have acted on his affidavit solely on suspicion. You did not have any facts to action anything in his affidavit. That we have settled. He gives you information that tells you I have, not only in my possession, I have had sight of Crime Intelligence documents that someone gave to me and I do not know who put them under my door. That seems to me a classical case of you should have referred this to somebody.”

A complaint was received by Ministry and referred to the National Commissioner, indicating the Division Inspectorate mishandled the service complaint levelled by Mr Adams and inappropriately handed multiple dockets to the Investigating Directorate against Corruption (IDAC).

“The purpose of the information note is to provide a response to the allegation that one, the Division Inspectorate was complicit and irregular in the handling of these service complaint levelled by Mr Adams, and two, to reflect on an averment that the Division Inspectorate irregularly handed seven dockets to the Investigating Directorate against corruption, IDAC.”

Section 28(13) preliminary investigation process must not be used as a pretext to assist make a case that improperly places a complaint within jurisdiction when it does not fall within it under section 27.

“if your explanation is correct, that is exactly what happened, then ... the section 28(13) was used as a pretext to make up a case that places Mr Adams' complaint into your jurisdiction when ... it did not fall within your jurisdiction at least not in section 27.”

Advocate Johnson admits it is incorrect that Mr Adams' referral landed on his desk in mid-December 2024; he had authorization from the prosecutor by 6 December 2024 and had already engaged on the matter.

“This is incorrect, yes.”

Advocate Johnson confirms that Mr Adams did not approach IDAC but rather IDAC approached Mr Adams, contrary to what was said before the ad hoc committee.

“You mention in your statement that when he approached IDAC, he had already gone to SAPS... Now we know that he did not go to, he did not approach IDAC. IDAC approached him. We know that now for a fact. Do you confirm?”

Advocate Johnson states that cases disappeared miraculously and that information came to him through his own investigators who had taken a section 27 referral affidavit from Mr Adams showing information was pushed under his door, indicating some Crime Intelligence procurement documents.

“This came to my knowledge through my own investigators who had taken the section 27 referral affidavit from Mr Adams... when he received information which he alleges was pushed under his door, which is part of the affidavit, he opened cases in the Western Cape.”

Advocate Johnson clarifies that he did not receive any documents purported to be classified but relied on Mr Adams' affidavit statement about documents pushed under his door.

“It was a hypothetical example.”

Advocate Johnson relied on the information in Mr Adams' affidavit that documents were pushed under his door but he never saw the actual classified documents himself.

“I rely on what he says in his affidavit, that this is... documents having been pushed under my door... I relied on that information... he did not give us classified documents or I did not get any classified documents.”

Mr Adams suspected General Khumalo and others due to finding an envelope pushed under his office door at Parliament containing Crime Intelligence procurement and vetting documents using secret funds.

“My suspicion about General Khumalo and others became more clearer when I found an envelope pushed under my office door at Parliament which contained some Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds and vetting documents.”

There was manipulation of recruitment processes and appointment of persons without suitable qualifications into senior strategic posts in the Criminal Intelligence Unit.

“The manipulation of recruitment processes and appointment of persons without suitable qualifications into senior strategic posts in the Criminal Intelligence Unit.”

The matters related to appointments in the Criminal Intelligence Unit referred to by Mr Adams in section 27 are still under investigation.

“Those matters are still under investigation.”

The manipulations of recruitment processes and appointment of unsuitable persons into senior strategic posts in the Crime Intelligence Unit emerged fully during the section 28 investigation process, beyond just the section 27 referral by Mr Adams.

“The manipulation of recruitment processes and appointment of persons without suitable qualifications into senior strategic posts ... the one that comes to mind is the matter that is currently in court.”

Mr Adams claims to have intelligence documents shoved under his door suggesting offences committed by General Khumalo and others.

“Mr Adams tells you that I have intelligence documents that were shoved under my door and from those documents, I have even more reason to believe that Khumalo and them, General Khumalo and them have committed offences .”

Possession of intelligence documents that were not properly or lawfully given to Mr Adams should have been referred to the appropriate agency for investigation under the NPA Act.

“Did you do anything in accordance with the provision of your Act that says if you come upon information that suggests a possible offence being committed, you refer it to another agency, did you refer this possession of intelligence documents that were on Mr Adams' own account, were not properly given to him or lawfully given to him, did you refer it to the appropriate agency for investigation ?”

Mr Adams alleged possession of crime intelligence documents related to procurement and other matters, but there were only suspicions and no factual basis to act on his affidavit.

“He tells you that he has got documents that speaks to intelligence matters. It is Crime Intelligence documents about procurement and something else. You have acted on his affidavit solely on suspicion. You did not have any facts to action anything in his affidavit. That we have settled .”

Lieutenant General PAJ Jacobs in a memo dated 1st November requested a report on a complaint received from a Member of Parliament, showing passing of the complaint through to the National Commissioner and issues of complicity and irregular handling by the Division Inspectorate regarding Mr Adams' complaint and referral of seven dockets to IDAC against corruption.

“‘Good morning, Major General Sebula. Ministry has received this complaint from a Member of Parliament. In order for the Ministry to respond accordingly, please furnish this office with a report in responding to this complaint and the details of the investigating officer who was assigned to investigate those cases. Your report is expected by Monday, 4th of November.’ ... The purpose of the information note is to provide a response to the allegation that one, the Division Inspectorate was complicit and irregular in the handling of these service complaints levelled by Mr Adams, and two, to reflect on a averment that the Division Inspectorate irregularly handed seven dockets to the Investigating Directorate against corruption, IDAC.”

Advocate Johnson admits that his prior assertion to the ad hoc committee that Mr Adams' referral landed on his desk in the middle of December 2024 was incorrect.

“This is incorrect, yes.”

Advocate Johnson confirms that Mr Adams did not approach IDAC but rather that IDAC approached Mr Adams to obtain information, contrary to earlier statements suggesting Mr Adams approached IDAC.

“Correct.”

Advocate Johnson states he has first-hand knowledge that the cases disappeared based on his investigators' information obtained from a Section 27 referral affidavit from Mr Adams.

“Thus: "This came to my knowledge through my own investigators who had taken the section 27 referral affidavit from Mr Adams."”

Advocate Johnson relied on the affidavit of Mr Adams which stated documents were pushed under Mr Adams' door, although Johnson did not see any classified documents himself.

“I relied on Mr Adams' affidavit stating documents were pushed under his door, though I did not see the actual documents.”

Mr Adams told the team on the 6th itself that the dockets were with the Inspectorate, prompting letters to both General Khumalo and Lieutenant General Senthumule for explanation.

“you write to General Khumalo on the 6th, but on the same day you write to General Senthumule for the explanation that you have just given ... because Mr Adams told you that the dockets are with the Inspectorate”

Mr Adams had previously opened the same dockets in the Western Cape, so there was no need to engage with General Patekile, the Provincial Commissioner of Western Cape, for the Western Cape dockets.

“there was no need to engage General Patekile because Adams himself said he opened the same”

Mr. Adams sent an email to the Minister's office complaining about interception of cases reported, alleging a deliberate attempt to get rid of those cases and protect those accused.

“After I opened these cases ... I was informed that the cases were taken from the Cape Town police station to the office of the Provincial Commissioner Western Cape. I do not trust the Provincial Commissioner General Patekile, and believe that a deliberate attempt is taking place to get rid of the cases I had reported and to protect those against whom I made the cases.”

Chairperson suggests the Minister's letter was unlikely to state that nothing could be done absent a section 27 referral, and this conflicts with instructions from the Minister to Mr Perumal to follow up with Mr Adams.

“That letter ... is not likely to have said what I am suggesting you ought to have done ... because that would have been at odds with you instructing Mr Perumal to follow up with Mr Adams.”

Advocate Baloyi propositions that the letter from Mr Nkabinde says nothing and it is proposed that Chief Perumal should speak to Mr Adams directly, implying there were allegations of interception of dockets and possibly corruption.

“I want to make a proposition ... that when you look at the letter from Mr Nkabinde, as you agree, it says nothing ... for you to instruct Chief Perumal to speak to Mr Adams ... the emails speak to corruption of sorts ... allegations of interception of dockets.”

Based on the letter, there is no basis to approach Mr Adams for a section 27 affidavit, rather the request must go to Mr Nkabinde.

“you have no business, at least on the basis of this letter, to go to Mr Adams for a section 27 affidavit. You go to Mr Nkabinde for a section 27 affidavit”

Mr Adams did not communicate any request for investigation to the party being addressed, the Ministry is the one requesting investigation under section 27.

“Mr Adams is not asking you to investigate. He has not communicated with you... It is Mr Nkabinde, he raises his complaint with the Minister. That is what he”

The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges a complaint described as a section 27 complaint but the reference to Mr Adams is only to note that the Minister received a complaint from Mr Adams.

“The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges with you a complaint and he calls it a section 27 complaint. The only reference he makes to Mr Adams is to say... the Minister has received a complaint from Mr Adams”

The Minister's Office picks IDAC to investigate a matter referred under section 27 of the NPA Act, not Mr Adams who did not choose IDAC.

“It is not Mr Adams who says I choose IDAC. It is the Minister’s Office, based on what we see in this letter... The Minister’s Office then picks one and they say we pick IDAC and we will do a referral to IDAC in terms of section 27 of the NPA Act.”

The complaint by Mr Adams to the Minister's Office is treated as quite sensitive and contains allegations of criminal misconduct.

“the allegations in the correspondence by Mr Adams, they regard them as quite sensitive... They contain allegations of criminal misconduct”

Mr Adams would have had to be contacted by IDAC to prepare a section 27 affidavit, and likely Chief Criminal Investigator Perumal was the one who contacted him.

“Mr Adams would have had to be contacted by IDAC .10... that it would have had to have been Chief Criminal Investigator Perumal .20”

Chief Perumal would contact Mr Adams following receipt of a letter (MK16) as instructed by the intake committee, even though no section 27 had yet been referred.

“You then instructed Chief Perumal to be in contact with Mr Adams to obtain section 27 affidavit . That is correct.”

Nothing in the Minister's letter actually directs the investigation request to Mr Adams but rather it is Mr Nkabinde who is the referrer of the Section 27 affidavit.

“nothing in this letter leads you to Mr Adams... if you were going to ask for a section 27 affidavit, it is from Mr Nkabinde that you ask for because he is the one that is purporting to refer”

The complaint is laid with Mr Nkabinde, who claims lodging a section 27 complaint, and there is no business to go to Mr Adams for a section 27 affidavit based on this letter.

“The complaint has been laid with them, and Nkabinde says I am lodging a section 27 complaint... you have no business to go to Mr Adams for a section 27 affidavit”

Mr Nkabinde is the one asking the investigating body to investigate; Mr Adams has not communicated such a request.

“Mr Nkabinde is asking you to investigate. Mr Adams is not asking you to investigate. He has not communicated with you.”

The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges with the investigating body a complaint described as a section 27 complaint, but the reference to Mr Adams is only that the Minister has received a complaint from Mr Adams and is referring it for investigation under section 27.

“The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges with you a complaint and he calls it a section 27 complaint... the only reference he makes to Mr Adams is to say the Minister has received a complaint from Mr Adams, please investigate and I refer this to you in terms of section 27”

Mr Adams writes to the Minister's Office expressing unhappiness about four dockets and asks the Minister's Office to intervene; the Minister's Office then chooses which investigative body to assign the complaint to.

“So Mr Adams writes to the Minister's Office. He is unhappy about the four dockets and he asks the Minister's Office to intervene... The Minister's Office has at least three choices...”

The Minister's Office decides to refer the matter to IDAC for investigation in terms of section 27 of the NPAAct; this choice is made by the Minister's Office, not Mr Adams.

“The Minister’s Office then picks one and they say we pick IDAC, and we will do a referral to IDAC in terms of section 27”

The Minister’s Office finds the allegations from Mr Adams’ correspondence to be quite sensitive and containing allegations of criminal misconduct, and requests Advocate Johnson to consider investigating the matter.

“The Minister’s Office... regard them as quite sensitive... and they contain allegations of criminal misconduct... this office requests Advocate Johnson to consider investigating the matter”

Mr Adams had opened dockets containing allegations, but IDAC told him they cannot assist without a Section 27 referral, leading to the creation of a Section 27 dated 21 November compiled by Mr Adams and sent without IDAC.

“Mr Adams said, I have dockets opened already that make out allegations... he told him to see a legal person and look at Section 7... accordingly, there is a 27 dated 21 November, signed in the Western Cape, compiled by Mr Adams, without IDAC, which he sent and which has the detail it has”

An email from Mr. Adams to the Office of the Minister dated 21 November 2024 complained about the interception of cases moved from Cape Town Police Station to the office of Provincial Commissioner Western Cape General Patekile.

“After I opened these cases... I was informed that the cases were taken from the Cape Town police station to the office of the Provincial Commissioner Western Cape. I do not trust the Provincial Commissioner General Patekile, and believe that a deliberate attempt is taking place to get rid of the cases I had reported and to protect those against whom I made the cases.”

Appointment of a BMW engineer as a brigadier was called unsuitable by Mr Adams without grounds or specifying an offence.

“... Mr Adams says none of these people were suitable to be appointed to the post... He just says you appointed somebody from BMW as a brigadier, and then he says not suitable. Full stop. Why are they not suitable? ... He does not even identify the offence that he suspects is being committed there.”

The allegations contained in the correspondence from Mr. Adams to the Minister implicate very senior members of the South African Police, and it is implied that they intercepted the dockets.

“the allegations contained in the correspondence from Mr Adams to the Minister implicate very senior members of the South African Police, and the implication is that they intercepted the dockets.”

There is correspondence from Mr Adams to the Minister, containing serious allegations implicating senior members of the South African Police, attached to the Minister's letter.

“What we know from this letter is the Minister has been given correspondence by Adams. That is what that letter says. There is correspondence from Mr Adams.”

Mr Adams alleged interception of dockets and implicated senior officers for interfering in the investigative process without notifying Gauteng authorities.

“The serious allegations implicating senior officers are contained there ... Then he implicates senior officers because he then says they interfered in the investigative process and he was not notified that Gauteng is following the same process.”

There was a complaint of interception related to Mr Adams' docket that the Commission did not see in the docket, and there is interest in knowing if IDAC pursued that specific complaint or focused on the broader Section 27 referral.

“I did not see that particular investigation in the docket, and I wanted to find out whether IDAC ever pursued that complaint, that specific complaint of interception of Mr Adams' docket, or whether it concentrated more on that part of the Section 27 referral that ... was initiated by IDAC.”

Mr Adams has a growing concern that General Khumalo, General Lushaba, General Madondo, and other senior Crime Intelligence officers are involved in systematic capture of the Crime Intelligence division.

“it expresses his growing concern that the Head of Crime Intelligence, General Khumalo, General Lushaba, General Madondo, and other senior Crime Intelligence officers are busy with systematic capture of Crime Intelligence division”

An envelope was slipped under the door of Mr Adams' office containing Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds and vetting documents, which he did not share the contents of.

“He references an envelope, he says, was slipped under the door of his office in Parliament, containing some Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds of Crime Intelligence and vetting documents. So he tells you that I have that, but he does not share the contents of those.”

Mr Adams suspects manipulation of procurement processes and appointments within Crime Intelligence and Secret Service offices.

“The second suspicion is reflected at paragraph 4 and on my reading, that speaks to two suspicions. The first being manipulation of procurement processes and processes to appoint and promote certain persons within Crime Intelligence. That is at paragraph 4, the first part of paragraph 4. The second part calls for the need to investigate appointments at various Secret Service offices.”

IDAC did not initially have the section 27 affidavit but solicited it from Mr Adams after receiving the letter from the Minister of Police addressed to Mr Adams.

“When you look at the 7 , we did not take the 27 . They would have contacted him and I guess this is what we got ... what we got was a 27 dated the 21st of November 2024 .”

ADV Johnson instructed Chief Perumal to contact Mr Adams directly to obtain the section 27 affidavit.

“It is yours , it is yours , it is yours , Advocate Johnson . You are the one who gave an instruction to Chief Perumal to contact Mr Adams .”

Advocate Johnson understood the suspicion in his legal mandate to be subjective, but later accepts the test is objective of a reasonable person.

“You said you believe he had the required suspicion. ... Did I understand correctly ... that the suspicion required has to be viewed subjectively? ... For me, the grounds on which the suspicion is based is a subjective test. ... I am not going back on the argument. ... It is an objective test of the reasonable person.”

Advocate Johnson acknowledges that Mr Adams, a member of the Police Portfolio Committee, has access to information and documents related to the allegations.

“Mr Adams is a member of the Police Portfolio Committee. These allegations come to them from time to time. There is active engagement with the police. There are documents ... I also had information.”

Mr Adams has growing concern that senior Crime Intelligence officers, including General Khumalo, General Lushaba, and General Madondo, are involved in systematic capture of the Crime Intelligence division.

“It expresses his growing concern that the Head of Crime Intelligence, General Khumalo, General Lushaba, General Madondo, and other senior Crime Intelligence officers are busy with systematic capture of Crime Intelligence division.”

Advocate Johnson testified that after receiving section 27 and the dockets, IDAC engaged with Mr Adams to cover other grounds and made further statements in January 2025.

“We have the dockets , but when they had the engagement ... The engagements had with him in January of 2025”

An envelope containing Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds and vetting documents was pushed under Mr. Adams' door at Parliament, leading to suspicion regarding General Khumalo and others.

“That suspicion became even clearer when an envelope pushed under his door at Parliament contained Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds of Crime Intelligence and vetting documents.”

Mr. Adams did not provide IDAC with the information that was pushed under his door.

“But you said he did not give IDAC that information which was slipped under his door.”

Mr. Adams' suspicion became clearer when he found an envelope containing Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds and vetting documents pushed under his office door at Parliament.

“My suspicion about General Khumalo and others became more clearer when I found an envelope pushed under my office door at Parliament, which contained some Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds of Crime Intelligence and vetting documents.”

Advocate Johnson admitted that it is not appropriate for IDAC to solicit complaints from the public without a formal referral; therefore, upon receiving a letter from the Minister, he instructed Mr Perumal to engage Mr Adams and obtain a section 27 affidavit to cure the absence of an official referral.

“No, we are not supposed to solicit. And that is why I am saying the engage – I tell Mr Perumal to engage Mr Adams. I do not know if this was a prepared affidavit already. It was to say to him, we received a letter from the Minister, we are engaging you.”

Referral to IDAC was made only by the Minister's Office and IDAC decided to engage Mr Adams to obtain a section 27 affidavit after recognizing the Minister's letter alone was insufficient to trigger IDAC's investigative mandate.

“So the upshot of all of this is that the referral to IDAC was by the Minister’s Office. And following that referral, IDAC then made a decision to engage with Mr Adams to obtain an affidavit from him.”

Because the Minister's letter was not a section 27 referral, IDAC required a proper section 27 affidavit from Mr Adams to cure this defect before proceeding with investigation.

“So because you read the Minister's letter and you saw the difficulty that it would not trigger your power to investigate, you contact Mr Adams through Mr Perumal to cure that problem and to provide a section 27 affidavit.”

Mr Adams, via email communications dated early November 2024, expressed concern about interference in investigative processes by the Gauteng Police Department and Western Cape Police, and urgently requested Ministerial intervention to ensure integrity of investigations concerning opened cases and intercepted dockets.

“I urgently and humbly ask for the Minister to intervene and ensure the integrity of investigative processes maintained to ensure a fair and just outcome.”

Mr Adams claimed his opened cases' dockets were intercepted and that the Gauteng Police Department was interfering in investigative processes following a similar modus operandi to the Western Cape Police.

“I was told that the dockets were intercepted. However, I have also been notified that the Gauteng Police Department has followed the same modus operandi as the Western Cape and is interfering in the investigative process.”

Mr Adams' mandate from IDAC is to investigate serious, high-profile, or complex corruption and related offences as set out in section 7(a) of the NPA Act, but some documents attached to the Minister's letter do not trigger IDAC's mandate.

“You set out your section 7(a) of the NPA Act. You do so at paragraph 8, page 3 of your first statement and you quote the Act that your mandate is to investigate serious, high-profile or complex corruption, commercial and financial cases. ... If this was the document that was attached, it does not trigger.”

Emails dated 283 and 284 in the record (MK15) were specifically referred to as the complaint from Mr Adams to the Minister of Police, describing opened cases and intercepted dockets and requesting a report to be filed by 4 November 2024.

“... And from Mr Adams. If you look overleaf at 284, ... hastily ask for the Minister to intervene and ensure the integrity of investigative processes. ... if you go back to 283, then we see communication from Mr Nkabinde to Major General Sebola, referring this complaint and requesting a report be filed with the Minister or the Minister's Office by Monday, the 4th of November. ...”

ADV Johnson admits he did not previously say that his instruction to Mr Perumal was to find out if there was a section 27 referral and states there is no such referral.

“There is no section 27 . Mr Perumal, to contact Mr Adams to find out if there is a 27 or to get a 27. No, Chair, I did not say that before.”

ADV Johnson states his instruction to Mr Perumal was to follow up and find out if there was a section 27 referral.

“That is all because there is a reference to a section 27. There is no section 27. Mr Perumal, to contact Mr Adams to find out if there is a 27 or to get a 27.”

There exists a section 27 referral dated 21 November signed in the Western Cape compiled by Mr Adams without IDAC involvement, which contains detailed allegations.

“Accordingly, there is a 27 dated 21 November, signed in the Western Cape, that was compiled by Mr Adams, without IDAC, which he sent and which has the detail it has”

Mr Perumal was instructed to obtain a Section 27 affidavit from Mr Adams after receipt of the Minister's Office communication, regardless of annexures.

“you then instructed Mr Perumal to obtain a Section 27 affidavit from Mr Adams”

There is a seeming parallel investigation initiated by IDAC attached to Mr Adams' complaint, which goes beyond the interception issue and includes claims of siphoning money and cover-ups.

“there is Mr Adams' complaint of interference, and then there seemingly is a parallel investigation attached to that complaint initiated by IDAC”

Advocate Johnson says that the suspicion test under section 27 is a subjective test based on the mind of the person concerned, specifically Mr. Adams as a member of the Police Portfolio Committee who interacts with police and has access to relevant information.

“Yes [to suspicion viewed subjectively] ... Mr Adams is a member of the Police Portfolio Committee ... there is active engagement with the police ... I did not take his to be just the test of a subjective mind.”

The section 27 affidavit had references to dockets that were not previously available, so Advocate Ramsami sought to obtain those dockets first before amplifying the section 27 affidavit.

“She realized that there were references made to dockets, and because we did not have those dockets, the best way ... is to first get those dockets, because he is talking to allegations in these dockets, and he makes reference thereto.”

Advocate Khumalo challenges the assertion by Mr Adams that certain appointees from BMW were unsuitable without providing grounds or offence details.

“Mr Adams says none of these people were suitable to be appointed to the post. That is his personal view, without grounds to support that.”

Mr Adams was contacted and prepared to cooperate, and investigators and a prosecutor conducted an interview with him following section 28 procedures.

“In this specific case, Mr Adams was contacted, he was prepared to cooperate, and the investigators and a prosecutor then went ahead to interview him.”

Mr Adams reported four dockets as per a letter, indicating a requirement to depose to a section 27 affidavit for IDAC to look at the matter.

“Mr Adams indicated that he had reported these four dockets that we see in the letter. He informed Mr Adams that as per IDAC, if you want IDAC to look at a matter, you would have to depose to a section 27 affidavit.”

A letter from IDAC was sent to Major General Khumalo requesting the dockets as part of the investigation as per the Minister's letter and Mr Adams' communication.

“I did pen a letter under my hand to the Major General, indicating that IDAC was now vested with an investigation and would require the dockets as per the letter, which were the dockets that were referred to in the Minister's letter and subsequently by Mr Adams.”

The correspondence from Mr Adams to the Minister implicates very senior SAPS members and suggests these members intercepted the dockets.

“The allegations contained in the correspondence from Mr Adams to the Minister implicate very senior members of the South African Police, and the implication is that they intercepted the dockets.”

Advocate Johnson is not saying the Minister or Mr Nkabinde saw the contents of the dockets, but referred to Mr Adams who is said to have made serious allegations implicating senior SAPS members, with case dockets registered with CAS numbers.

“I am not saying they saw the contents of the dockets. They referred to Mr Adams, and they say the allegations contained by Mr Adams implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service, and are viewed in a serious light, and case dockets were registered as per the following CAS numbers.”

The Minister has been given written correspondence by Mr Adams, which is attached to the Minister's letter, and in that correspondence, Mr Adams makes serious allegations implicating senior SAPS officers.

“What we know from this letter is the Minister has been given correspondence by Adams. That is what that letter says. There is correspondence from Mr Adams.”

The first and second paragraphs of the Minister's letter sensibly refer to the attached correspondence from Mr Adams that implicates senior SAPS members in serious matters.

“A sensible reading of this first paragraph and the second paragraph is, the 'contained therein' refers or must refer to the attached correspondence. That is a sensible reading, otherwise why does he mention that letter to you?”

The allegations referred to in the Minister's letter about implicating senior SAPS officers are serious and sensitive, and would logically require the Minister to have had a conversation with Mr Adams about the dockets to know their content.

“More importantly and seriously, it works only if you say that the Minister must have had a conversation with Mr Adams about these dockets, to know that matter contained therein, in those dockets, is sensitive and it implicates senior police officers and who are those senior police officers.”

There was a complaint about interception of dockets relating to the Mokwele matter, but it was not seen in the docket; it is unclear if IDAC pursued that specific complaint or focused generally on the Section 27 referral initiated by IDAC.

“I did not see that particular investigation in the docket, and I wanted to find out whether IDAC ever pursued that complaint, that specific complaint of interception of Mr Adams' docket, or whether it concentrated more on that part of the Section 27 referral that, as I suggest, was initiated by IDAC.”

The affidavit by Mr Adams makes allegations of manipulation of recruitment processes, appointment of unsuitable persons in senior strategic posts in the Criminal Intelligence Unit, bypassing of vetting processes, and appointments as gratification linked to collusion in looting state funds, including purchase of properties.

“The manipulation of recruitment processes and appointment of persons without suitable qualifications into senior strategic posts in the Criminal Intelligence Unit; the bypassing of vetting processes ...; and the appointments of persons not suitably qualified or experienced as a form of gratification for their collusion later in the looting of state funds, for example, the purchase of properties.”

The section 27 referral against Matlala is entirely separate from other referrals, including one relating to Mr. Adams.

“It is a section 27 referral entirely based only on allegations against Matlala, irregular awarding of a contract, Medicare 24, and it is from someone completely different and does not relate to the one we have been discussing or the one we have been discussing about Mr Adams.”

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.”

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 .”

Cases referred to IDAC by Mr Adams depict state capture, fraud, corruption and defeating the ends of justice.

“This is what IDAC , upon looking at all the matters holistically , established . However , if one looks at an individual case , this bigger and clearer picture does not emerge . When looked at holistically , the cases depicts state capture , fraud , corruption , and defeating the ends of justice .”

Section 27 referral related to Matlala was entirely based on allegations of irregular awarding of a contract to Medicare 24 and comes from a different source than other referrals discussed related to Mr Adams.

“It is a section 27 referral entirely based only on allegations against Matlala, irregular awarding of a contract, Medicare 24, and it is from someone completely different and does not relate to the one we have been discussing or the one we have been discussing about Mr Adams.”

The original dockets opened by Mr Adams have not been disclosed to counsel.

“The original dockets that were opened by Mr Adams has not been disclosed to you .”

The Inspectorate is still seized with the complaint and trying to establish facts and is seeking a legal opinion from the SAPS Legal Services Department.

“the Inspectorate is still seized with the complaint and trying to establish facts and to determine the complaint as proffered by Mr Adams . And for that purpose , at this point , they are now seeking a legal opinion from the , internally , from the SAPS Legal Services Department”

The A1 statement from Mr Adams is rather sparse on facts and mainly contains allegations without supporting facts.

“I am saying if there is a totality of it, it is rather sparse on facts. It is very thin on facts, this document.”

Mr Adams wants IDAC to investigate appointments of various secret service offices in the country because such offices are likely points for laundering money out of Crime Intelligence without detection.

“Mr Adams would like IDAC to please investigate appointments of the various secret service offices , not officers , offices in the country , because that is the likely point for that money will be laundered .”

There is no single affidavit by Mr Adams; there are multiple affidavits and dockets.

“There is not one Mr Adams affidavit. There are a few. There is not one docket, there are a few dockets.”

The complainant, Mr Adams, made a complaint to IDAC regarding the lack of progress on the dockets.

“Colonel, you say that the complainant, Mr Adams, came to IDAC and complained about the progress or lack on the dockets.”

Mr Adams made a complaint to IDAC alleging corruption related to the opened dockets and disappearance of dockets.

“I think the issue of the complaint is that he alleges that he opened cases but nothing, his dockets disappeared. And then he alleged the corruption in that referral, which we took our lead from.”

There is an issue with a statement attributed to an investigator, with conflicting dates and signatures, raising questions about its authenticity, in particular whether the statement was taken properly in presence of Mr Adams and where it was taken (Cape Town or Pretoria).

“w h e r e y o u s a y t h e s t a t i o n i s B r o o k l y n , t h e r e i s a d a t e i s s u e , t h e r e i s a c a s e n u m b e r i s s u e t h e r e , b u t w h e n y o u l o o k a t t h e b o t t o m o f t h e d o c u m e n t , i t h a s a d i f f e r e n t d a t e .”

There is uncertainty or discrepancy about who actually took the statement of the complainant, whether it was Mr Adams or Chief Investigator Perumal; Colonel Padayachee admits he was not present when the statement was taken.

“I say, I use it in the context that IDAC takes the statement of the complainant . But the particulars statement that is before the Commission now , I was not present .”

The signature on the affidavit appears to have been placed in the wrong place and, comparing signatures, the signature on the bottom of the page appears to be Mr Adams and not Chief Investigator Perumal.

“Th e w a y I s e e i t h e r e , i s t h a t t h e s i g n a t u r e i s p u t i n t h e w r o n g p l a c e h e r e . ... Th e s i g n a t u r e o n t h e b o t t o m o f t h e p a g e a p p e a r s t o b e m i s t e r , f r o m t h e w a y I l o o k a t t h e o t h e r s i g n a t u r e s t h a t a r e i n t h e a c t u a l a f f i d a v i t , i t a p p e a r s t o b e M r A d a m s .”

Mr Adams signed twice on pages 681 and 682 as well as his own statement, but his signature on page 681, where Chief Perumal was supposed to sign, appears to be the same as on other pages, suggesting Mr Adams signed in place of Chief Perumal.

“it would appear at first blush that Mr Adams signed both ... page 1 and page 2 and his own statement ... it looks like the signature at 681, so it is the same signature ... where Chief Perumal was supposed to have signed on 681, Mr Adams signed”

Chief Perumal declined to comment on whether he signed Mr Adams' statement, saying he is not a handwriting expert and it would be unfair for him to comment.

“I cannot comment on that ... I am not a handwriting expert and I cannot comment on that but he himself can comment. Did you sign here or did not? If I am understanding you correctly.”

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.”

Complaints in section 27 affidavits included many matters; however, there is only one affidavit, related to the appointment of the Brigadier, obtained from Mr Adams.

“The only affidavit is the one dealing with the appointment of the Brigadier. ... There are other affidavits in the other dockets and investigations that are dealing with that separately.”

Allegations in paragraph 5 of the affidavit are based on suspicion that funds were given to Minister Cele, but are not substantiated or explained in detail.

“In paragraph 5, Mr Adams says: 'I suspect that some of the funds are being given to Minister Cele.' He has made sufficient allegations to trigger your section 27 powers, or in fact, (1A) powers. He says it is a suspicion. He does not say what is the basis for the suspicion.”

Chairperson criticizes investigator's approach, emphasizing that unsubstantiated suspicion is not enough to meet section 27 legal requirements for investigations.

“The problem with your approach is that you seem to believe that once an allegation has been made, the section 27 requirements have been met. Just because Mr Adams says he suspects without substantiating, then for you that is sufficient.”