witness

Ms Ramsami reminded the witness that the list came from Chief Perumal, and expected the witness to confirm this directly with Chief Perumal.

“once you were told by Ms Ramsami that you told her that you got it from Chief Perumal”

The witness did not ask Chief Perumal to confirm that he gave the list, despite having talked to him.

“You have to explain why did you not ask Chief Perumal , confirm I got this”

The witness spoke to Chief Perumal who claimed to have no recollection of giving the list, despite the witness stating Chief Perumal gave the list.

“I did speak to Mr Perumal . And Mr Perumal has no recollection . ... That he gave me the list”

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 eventually clarifies that the referral was received by their office from IDAC, not directly from Mr Adams.

“The referral when it came , came in an envelope to IDAC , to the offices , through the nominal document receiver process”

The witness claimed not to recall receiving anything from the office of the Minister at the time of questioning, despite evidence suggesting otherwise.

“I did not recall receiving anything from the office of the Minister”

The witness continued to communicate with General Khan after March 2022 via WhatsApp and in person, but they did not socialize socially (no lunch, visits).

“So we would chat on WhatsApp or we would talk to one another if we saw one another, but we did not socialise in the words socialise. So we did not go to lunch, visit one another, etcetera”

The witness and her husband attended General Khan's 50th or 55th birthday party upon an invitation to the husband, but they did not greet the host and left early due to being busy; the witness denied attending after March 2022.

“My husband having been invited and I attended. We probably were the most ungracious guests because it was very busy. And as soon as we had had dinner, I said to my husband, can we leave? And we did not even greet the host. We had left, but we did attend it”

The allegation about disclosing a docket to General Khan relating to an ongoing criminal investigation against him is vague and unsupported by particulars and the witness does not recall disclosing any docket.

““The allegation referred to above is also vague and unsupported by particulars... Nor where the alleged disclosure took place, how the docket was allegedly disclosed… Your answers seem to suggest that you are not able to respond to paragraph 2.6 because you have not been given the details of the docket ... implying there may very well be more than one docket ... For me, you are talking about relationship and allegations that you disclosed to General Khan a SAPS docket relating to an ongoing criminal investigation ... I was seeking the details of this docket and who made the allegation... And it became – at the time, I did not recall disclosing a docket”

There is only one docket implicated regarding the alleged disclosure to General Khan, and the witness was not initially aware of disclosing such a docket; the witness's memory needed to be jogged later when evidence was presented.

“There is not more than one ... Yes ... And it became – at the time, I did not recall disclosing a docket ... When the evidence is presented and witnesses testify ... I am replying to this affidavit ... and it is only then I realise what is being referred to ... And hence the third affidavit that was then made”

The witness' attendance at the birthday party was by invitation to her husband and was not indicative of a personal social relationship with General Khan.

“he knew both my husband and I. Yes, he knew me as well”

The provisions in the Commission's Act provide witnesses protection not to reveal matters discussed with their legal representatives, which is different from the right to self-incrimination.

“provisions speak of a privilege ... gives a witness protection not to reveal matters that are the subject of discussion with their legal representative”

The relationship between the witness and General Khan was adversely influenced by allegations made to the witness regarding Khan's alleged involvement by Mr Murray, which altered their relationship course.

“your relationship with General Khan was adversely influenced by the allegations made to you as regards his alleged involvement by Mr Murray. That is what altered the course of your relationship”

The witness asserts their constitutional right not to incriminate themselves under section 35(3)(j) of the South African Constitution read with section 3(4) of the Commission's Act 947, thus refusing to testify on certain matters.

“should I be called upon to I will exercise my right not to incriminate myself under section 35(3)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa read with section 3(4) of the Commission's Act of 947”

The witness confirms that allegations against them are already before the NPA for a prosecutorial decision, asserting constitutional and statutory rights against self-incrimination.

“confirms that the allegations against me are already before the NPA for a prosecutorial decision , asserts my constitutional and statutory right against self-incrimination”

The witness did not appear before the Commission on 13 July 2026 due to illness and placed a medical certificate before the Commission.

“prior to my then-scheduled appearance on 13 July 2026, I took ill and did not appear before the Commission . I placed before the Commission a medical certificate”

The witness is willing to answer questions related to the affidavit and other matters subject to timeous notice and legal representation rights.

“should I be required to answer questions flowing from this affidavit and other matters ... I would be willing to make myself available”

The witness and legal representatives understand the right against self-incrimination applies on a question-by-question basis and not as a blanket ban with respect to Exhibit CJC 368.

“you are not invoking a blanket ban dealing with the issues that are reflected in CJC 368 ... you invoke your right against self-incrimination in response to specific questions”

The right against self-incrimination cited arises from section 3(4) of the Commission's Act, which secures witnesses the right not to answer questions that may incriminate them.

“because it is you sitting here, you do invoke section 3(4) of the Commission's Act ... that secures your right against self-incrimination”

Section 28(8)(a) and (b) of the NPA Act provides privilege to witnesses appearing in Magistrate's Courts and limits admissibility of evidence that exposes them to criminal charges.

“The law regarding privilege as applicable to a witness summoned to give evidence in a criminal case in a Magistrate's Court ... No evidence ... shall be admissible ... except in criminal proceedings where the person concerned stands trial on a charge contemplated in subsections 10(b) or (c)”

Section 3(4) of the Commission’s Act and section 6 read together protect the right against self-incrimination for any witness, allowing them to invoke that right.

“section 6 will cross-refer you to this section 3 (4) referencing the privilege applicable to anyone in a Mag Court ... so they should be read conjunctively to a position where a witness may invoke a right against self-incrimination”

The witness and her husband attended General Khan's 50th or 55th birthday party, but they were busy and left early without greeting the host.

“most people who had been invited with their partners or spouses and we attended the birthday, attended the dinner. We probably were the most ungracious guests because it was very busy... We had left, but we did attend it. My husband having been invited and I attended”

Despite witness testimony regarding the docket disclosure, the witness states she either knows she did disclose or has never disclosed in her lifetime, indicating uncertainty.

“So the effect, some effect of that is had the witness not testified, you would still have not responded to the allegation that you handed a docket over. You would not recall... You either know you did or you have never in your entire life”

The witness invoked the privilege in relation to a question from MPMncwango.

“she invoked the privilege in relation to MPMncwango's question”

The witness continued answering questions and only potentially invoked the privilege depending on the question asked.

“But then she continued answering questions, so she did not have difficulty answering questions. She may or may not, depending on what question is asked, then raise the issue.”

The Commission seeks to treat all witnesses fairly and provide them opportunity to file supplementary affidavits if documents presented during testimony are new to them.

“UNATTRIBUTED”

Advocate Johnson, as a person of interest, improperly approached witnesses, assuring them they have nothing to worry about and implying the Hawks might intervene, which constitutes interference and potential intimidation.

“That is where we are saying the interference came , Commissioner . Why will you , knowing that you are a person of interest , you know the witness , why will you now go and approach the witness ? Are you trying to intimidate the witness ? Are you trying to tell the witness the Hawks is going to come there , tailor your evidence ? We do not know . But it is improper for a person of interest , especially a senior prosecutor within the NPA , knowing the law , to approach a witness in this fashion .”

The witness did not mention a visit on 1 July in their first two statements but mentioned it for the first time in a later statement, appearing to align with Colonel Jacob's paragraph, suggesting the visit might be a recent invention or addition after discussions between the witness and Colonel Jacob.

“So it seems it gives appearances that this is a creation, a new creation of something that is supposed to have happened on the 1st of July when, in fact, nothing like that happened, and you would have either because you and Colonel Jacob had a discussion and agreed to add this”

The witness successfully won an appeal to be reinstated into SAPS, with reinstatement terms equal to before dismissal, but only reported for duty months later in April 2024.

“My reinstatement into SAPS. In November 2023, I successfully won my appeal to be reinstated in the SAPS. The awards stated that I should be reinstated with the same terms and conditions as before my dismissal. I, however, reported for duty on 16th April 2024.”

Witness informed Lieutenant General Sibiya the case was withdrawn in court on 8 October 2022 with no pending case against them.

“I told General Sibiya that the case was withdrawn in court on 8 October 2022 and that there is no pending case against me and I have no case to answer.”

Lieutenant General Sibiya sympathised with the witness and understood their treatment upon return to SAPS.

“Lieutenant General Sibiya further sympathised with me as he stated that he also went through the same treatment upon his return to the SAPS and that he understands exactly how I feel.”

A witness related to the Port Shepstone drug theft is reluctant to testify publicly and is seeking for an in-camera hearing to fully disclose all investigation details.

“the witness is reluctant, has compelling us to move for a complete in-camera hearing, where he is willing to disclose everything that the investigations have uncovered, but only if it is in camera.”

The witness for the Port Shepstone theft case is not legally represented and was initially reluctant to testify, but the Evidence Leaders insisted on more detailed testimony.

“this was not a witness intended to go in-camera... The witness would have been somewhat prepared to testify as to some facts, but it would have been a very superficial kind of testimony... the Evidence Leaders, drove the witness to disclose as much as possible, and I think to a point of discomfort for the witness.”

The witness was expected to testify in public, but circumstances have drastically changed making public testimony uncertain, and the identity and testimony contents of the witness must be withheld.

“This witness was going to testify in public, but circumstances drastically changed. The issue is the identity of the witness must be withheld, and so must the contents of his testimony.”

The witness is particularly reluctant to testify publicly and may not even be available if compelled to do so.

“I must state upfront that the witness is particularly reluctant to testify in public and should the order for in camera not be granted, I do not know what the situation will be by Friday.”

There may be no witness available on Friday if an application for in camera testimony is denied.

“In the event that it is denied, there may possibly not be a witness for Friday.”

When Mr Molefe speaks to the witness, he is speaking as a police officer to inquire about the police attitude towards bail.

“when Mr Molefe speaks to you, he is speaking to you as a police officer, to ask about the police attitude towards bail.”

A subordinate who was previously a captain or colonel in SAPS disrespected the witness by claiming higher rank because he was a commissioned officer, but the witness clarified that he was not a commissioned officer and belongs to Metro Police.

“he opened the discussion completely disrespectful towards me, stating that he has got a higher rank than me because he is a commissioned officer and I am not a commissioned officer... I stated to him, it is true that I am not a commissioned officer because I am not in the South African Police Service, we are in the Metro Police”

The subordinate actively disobeyed instructions given by the witness and was suspended due to ongoing forensic investigations into breaches and undeclared senior management declarations.

“whenever I give him instructions, he would actively disobey my instructions, and he would not do whatever I have informed him to do... he was then placed on suspension, and a disciplinary matter has been initiated against him and that is still carrying on to date.”

The CFO used an intermediary due to the witness's family relationship with the General, leveraging that relationship to persuade the General to act in circumstances the CFO could not.

“the CFO thought that because of your family relationship with the General, you would be to persuade the General to do things that he as CFO might not be able to persuade the General”

The use of an intermediary obscured the communication trail to conceal irregular conduct within the municipality.

“by interposing you between all of their communications, they leave an electronic trail that suggests that they never speak to each other. So they are able to communicate in relation to irregular conduct within the municipality without leaving an electronic trail that suggests that they have done so”

A witness cannot testify with impunity on documents their attorney and counsel have but which are not included in the bundle until the witness testifies down a relevant line.

“A witness cannot be entitled to testify with impunity in relation to documents which his attorney has and which I have, but which are not in the bundle...we did not anticipate the documents were going to be relevant until the witness testified down a particular line.”

The safety of a witness who deals with informers and operational contacts may be at risk if their testimony is given publicly, as recognition by others may incorrectly label those associated as informers, which increases the risk to the witness.

“because the witness deals with informers and the likes, and operational contacts, their safety may be at risk ... somebody who has witnessed our client with a particular informer ... there could be conclusions drawn ... that the particular individuals ... were acting in a capacity of being informers”

An application is made for the witness to give evidence remotely and off camera, potentially employing voice-altering technology or a process where another person speaks into the microphone to conceal the witness's identity.

“we are asking for, in principle, is for the evidence to be given remotely ... off camera ... if the technology ... is in possession of this technology, voice-altering technology ... what we could do is that we could borrow the process that is employed when a translator is used in proceedings”

The witness cannot be visually identified as he is running agents and informants, and showing his face would endanger them.

“If he is running agents and informants, his face cannot be shown because that will endanger the people who speak to him”

Voice-altering technology was investigated but no satisfactory results were found, and it is not clear the witness will be identifiable by voice.

“we have investigated whether we have voice-altering technology, and we did not come up with any satisfactory results ... It is not clear to me that he will be identifiable by voice”

Some questions asked during witness testimony may render the witness identifiable due to references to publicly available information, but such questions cannot be avoided as they are directly relevant to the Commission's inquiries.

“some of the questions ... may render him identifiable with reference to information that is publicly available ... those are not questions I can avoid asking because they will be directly relevant to the enquiries of the Commission”

The witness receives information from informants daily, including on alleged bribes and threats, and ensures threat analysis is performed based on this information.

“Even the information which I gave the members regarding the alleged bribe and the threat, and make sure that there must be a threat analysis, I got it from informants, people who phone me on a daily basis.”

Mr Matlala committed crimes without the assistance or knowledge of the witness, who denies any criminal involvement.

“He committed a crime where he committed a crime without me knowing, without my assistance ... So I do not understand how this relates to me, really.”

Mr Matlala is a friend and benefactor of the witness, who frequently receives loans from him and advises him on personal and legal matters including a contract with SAPS.

“He is your friend. He is your benefactor. You take loans from him, frequently advise him on matters of personal, say, legal problems ... on top of that, he clearly comes to you about this contract ... You take interest in how much he gets paid.”

The witness admits the current known facts look bad on him but argues that the circumstances of how the situation developed are different from what might be assumed.

“Yes, now it is known. It looks bad on me ... if you take it how it came along and how it happened, it is something else ... yes, it will look very bad on me and whatever I have done ... yes, I agree in that fashion.”

Mr Matlala last spoke to the witness in 2023 and they unexpectedly met at General Sibiya's house in September, where conversation turned to the witness's financial troubles; shortly after, Mr Matlala called the witness without being prompted and offered money.

“... last time you had spoken to him was in 2023 ... encounter him at General Sibiya's house in September ... conversation ... gets to a point where you are now talking about your money troubles ... then four days later ... he calls you ... he is the one that calls to ask ... offer you money ...”

Despite knowing of Mr Matlala's serious legal problems and allegations, the witness accepted money from him and their relationship escalated quickly to exchanging money and the witness helping Mr Matlala.

“... he was doing exactly what you say happens when people want to corrupt individual officers ... befriend them to get them to do what they want ... my view is you seem to have done that for him.”

The witness declined to mention that one of his companies paid over R2,000,000 to Medicare Tshwane District, despite being specifically asked to furnish a statement on the nature and extent of his relationship with Medicare Tshwane District.

“He declined to mention that one of his companies paid over R 2 0 0 0 0 0 to Medicare Tshwane District”

The witness did not disclose payments aggregating to 2.12 million into Medicare Tshwane District when specifically instructed to furnish a statement about the nature and extent of his relationship with Medicare Tshwane District.

“the witness did not disclose payments aggregating to 2 . 1 2 m i l l i o n i n t o Medicare Tshwane District when he was specifically instructed to furnish a statement about the nature and extent of his relationship with Medicare Tshwane District”

The witness is accused of withholding information that is relevant to the commission's inquiry about the relationship with Medicare that he knows but chooses to withhold.

“The witness knows something else, and he chooses to hold it back”

The witness is not coming to assist the Commission and is seen as playing catch me if you can while the Commission seeks to find out facts about the relationship with Medicare.

“To me, is not a witness who is coming to assist the Commission. It is catch me if you can”

The witness and his legal team need to consult but do not need days to do so; an hour would be reasonable before proceeding.

“The witness and his legal team now need time to consult, but they do not need time. They do not need days to consult. They can stand down, consult for a reasonable period, maybe an hour, and then we are ready to run”

It is unfair criticism that the witness should have dealt with matters not stipulated in the summons or notice in the statement; the witness's attention was not directed to those matters and the transactions go back several years.

“My submission to you is that that is an incorrect view. ... It is unfair for you to make the judgment now that he chose to hold back documents when his attention was not directed to that”