Advocate Hlatshwayo conducted bail proceedings on behalf of the State, indicating that bail was not opposed, but at times struggled with court questions and consulted with Advocate Serunye and Mr. Padayachee.
“Advocate Hlatshwayo conducted the bail proceedings on behalf of the State, indicating that the State was not opposing bail...At various points Advocate Hlatshwayo experienced difficulty answering questions from the court and conferred with me and with Mr Padayachee”
Witnesses were instructed by Mr Padayachee's team to immediately report if contacted by the accused to prevent danger and protect ongoing investigations involving the same accused.
“Padayachee and his team would have discussed with the witnesses, if anyone contacts you , please let us know, so that they can take steps ... so that there was no danger in that regard”
Mr Padayachee left the court just before the magistrate started delivering the judgment to catch a flight back to Durban or Port Elizabeth.
“Mr Padayachee was with us up to a certain point... He had to catch a flight back to Durban or Port Elizabeth ... when the magistrate was delivering judgment, he was no longer there”
Mr Padayachee was still in court and present during discussions about bail conditions but left just before the magistrate began delivering the judgment.
“when Hlatshwayo was addressing the court about the conditions, he was still there. ... I think he left just before the magistrate had started delivering judgment”
There was no prima facie case of corruption at the time of arrest, and the arrest seemed premature given the lack of sufficient evidence and ongoing investigations.
“My view at the time, Commissioner Baloyi, was that no. They should have been asked right from the beginning, but then you arrest.”
A D V S E R U N Y E explains that a warrant affidavit (J50) is drafted by the investigating officer but is first authorized internally by the internal prosecutors before being taken to court.
“The investigating officer, Padayachee, would have drafted a warrant, a J 50 warrant. That warrant is first authorised by the internal prosecutor.”
A D V B A L O Y I S C states that the internal prosecutor reviews the application and affidavits before they are taken to court and the magistrate approves the J50 warrant.
“It is the internal prosecutors that look at this application and the affidavits before Mr Padayachee takes it to Court. Takes it to a Magistrate who approves the J 50.”
A D V B A L O Y I S C questions whether lawyers (prosecutors) had reviewed the case before the investigating officer, Colonel Padayachee, went to the magistrate the first time and were turned back.
“So you say to us, Colonel Padayachee went to the Magistrate the first time and he was turned back, right? The then question is, well, does it mean the lawyers in there, the prosecutors, had never looked at this work before he went to the Magistrate?”
For a warrant to be authorised, an affidavit must be read and agreed to by the authorising authority, confirming there is a case and agreeing with the charges stated in the warrant.
“One of them would have the authorised that warrant, and for one to authorise the warrant, you therefore have to read first this affidavit, and to say, yes, we have a case, I agree with this, and the warrant also states the charges, I agree with the charges. Then the prosecutor authorises that.”
A debate has been had about whether gratification charges were properly formulated based on facts, with Advocate Serunye expressing difficulties; the same discussion occurred with the ID, Mr Padayachee, and Ms Ramsamy, indicating these charges are a default fallback in at least these cases.
“We have had the debate about gratification , whether the charge has been – the charge is properly formulated on your facts , and you have expressed your difficulties with it . The same discussion was had with the ID , the same discussion was had with Mr Padayachee and Ms Ramsamy . So at least on these two cases , it seems to have been a default , maybe because nothing else works .”
According to Mr Padayachee, the prosecution was instructed to request the bail condition but did not do so; the bail condition was part of the prosecution's plan discussed with the ID head, though not asked for formally.
“the prosecutor had been instructed to ask for that condition ... Padayachee said that ... they were supposed to ask for that bail condition , but it was not asked for ... their plan ... was not going to oppose bail , but these are going to be our conditions”
Adv Serunye finds it difficult to accept that Ms Johnson did not know about the bail condition because Mr Padayachee indicated it was to be requested.
“I find it difficult when Advocate Johnson says she did not know about the condition , because based on what I hear from Mr Padayachee , they were supposed to ask for that bail condition”
Advocate Johnson gave instructions approving an appeal based on Mr Padayachee’s affidavit and sent a WhatsApp message instructing Advocate Ramsamy to inform Advocates Serunye and Hlatshwayo, though Advocate Hlatshwayo did not ask for the bail condition in court.
“Advocate Johnson gave instructions approving the appeal based on Mr Padayachee's affidavit and she then sent a WhatsApp to Advocate Ramsamy, instructing her to then inform Advocate Serunye and Advocate Hlatshwayo... but Advocate Hlatshwayo did not ask for that condition in court.”
Mr. Raphesu refused to work on the Mokwele matter because Mr. Perumal and Mr. Padayachee were meeting witnesses in secret locations and arranging for affidavits he was not aware of; he was later removed from that investigation.
“I refuse to work on that matter... I became aware that Mr Perumal and Mr Padayachee were meeting some of the witnesses... so, I took issue with that... I was removed from the investigation of that case only.”
M R R A P H E S U raised the issue of early 204 statement taking with Ms Ramsamy and Mr Sesoko, and was advised to concentrate on the Lushaba matter, while the other two persons would continue with their matters.
“No, they gave me feedback. They indicated that I should continue concentrating on the Lushaba matter and the other matter, the other two guys will continue with it... and Mr Padayachee assumed the responsibility of being a lead on that other matter.”
Mr Padayachee accused Mr Raphesu of putting his life in danger by naming him as an investigator, and Mr Raphesu hopes Mr Padayachee is not involved in orchestrating the matter.
“Mr Padayachee was going around the office telling people that I put his life in danger... So I am just putting it... I am hoping it will turn out that he is not part of this because if he is, then I do not know... my belief is that him and Dylan Perumal, they are the ones that orchestrated this thing.”
Ms Ramsamy forwarded Advocate Johnson's message to a Signal group chat including Perumal, Padayachee, and Raphesu before calling Mr Perumal as instructed.
“Before I called Mr Perumal, I forwarded Advocate Johnson's message to a Signal group chat with Perumal, Padayachee and Raphesu in the group. Thereafter, I called Mr Perumal as instructed.”
Mr Padayachee had not seen the section 27 referral affidavit in the presence of Mr Ramsamy, but likely saw a draft or signed version at some point.
“I confirm that Mr Padayachee had not seen the section 27 referral affidavit in my presence. However, I believe that Mr Padayachee either saw a draft of the section 27 affidavit or the signed version.”
Mr Perumal and Mr Padayachee were in Cape Town in November 2024 and stayed at a Formula One hotel due to a shortage of hotels, which embarrassed them because they met with a Member of Parliament there.
“Mr Perumal complained to me that when him and Mr Padayachee were in Cape Town in November 2024, there was a shortage of hotels and they were forced to stay at the Formula One hotel. He expressed how embarrassing it was for him and Mr Padayachee to meet with a Member of Parliament at the Formula One.”
Mr Ramsamy doubts Mr Padayachee's version that he did not see the section 27 referral affidavit due to secrecy around it and evidence from Mr Perumal's comments.
“There was a lot of secrecy around this section 7 referral affidavit. Had it not been for Mr Perumal's comments at the airport, I would have believed Mr Padayachee that he had not seen the section 27 referral affidavit.”
Mr Padayachee was likely to have seen the original section 27 affidavit during the November Cape Town trip with Mr Perumal and Mr Raphesu due to their presence and the timing of the statement.
“The one that I am speaking about, the one that contains the PKT and the vehicles and the lodges, it would have been improbable that he, impossible, that he would not have seen the original.”
Mr Padayachee testified that he never had sight of the section 27 referral affidavit, which was difficult to believe given what he would have been expected to investigate.
“When Mr Padayachee testified and said that he never had sight of the section 27 referral affidavit, I suggested to him that that was very hard to believe because what would he have investigated if he did not have what was in effect the source document?”
The Section 27 referral affidavit given to the Commission was different from the one Advocate Johnson gave on the 5th of December 2024, and the witness only saw this flighted document for the first time at the Commission.
“this was not the 27 referral affidavit that Advocate Johnson gave me on the 5th of December 2024”
Adv Sello SC notes that Colonel Padayachee's testimony and the docket provided to the Commission contain no claim or evidence regarding document tampering or panel manipulation, other than General Kahn's statement that he was excluded from the panel.
“because in so far as the panel is concerned, we are not aware of such a claim. The only complaint would appear as reflected in an affidavit, in a statement provided by General Kahn, but the only issue was that the panel did not include General Kahn, but there was no suggestion otherwise of the manipulation of the panel.”
Adv Johnson previously stated at the Ad Hoc Committee that there was no flight risk regarding the accused individuals and that Colonel Padayachee accepted they could have presented themselves to court without needing an arrest warrant.
“y o u s a i d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o r i s k o f t h e m f l e e i n g a n d n o t p r e s e n t i n g t h e m s e l v e s t o C o u r t . . . C o l o n e l P a d a y a c h e e a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d h a v e p r e s e n t e d , y o u k n e w w h e r e t h e y w o r k e d , y o u k n e w t h e i r a d d r e s s e s”
Colonel Padayachee filed an affidavit opposing the amendment of a bail condition restricting Crime Intelligence officials' access to CI offices, despite lacking security clearance to access CI information himself.
“Colonel Padayachee filed an affidavit in opposition of the amendment of that condition in circumstances where you, as his leader, knows that that condition would not make sense because Mr Brian Padayachee himself does not have any security clearance to access information that is within the CI offices?”
Prosecutor Joy Hlatshwayo did not request or seek the disputed bail condition restricting CI access or nominating Mr Padayachee as a go-between in open court.
“are you aware that such a condition was not even sought by the prosecutor? Even a watered down version as you put it, that they be allowed to go into CI offices but accompanied by Mr Padayachee, even that was never sought.”
Colonel Padayachee explained that he could not testify regarding how the bail condition was imposed because he had left court by the time the prosecutor finished her address, or alternatively that the Magistrate overheard him and the prosecutor conferring and added the condition without an open court request.
“His explanation was he cannot testify to that because I think by the time the prosecutor finished her address to Court as regards to bail conditions, he had since left court. Alternatively, that maybe the Magistrate overheard him and the prosecutor conferring in a corner and without it being requested in open court, the Magistrate then decided to add that condition.”
During the bail hearing court address, Mr Padayachee was visible behind prosecutor Joy Hlatshwayo at all times and did not leave court as claimed.
“during that particular address, which I understood to be the application which is the application for bail, Mr Padayachee is visible behind her at all times.”
Mr Padayachee and General Matlou used reckless claims and accusations to impugn General Madondo's integrity in opposition to a bail condition amendment application.
“this resistance to an amendment of that condition has invited Mr Padayachee, General, what is their name, Matlou, to seriously impugn General Madondo's integrity and by throwing wanton claims against her and accusations.”
General Matlou's affidavit filed in the bail appeal made irrelevant allegations regarding General Madondo's security vetting file, lack of security, and propensity for dishonesty without factual basis.
“the affidavit of General Madondo, it does not seem to even speak to anything that would be relevant. Even if it were permissible. I mean, she is not alleging facts. She says she works in Crime Intelligence. She has a propensity to be dishonest. She does not have security. That has nothing to do with this appeal.”
General Matlou colluded with Colonel Padayachee to oppose General Madondo's bail application despite having no involvement in the underlying legal matter.
“what interest did she have to file this kind of affidavit opposing a bail application where she is not involved whatsoever in the matter, and here colluding with Colonel Padayachee because he says pretty much the same things which have nothing to do with the bail appeal.”
ADV BALOYI SCDay 150 · 29 Jul 2026Refers to: ,claim_text:Evidence: affidavit of General Matlou
Advocate Baloyi SC and the High Court appeal judgment noted that a disputed handwritten condition on a bail order was not requested in court.
“So I think it has been, at least on the evidence of Colonel Padayachee and the judgment itself, the appeal judgment, we can accept that it is established that the condition was not asked for.”
ADV JOHNSON suggested that either Mr Perumal or Mr Padayachee would have briefed him jointly with Investigator Mlambo regarding the summons and details.
“I would expect that that detail I got either from Mr Perumal or from Mr Padayachee, who were the leading investigators.”
ADV BALOYIS C implied that Mr Perumal and Colonel Padayachee compiled the list of requirements for the National Commissioner being summoned to interview.
“Chief Perumal and Colonel Padayachee, one of them or both of them would be the people that have compiled this list of what is required from the National Commissioner who has been summoned to an interview.”
No investigation existed into the Political Killings Task Team at the time of signing the document; the project manager and Mr. Padayachee confirmed this fact.
“we do not have one into the Political Killings Task Team. The project manager ... confirms the same, as does Mr Padayachee”
In the Mokwele matter, affidavits were taken from General Khan based on documents found in his name, involving Mr Padayachee and Mr Perumal.
“They then found a document purporting to be in his name... Mr Padayachee and Mr Perumal engaged him ... to take an affidavit. And an affidavit was taken for that matter.”
ADV Johnson identifies members of his investigation team responsible for briefings, including Advocate Ramsamy, Advocate Manilall, Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee, Mr Mlambo, Mr Charles Eals, and Mr Tlale (project manager).
“It would have been Advocate Ramsamy ... Advocate Manilall ... Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee, Mr Mlambo, Mr Charles Eals, and Mr Tlale ... as the project manager, from time to time being in those briefings.”
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.”
The summons authorizing the ID to investigate certain Crime Intelligence officers is prepared by specific individuals (Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee, Mr Mantha, or Mr Mlambo).
Colonel Padayachee testified before the Commission that the investigation was confined to the recommendation and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele and he could not account for how other names got included in the summons.
“Colonel Padayachee appeared before the Commission and was engaged on this document testified that this investigation was confined to the recommendation and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele... he could not account for how the names of 1.1 to 1.5 and 1.7 found its way into this summons”
The investigative team collectively compiles subpoena lists and shares responsibility for the names included, not just Colonel Padayachee alone.
“the[y] sit, they compile these subpoenas and they identify as a team what is required... It is a bit difficult to divorce yourself when you are part of a team... they would have to agree as a team”
The summons documents were drafted by investigators including Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee and possibly Mr Mantsha, with Investigator Mlambo also assigned inquiries.
“These would have been drafted by an investigator. It could have been Mr Perumal or Mr Padayachee. ... And or perhaps Mr Mantsha. ... At the bottom of 936, it does say at the bottom there was also one of the investigators assigned was Investigator Mlambo.”
There is a repeated narrative in the charge sheet and Colonel Padayachee's affidavits about the capture of Crime Intelligence for money laundering purposes.
“manipulated to appoint somebody as part of capture process, which you are still going to tell us about, as part of the capture of Crime Intelligence for money laundering to happen. You have repeated that. Your affidavits speak to that.”
Both the vetting processes and allegations of recruitment and gratification are still under investigation.
“the vetting processes , those allegations of the vetting processes , as well as the allegations of recruitment and gratification for the matters still under investigation”
Colonel Padayachee accepted that the vetting process disadvantaged Ms Mokwele because it was conducted before the interview, whereas requirements stipulated vetting six months after appointment.
“Colonel Padayachee accepted that the way CID did it , the way the panel did it , disadvantaged Ms Mokwele . It did not benefit her because the requirements said she must subject herself to vetting six months after the appointment . So the fact that they were doing it before the interview was in fact disadvantaging her, not benefiting her. I think with Colonel Padayachee we settled on that and he accepted.”
IDAC is not familiar with National Instruction 11 of 2017 as evidenced by Colonel Padayachee struggling to answer questions regarding this document.
“IDAC is not even familiar with this National Instruction because when Colonel Padayachee was here, he struggled to give answers in relation to this document”
Decisions on whether an investigator such as Colonel Padayachee will have the section 27 affidavit is made by the team leader, identified as Mr Manilall.
“who decides that Colonel Padayachee as the lead investigator will or will not have the section 27 affidavit ... team leader here ... is Mr Manilall ...”
Colonel Padayachee testified that a briefing was given to the team by Chief Perumal after the case management committee considered section 27, but Adv Johnson and Adv Sello allege this is incorrect and there is no such committee.
“Colonel Padayachee spoke of a committee, an intake committee... So, to, then, was Colonel Padayachee wrong in testifying that the briefing was given to the team by Chief Perumal after the case management committee had considered the section 27? That is utterly wrong.”
Colonel Padayachee testified that a briefing was given to the team by Chief Perumal after the case management committee had considered Section 27, but this was allegedly incorrect as no such committee exists.
“Colonel Padayachee was wrong in testifying that the briefing was given to the team by Chief Perumal after the case management committee had considered the section 27. That is utterly wrong.”
On Friday prior to the hearing, the accused, Brigadier Mokwele, submitted an additional document to the National Director and Advocate Bell, which references evidence of Mr Padayachee relevant to completing representations.
“On Friday, the Friday that passed, the accused, Brigadier Mokwele, did submit in writing, for the attention of the National Director, as well as Advocate Bell, who now oversees these matters, an additional document wherein her legal team alludes to the evidence of Mr Padayachee especially in relation to aspects elicited during the examination at the Commission on the section 27, and makes it clear that these cannot be ignored for purposes of completing the representations.”
The section 27 referral made by Colonel Padayachee was not part of the formal docket given to the accused and was only dealt with in this Commission.
“As I understand it, and this is what we engage Colonel Padayachee on, the section 27 referral was not part of the docket. The entire docket has been disclosed to the accused, but the section 27 referral is not a part of that docket. It only became, it was only dealt with here, and was submitted to this Commission.”
Colonel Padayachee has testified that he has never been furnished with copies of affidavits that support section 27 referrals, only oral briefings from senior investigators or prosecutors, which is considered by counsel to be unusual practice at IDAC.
“Colonel Padayachee said that he has never been furnished with copies of affidavits that support section 27 referrals. All he has ever been given ... are oral briefings given to him by senior investigators or prosecutors ... I say ... it does not make sense at all to me”
Colonel Padayachee is one of the criminal investigators in the team that deliberates over section 27 affidavits to decide on investigations and allegations.
“he is one of the criminal investigators in that team”
Chief Perumal did not withhold any document related to Section 27 referrals; the document was held by the prosecutor or project manager, not by Chief Perumal or Colonel Padayachee's team.
“He did say that he did not withhold any document.... He did not withhold the Section 27 because after the deliberations happened, the 27 was kept by the prosecutor or the project manager, but there was a 7 that was in the team.”
The section 27 referral by Colonel Padayachee was not part of the docket but was only submitted to the Commission and not disclosed to the accused as part of the docket.
“the section 27 referral was not part of the docket. The entire docket has been disclosed to the accused, but the section 27 referral is not a part of that docket. It only became, it was only dealt with here, and was submitted to this Commission”
The Section 27 referral document was handled by the prosecutor and project manager, and not provided to Colonel Padayachee, who led a separate investigation without access to it.
“He said to me he did not have the Section 7 referral because that is what was testified to, that Chief Perumal had it and it was not given to me.... Chief Perumal says I did not have that document. That document was with the prosecutor.”
Colonel Padayachee was orally briefed about the Section 27 referral by Chief Perumal despite not having seen the source document, which is unusual and problematic given the seriousness of the investigation starting.
“The prosecutor has it. He, that is Mr Perumal, does not have it and has never had it and then he, according to Mr Padayachee, gives an oral briefing to Mr Padayachee.... That is just very, very strange to me. And yet something very serious, which is an investigation, is going to commence and yet the two people involved right at the tail end, before the investigation actually starts, have not seen the source document.”
Advocate Johnson stated he was unsure why the Section 27 referral document was not shared with Colonel Padayachee, despite it being standard that all documents are shared with team members for them to do their tasks.
“I can not explain why it would not have been shared in that space because that is where they have to sit, Commissioners, and deliberate. All documents do get shared with team members because how do you do your taskings... when people do not have sight of documents?”
There is a discrepancy between Colonel Padayachee stating he was provided a copy of the Section 27 referral and Chief Investigator Perumal stating Padayachee was not given it and had never seen it.
“Are you saying Chief Investigator Perumal said to you that Colonel Padayachee was provided with a copy of the Section 27 referral? No, he said... I have never seen it. It is never provided.”
IDAC's section 28 summons covers broader investigations including the use or abuse of the Secret Service Fund beyond the scope of Colonel Padayachee's specific investigation.
“this was a broader summons to cover other ongoing investigations within IDAC ... investigation into the use or abuse of the Secret Service Fund ... it is not confined to a specific investigation”
Colonel Padayachee testified he has never been furnished with copies of section 27 referral affidavits; only oral briefings by senior investigators or prosecutors have been provided, which he finds strange and suspicious.
“Colonel Padayachee said that he has never been furnished with copies of affidavits that supports section 27 referrals. He testified that all that he has ever been given, as I understood it, throughout his stay at IDAC, are oral briefings given to him by senior investigators or prosecutors. I am not sure which one it is now. ... Did he tell us the truth with regard to this or not? Is that the practice followed at IDAC? If it is, which I would find very strange, why would there be such a practice?”
Investigators and prosecutors, including Colonel Padayachee, form teams to deliberate on section 27 referral affidavits to determine the necessary investigations and allegations.
“The team has different levels of investigators and prosecutors... and he is one of the criminal investigators in that team ... They have to sit and deliberate on this document and to work out what investigation would have to be instituted, what the allegations would be.”
Lieutenant-General Khumalo's arrest and co-accused preceded a death threat received directly on the cell phone of an NPA prosecutor involved in the investigations.
“I received a death threat directly on my cell phone. I read: “Mrs IDAC, you and your guy Chabalala, Perumal, Padayachee, and Belochana have went too far. You are going to wish you did not … with us, get body bags ready.” In my long career as a prosecutor, this is the first time that I received a death threat.”
Colonel Padayachee did not have the section 27 referral document and had never seen it despite giving oral briefings based on it.
“Chief Perumal said I did not have the section 27 referral because that is what was testified to, that Chief Perumal had it and it was not given to me ... he said I've never seen it. It is never provided”
Advocate Johnson received a death threat message on his cellphone following the arrest of Lieutenant-General Khumalo and co-accused, which stated that individuals including members of IDAC had 'went too far' and were going to 'wish you did not ...' with a threat to have body bags ready. This was the first death threat he had received in his long career as a prosecutor.
“I received a death threat directly on my cell phone. I read: “Mrs IDAC, you and your guy Chabalala, Perumal, Padayachee, and Belochan have went too far. You are going to wish you did not … with us, get body bags ready.” ... In my long career as a prosecutor, this is the first time that I received a death threat.”
The docket disclosed to the commission was incomplete, comprising only one of two parts, with the second part still being provided and not yet available during the hearing.
“the docket disclosed to us, which we have been working off from yesterday, is incomplete. So it transpires that there are some documents we did not get, and the explanation for that is that the actual docket is actually in two parts. We seem to have been furnished with the one part”
Colonel Padayachee refers to an affidavit dated 11 August 2025, described as an anchor affidavit providing background to the whole investigation.
“we have been furnished with the affidavit that Colonel Padayachee refers to ... it is a 13-paged document ... we call it an anchor affidavit, which gives you background into the whole investigation”
There were two disclosures of documents; the first from A1 to A27 was disclosed at court but not to the Evidence Leader; a second disclosure included further documents up to A36, which were sent thereafter.
“We had two disclosures. The first one from A1 to A27, not to the Evidence Leader, but when we were disclosing at court. And then we had a second disclosure... when I was looking into it, I see it is only up to A27 when there is an A36. So that is when I sent all the documents last night”
The investigation starts preliminarily upon authorization by management and legal decision-makers, based on briefing from the chief criminal investigator who they directly report to.
“the investigation starts preliminary ... It is a broad investigation from the briefing given by the chief criminal investigator, who we directly report to”
Preliminary investigations begin sometime in December 2024, with the authorization decision made by management and legal minds; the investigation is ongoing and builds until a docket is registered.
“investigation starts preliminary ... during December 2024 ... as a result of that authorization, we have the preliminary investigation which comes down to our level ... We start ... in December 2024”
If preliminary investigation finds no supporting evidence, the investigation is closed; if evidence of a committed crime is found, the investigation proceeds with gathering more evidence and registering a docket.
“if we find that there is nothing, then we will have to close the investigation because there is nothing ... But if we find something, a crime that has been committed, we have already started the investigation ... We will start by getting more evidence to support this crime ... We need to register this docket”
Investigators do not have insight into section 27 referrals; they receive briefings from the Chief and trust the guidance provided at management level which authorizes proceeding with investigations.
“I have never received ... In all the investigations that I have conducted ... I have never had insight into the 27. From the briefing, we are getting a briefing. Because it is handled at management level and dealt with there, for us it is just the authorisation, proceed with your investigation.”
Investigators, including Colonel Padayachee, rely entirely on briefings and do not participate in the formulation of charges or have authority over charges, which are prosecution-led decisions.
“I have no authority. That is for the prosecutors to determine. It is their space because they must decide, because it is prosecution-led. They decide to prosecute or not to prosecute.”
The investigation presented contained misrepresentation of fraud, but prosecutors independently determine whether charges of fraud or corruption stand.
“we found there are misrepresentation fraud in your investigation ... But where we – I am not sure this is going to answer your question ... do we influence the prosecutor to say, no, look here, this is fraud, this is corruption ? No . We do not have control over that .”
There was an administrative error resulting in Colonel Padayachee receiving only two pages of the MK15 annexure out of more than 20 pages.
“when this document was shared ... he only got two pages of the entire bundle ... he only got two pages of that ... the original Annexure MK 15 ... should be complete for our purposes ... he appears to have received only two pages ...”
Colonel Padayachee only received three pages of Annexure MK 15 instead of the full more than 20 pages, which was due to administrative error by the Commission.
“The Commission administration failed him. It is correct, he only got three pages of Annexure 10 MK 15, which is made up of more than 20 pages. Technically, what appears to have happened is somebody decided to draw out only the first three pages of Annexure MK 15 and provide him that”
Colonel Padayachee was deserving of the Commission's apology for only receiving part of the documents.
“Colonel Padayachee was quite correct. That is what he received. I do not understand how, but this is where we are. But I think he is deserving of the Commission's apology.”
The first docket in Cape Town was opened on 29 October 2024 at 14:30, confirmed by Colonel Padayachee.
“You confirm that? I confirm. So that is my first date. I have confirmed that the first docket in Cape Town was... opened on the 29th of October at half past two.”
The second and third dockets in Cape Town were also opened on 29 October 2024 at 14:30, confirmed by Colonel Padayachee.
“And the next one, which would be at page 305... And that too bears the date of 29th of October 2024 and inserted a timestamp of 14.30. The third then would be at page 308, and that once again is 2024-10-29 at 14.30. I confirm.”
Rapetsu was junior to Colonel Padayachee and rendered assistance as directed but was given instructions by the Chief.
“I s he a junior to you? Yes. So for purpose of this particular investigation, he would have been somebody who is rendering assistance to you, and he executes such duties as you direct. Yes, but just to go back again, it is not me giving him directions and instructions. It is the Chief that gives the instructions as to what we have to do”
The Chief investigator provides instructions for necessary actions in the investigation, but routine or simple tasks may be directly directed by the lead investigator to assistants like Rapetsu without needing to go through the Chief each time.
“At the start of the investigation, remember there is a number of allegations. So the specific, like example, the dockets, now he has got that, but with the particular dockets that I am working with, if there is something I need in that, I would task him. It does not mean that I must go to the chief to tell him, he is working with me, we are together, and he is assisting on it, so I can say, you know what, do a section 28 there, or get me this, that. I do not mean that every time I need him or somebody else, it has to go through the chief. The chief is just there to brief on the different investigations, this is yours, yours, yours, you can do this, this, this, and it goes forward from there. And then obviously the feedback will go and the monitoring of the process will go back to him.”
Colonel Padayachee states that the docket information and affidavit lacked sufficient detail such as the names of people involved and the methods used; therefore he sees the document as a preliminary allegation requiring further investigation and confirmation.
“The docket had sparse information on it ... the who's and the how's are missing from it ... when I look at that now, I take that as a preliminary that this is an allegation that has been made. I need to now investigate and confirm what this is ...”
There is an allegation of cover-up in a docket linked to Villieria CAS 404 and discrepancies in affidavits within that docket.
“...the Villieria CAS 404... it makes an allegation about a cover-up of a case. If they took that docket and they looked at the docket on the Villieria CAS 38, as inspected, if they looked in it, and they would have found discrepancies in it, which would eventually confirm that there was a problem in that docket, because affidavits were tampered with in that docket.”
Colonel Padayachee admits to conducting a bona fide investigation originating from a briefing by his Chief Investigator, despite acknowledging there were suspicions and allegations surrounding the investigation.
“I did a bona fide investigation ... I proceeded with it ... there are suspicions, allegations surrounding this investigation ... I conducted an investigation that flew from a briefing from my chief investigator.”
The Chairperson accuses Colonel Padayachee of having an A1 report which was sparse in content and which should have triggered him to check what was referred to and to see the related referral, implying a failure to thoroughly investigate.
“You have this A1. It is sparse. It should have triggered in your mind what was referred to us in the first place and you should have gone to see what was referred.”
The Chairperson says that Colonel Padayachee effectively did something wrong by not properly following up an A1 report and related Section 27 referral, stating he performed his functions perfunctorily.
“I will tell you that you actually did something wrong. You get the A1 after the briefing by your chief ... The A1 which you have agreed ... is sparse. Here is what was wrong ... You seem to have performed your functions perfunctorily.”
The Chairperson asserts that for an investigation to properly begin under Section 27, the investigating officer must see the relevant referral; without seeing the referral, the officer is effectively investigating in the dark.
“You must see that referral, otherwise you are investigating in the dark.”
Colonel Padayachee admits he did not initially see the Section 27 referral which triggered the investigation, acknowledging this creates a 'serious problem'.
“You say you never saw the referral ... I understand ... I did not see the Section 27 ... that creates a serious problem.”
The investigations that start into vetting manipulation can uncover other related corrupt or fraudulent activities during the course of the investigation, which then need to be pursued further.
“If something else came up where we found more corruption or we found more fraud, we continued with it because that investigation started at a point where it uncovered other stuff.”
Colonel Padayachee confirms that the investigation is focused on unlawful or irregular appointments and vetting processes.
“The appointments and vetting processes of the people who are alleged to have been unlawfully appointed or irregularly placed ... in a position of power ...”
There were reasonable grounds to suspect that certain people were involved in allegations related to the capture of Crime Intelligence, leading to the request to verify and eliminate some documents.
“there were reasonable grounds to suspect that these people were involved in some of the allegations, so therefore, on reasonable grounds, these documents were requested to verify and eliminate”
There is no complaint or allegation in the Crime Intelligence file or any other document that Major General Madondo is involved in a scheme to capture Crime Intelligence.
Investigations related to Crime Intelligence fall within the scope where allegations are made and similar offenses are followed up within ongoing investigations.
“We are in the same scenario or the same investigation of Crime Intelligence within there, where the allegations is falling within Crime Intelligence, and within that same investigations, you are picking up similar stuff that is there, similar offenses that are there.”
If corrupt or fraudulent appointment processes are found within investigations, these will be investigated as well.
“If we find, for example, there is another Brigadier, right, a person that is appointed irregularly, processes were manipulated, appointments, too were manipulated in the sense that there was corruption, there was fraud, there was misrepresentation, we will investigate that, too, as well whilst we are there.”
Colonel Padayachee clarifies he does not have a free hand to investigate everything without authorization, but continues investigations within the scope of Crime Intelligence and related similar offenses based on applicable law and reasonable grounds.
“It is not about a free hand to investigate everything and anything. We are in the same scenario or the same investigation of Crime Intelligence within there, where the allegations is falling within Crime Intelligence, and within that same investigations, you are picking up similar stuff that is there, similar offenses that are there. We continue with it because it is still there. But if it is something else...”
Colonel Padayachee admits he did not have authorization from the Investigating Director to investigate further related matters beyond section 28(1)(a) referral authority.
Colonel Padayachee states he bases continuation of investigations on the presence of a criminal offense committed, applying law to specific things.
“you are investigating an allegation here, or you are investigating something that has taken place there, but further stuff coming, I will continue on the same basis. On the law part of it, you know, it is there, there is a crime being committed, so I am applying that to that specific thing, if there was a criminal offense committed there.”
Colonel Padayachee confirms he cannot give details beyond his own investigation and that others must respond to the section 27 and 28 complaints.
“I cannot answer for somebody else and I cannot go any further than that... The people that can answer to the section 27, 28, they have to come and respond.”
Colonel Padayachee feels his testimony is challenging and affected by public/media perception, and he is caught between being seen as accused or witness but wants to assist the Commission.
“It is also affecting me... I try not to look at the TV or social media but it is there... I am coming here as a witness to assist the Commission... I am coming here as a witness and assistance... I am coming here as a witness to assist the Commission and be of assistance.”
Colonel Padayachee was present and aware during the preparation of subpoena documents signed by Advocate Johnson, but the actual preparation was done by Chief Perumal.
“The section 28, it would have been done by Chief Perumal ... I would have maybe, you know, looked at, whilst he was preparing the document ... but he prepared it.”
Colonel Padayachee had knowledge of requests from BMW relevant to investigations and was physically present when the documents were prepared, confirming his awareness and involvement.
“I had knowledge. The request from BMW, I had knowledge ... I was right there when he was preparing it ... I am aware about it and I confirmed it.”
Colonel Padayachee, as lead investigator for the relevant docket, is responsible for identifying and requesting specific documents and information such as personnel files for individuals including Mokwele and General Khumalo; some documents related to Khumalo fall under investigations handled by others like Chief Perumal.
“you are the lead investigator ... you are responsible for these requests”
Colonel Padayachee asserts that they served the whole appointment process, including the advertisement and questions posed to candidates, in the original subpoena in February.
“Chair, Commissioner, we did. We have that in the original subpoena that we served in February, where we have the whole appointment process from the advert right down to the final part where it is, Mokwele is appointed.”
Colonel Padayachee expressed concern over the panel that appointed Mrs Mokwele, because although General Khumalo selected the panel members, the panel was not approved by him but only by Head Office, and the recommendations rarely changed upon Head Office approval.
“when we look at the panel of Mokwele, we had concerns there because he selected those people ... but the recommendations of the panels sent to Head Office for approval ... hardly changed”
The panel constitution was approved by Head Office starting with General Khumalo's recommendation.
“although I am saying to you, the panel has been approved by Head Office, but the recommendation of that particular panel started with General Khumalo.”
Colonel Padayachee stated the charge sheet incorrectly implied that General Khumalo chose the selection panel unilaterally.
“That is incorrect. It was not chosen by General Khumalo. The panel here, you are suggesting that the panel that interviewed these candidates was chosen by General Khumalo ...”
Colonel Padayachee admitted the panel was chosen by General Khumalo but it required approval by Head Office per the prescripts.
“It was chosen by General Khumalo, but it still has to be approved by Head Office, which is the prescripts as Commissioner ... The panel was chosen by him at that level.”
Adv Sello SC alleges that Colonel Padayachee was part of the creation or presentation of a document (an affidavit) used in court to support an application for warrants, and thus must accept responsibility for that affidavit.
“you were a part of its creation, alternatively, you approved it”
Colonel Padayachee refuses to take responsibility for the affidavit presented to court, stating only 'noted' because he has yet to appear with the same affidavit before a criminal court.
“I say noted, Commissioner, and Page 216 of 322 the reason why I say noted is that I still got to appear with the same affidavit before a criminal court, so I am saying noted”
Colonel Padayachee explains the charge sheet drafting and approval process passes from prosecutor to deputy, then to Head of Office and management for approval.
“The charge sheet is presented to the deputy, and from there it goes to the Head of office and the management from their process”
Colonel Padayachee states the panel constitution was properly authorized and constituted when approved, but the initial choosing of members by Khumalo was irregular and led to subsequent issues in the appointment of Mokwele.
“the panel was, when it was approved, it was properly constituted . . . But the choosing of the panel by him, where he chose particular people to be on the panel, that is what I found as irregular, the start of what led to the appointment of Mokwele”
ADV Khumalo SC challenges the assertion that the panel appointment was irregular and asks Colonel Padayachee to confirm if he still insists that the panel was irregularly constituted after seeing the approvals.
“Do you still insist that the panel was irregularly appointed ?”
Colonel Padayachee denies that General Khan's exclusion from the panel implies criminality.
“You are talking about criminality, about General Khan or whatever, that he was not on the panel, so that is criminal . . . That is not the inference that he was not on the panel, so no it is not criminal”
Colonel Padayachee says there are nine provincial heads in Crime Intelligence and three Generals, any of whom could have been chosen for the panel, not specifically General Khan.
“We have nine provincial Heads in the country, Crime Intelligence. We have maybe three Generals at Crime Intelligence. Anyone of those nine plus the three at Head Office could have been chosen to sit on the panel, not specifically Khan”
Colonel Padayachee states there is no prescript to exclude anyone from sitting on the panel regardless of CI environment membership; selection is approved externally.
“There is no prescript to say you cannot be on the panel, there is no prescript to say you cannot be on the panel, there is no. You choose your panel, and that is it. It is approved by the office.”
COLONEL PADAYACHEE indicates during his investigations, if he comes across corruption linked to his work, he will investigate it, including corruption linked to the panel selection.
“During the course of whatever investigation that I am busy, working with, and I come across corruption that is linked to what I am busy with, I will investigate that.”
CHAIRPERSON accuses COLONEL PADAYACHEE of implying that IDAC arrogates power to oversee SAPS and questions the denial.
“That is exactly what you are doing. Why can you say no? Why can you possibly say no? On the explanation you gave in response to Commissioner Baloyi's last question, that is exactly what you said, or rather the impression you created.”
Colonel Padayachee interviewed General Khan regarding technical support post matters as he was a member of Crime Intelligence at the time.
“It was for the letter and to interview him with regards to the technical support post because he has been there in Crime Intelligence and was there at that time.”
Colonel Padayachee confirms that his affidavit copies nearly word-for-word a complaint originally made by General Khan about the involvement of Major General Gabela in an interviewing panel that Khan was not part of although available.
“I have already known about the post. ... It is part of mine. ... So, with regard to General Khan... it is a flow from his. It is not that I did not know about it... It is a flow in it. ... It is his affidavit... it is part of mine. ... it is a flow from his...”
The approved post in April 2022 had the same requirements as the earlier advertisements from 2022, 2023, and 2024, which were identical over three years.
“when you look at 2022, 2023, and 2024, the requirements are the same ... They were still the same over three years.”
During the interview, Colonel Padayachee had the file in front of him but did not provide the file to General Khan for him to view during the interview; despite this, General Khan was able to form a view about the file content.
“During the course of the interview, I had the file in front of me ... No, he was not provided the file ... For him to view the file, you must give it to him ... I had the file open and I was going through the file to ...”
Colonel Padayachee admitted retrospectively that it was not proper for him to provide the file to General Khan during the interview while taking the affidavit.
“No, I do not think it was ... I am sitting there and I am interviewing him and I am listening to him and taking an affidavit and then referring to the file ... I cannot see the reason why you say that I would have done something wrong by showing him the file.”
Colonel Padayachee acknowledges including Ms Mokwele on the charge sheet based on his affidavit and investigation, but he does not draft charge sheets or decide who is charged; that is the prosecutor's role.
“I note you say I included her on the charge sheet. I am at pains at that. It is my affidavit, my investigation, my affidavit... I do not draft the charge sheets and say whom must be charged... that is at the prosecutor's door”
The charge sheet inaccurately suggests Ms Mokwele had involvement in Ncube's alleged wrongdoing, which the affidavit does not support.
“Did you not see that there were inaccuracies in the charge sheet to the extent that the charge sheet suggests that Ms Mokwele had anything to do with what is set out in 8.9, 8.10 and 8.11 of your affidavit?... Did you not ask the same question that Commissioner Baloyi asked, why is she included in the charge if she had nothing to do with that?”
Colonel Padayachee did not notice inaccuracies regarding Ms Mokwele's involvement on the draft charge sheet and attached affidavit, proceeding without addressing potential errors.
“I did not take notice of it on the charge sheet... I did not take notice of it on the charge sheet. It was a draft charge sheet, I attached my affidavit to it and I went forward from there.”
Colonel Padayachee confirmed that the charge sheet and affidavit are compiled by the investigating officer and given to the prosecutor, who drafts the charge sheet usually in draft form.
“The charge sheet, the affidavit is compiled, it is given to the prosecutors. They compile the charge sheets and most often the charge sheet is in draft format...”
Adv Sello SC alleges that Colonel Padayachee caused the arrest of a person who was not complicit in the crime as per the charge sheet, constituting an abuse of power.
“I do not, with respect, accept your explanation, Colonel. You caused for somebody to be arrested. Somebody who, on your own facts, was not complicit in the crime that you describe in the charge sheet. But because of your affidavit and the way the charge sheet is drafted, you caused for her arrest. That is irresponsible in the extreme. That is abuse of power”
Colonel Padayachee states that prosecutors are the legal experts responsible for compiling the charge sheet and he takes note of Adv Sello SC's comments.
“the prosecutors are the legal experts in compiling the charge sheet”
Adv Baloyi SC explains that the charge sheet is drafted by prosecutors, submitted to management, and approved by higher authorities who rely on Colonel Padayachee's affidavit for approval, implying that Colonel Padayachee is responsible for the content of his affidavit and the charge sheet.
“they relied on your affidavit. They can say that, that they relied on your affidavit to approve this charge sheet. And it is simply not good enough that you have it attached to your affidavit and the charge sheet is attached to your affidavit and then you say, well, I did not see it. It is simply not good enough”
Adv Sello SC states that when Colonel Padayachee signs an affidavit before a Commissioner of Oaths, he must know and take ownership of the facts therein, including the charge sheet; therefore, he cannot excuse ignorance on the basis that the charge sheet was drafted by a prosecutor.
“when you sign and stand before a Commissioner of Oaths, you represent that you know, and these are facts that are within your personal knowledge, you take ownership... You are responsible for this affidavit. You represent it to a court that this is your affidavit. It contains your truth... You cannot be excused on the basis that it is drafted by a prosecutor”
Colonel Padayachee asserts that civilian vetting is normally done through State Security Agencies, but he cannot point to a specific Act or Regulation mandating that civilian vetting must be done through the SSA.
“civilian vetting are normally done through State Security Agents... There is no particular Act or Regulation that I refer to... It is just a statement that I made”
Adv Sello SC challenges Colonel Padayachee's claim that civilian vetting where required must be done through the SSA, pointing out there is no legal source or policy prescribing this.
“What is the source of that claim?... Is it an Act? Is it Regulation?... you cannot then be correct that civilian vetting where required must be done through SSA”
Colonel Padayachee cannot recall offhand what information was incorrect on the application form that relates to perjury, stating he must check back his records.
“I think it was on the application form. I just got to look back on my memory into it... No not offhand”
Colonel Padayachee does not presently have an answer regarding what defeating or obstructing the administration of justice means in the recruitment and vetting context and must review his documents to respond properly.
“I will have to look at this again and go through my stuff, Commissioner, to respond on that in terms of the charges that are there... what I am saying is that I have to go back and look at this part of the thing you brought to my attention now”
Colonel Padayachee explains that the undue advantage was related to manipulation of the vetting process of the application and letter, which prejudiced SAPS.
“The fact that of the manipulating of the vetting process of the application and the letter that is there, that it prejudiced the SAPS”
Colonel Padayachee says the undue advantage was that a clearance has been done meaning the application process registers the person on the system, although the final security clearance was not approved.
“The undue advantage is that a clearance has been done, meaning the application process that she is registered on the system... It is not the security clearance that is approved”
The bail condition prohibiting Crime Intelligence officers with the Secret Service account from entering the premises was not requested by the Magistrate or the prosecution in open court, but might have been referenced in an affidavit.
“one of the conditions that I requested that the Crime Intelligence officers with the Secret Service account is that they be prohibited from entering those premises ... the main fact of it is that the Magistrate, the prosecutor, did not request for it”
The bail condition identifying Colonel Padayachee personally to assist the accused in collecting any items left at Crime Intelligence premises was imposed by the Magistrate without explicit discussion or request in open court and without the prosecutor's acknowledgment.
“that condition ... was never asked from the Magistrate ... it was never asked from the Magistrate ... the prosecutor did not put it to the Magistrate in open court”
Colonel Padayachee asserts that his name was included in the bail condition likely as part of his affidavit, and the purpose was to regulate access to Crime Intelligence offices, requiring individuals to contact him before visiting so as to control crime scene access.
“I think it was my affidavit or something. My name was mentioned there ... if they want to go to the office, they have to contact me before they go there”
Colonel Padayachee spoke to the prosecutor about the bail condition before leaving court, but the prosecution did not request the bail condition restricting the accused from going to the office during bail deliberations.
“I spoke to the prosecutor before I left ... the prosecutor did not speak anything about not going to the office”
Colonel Padayachee wanted the bail condition restricting the accused from going to the office because investigations were ongoing on the Secret Service Fund documents and related cases including the recruitment and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele.
“we were busy with investigations on the Secret Service Fund documents ... this case was about the recruitment and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele”
The bail condition preventing accused persons from going to the Crime Intelligence offices was opposed by Colonel Padayachee and others at IDAC because those offices were busy with investigations.
“We opposed the bail conditions on what I put forward before you now, Commissioner. The fact that the Crime Intelligence offices were busy with investigations.”
The decision to oppose the bail condition appeal was made collectively by Colonel Padayachee and the prosecutors involved in the matter who compiled the documentation for the appeal.
“I was part of the collective. That would have been myself and the prosecutors that were in the matter that put together documents for the appeal.”
There is no particular office policy requiring arrest for Schedule 5 offences; the decision to arrest is taken by the investigation team based on the seriousness of the charge and other circumstances.
“there is no particular policy that I know of there. It is when you are finished ... you have your chief criminal investigator ... say ... we are going to now prepare for the arrest ... The offence is a schedule 5 offence, and we proceed ... first of all, there is no policy that says this is an office policy. It is a decision taken there by the team”
For serious Schedule 5 offences, usual practice is to apply for an arrest warrant (J50) and to call the accused to the police station, rather than arresting them at their homes with handcuffs and blue lights.
“... the way we apply for a J 50 , it is a warrant, but we do not go to the person's house to execute the warrants ... we phone the person, come to the police station with your legal representative ... We do not go to their homes and place them in handcuffs and blue lights ... The warrant is just there so that we have it and what we call them to the station”
IDAC's modus operandi for arrests is to call the accused to the police station where they are arrested and processed; arrest is not conducted at the accused's home.
“... the modus is an arrest ... We are charging this person, we arrest ... That is how IDAC operates.”
COLONEL PADAYACHEE acknowledges the SAPS regulations and discretion each case requires, but asserts that serious Schedule 5 charges at IDAC are dealt with by applying for arrest warrants and calling accused to the station, not home arrest.
“I see the SAPS Regulation and the manner in which they do and each case is decided on its own merits ... When the matter is serious ... it is a serious charge ... schedule 5 ... the normal thing is that we apply for J 50 s ... the J 50 that we have is not taken to the person's house ... they are brought to the station and they are processed there ... The warrant is there in case ... the person does not report or decides ... to evade justice ...”
Colonel Padayachee expressed concern that the A1 statement, which contains complainants' names, is publicly available in the media and social media while the case is before court, and cautioned about sub judice issues and public domain disclosure.
“the A1 statement is all over social media ... it contains the name of the complainants ... I have my concerns ... there are further documents ... also going to be flighted out there in the public domain when the case currently is before Court ... sub judice issue ... that particular docket is still under investigation”
The A1 statement was flagged and posted all over social media, raising concerns about prejudice and confidentiality.
“My concern is that the A1 statement was flagged and it was posted all over social media. So we have dealt with the A1 yesterday and the questions that were asked there, which I responded to uncomfortably.”
The witness Colonel Padayachee has concerns about the docket being before court and the effects of documents becoming public but wants to cooperate and testify truthfully before the Commission.
“My concern was also... the docket is currently before Court... I do not want to come across like we want to hide anything... He is ready to testify and he is going to answer questions that are put to him on the docket.”
Colonel Padayachee identifies that an allegation involves the appointment of an outsider, a person from outside Crime Intelligence with no policing or management experience, into a specialised Crime Intelligence environment, which raises 'small flags' and requires investigation.
“this is Crime Intelligence ... a specialised component ... appointing a civilian or a person from the outside Crime Intelligence ... highly specialised environment ... small flags that come to my notice”
Colonel Padayachee confirms that the appointment was advertised externally for outsiders to apply, thus the appointment was not limited internally to Crime Intelligence personnel only.
“that was advertised externally ... I confirm that the advert was an external advert”
A serious allegation was made concerning the appointment of a person with no experience and manipulation of processes, which is a starting point for further investigation.
“A person was appointed, processes were manipulated, the person had no experience.”
The investigator takes a holistic approach to a package of allegations including vetting issues, security clearance problems, and vetting manipulation, not just the single appointment matter.
“It was a whole lot of allegations on different vetting issues, security clearance, vetting manipulators, so it is a whole lot of different allegations that stay... a package of alleged corruption and Crime Intelligence.”
Chief Perumal assembled the investigators, briefed them on allegations relating to Crime Intelligence, and provided guidance which started the whole investigation.
“Chief Perumal assembled us as investigators... that was the briefing from him which started the whole investigation and the guidance from him.”
Investigations related to these allegations started with retrieving dockets and subpoenas and identifying witnesses.
“There are dockets that were opened in Cape Town, there were dockets opened here. These dockets are with the inspectorate. So the first was to retrieve the dockets... and where we identify witnesses, we start from there.”
The affidavit signed by Colonel Padayachee on 24 June 2025 includes a draft chargesheet alleging corruption, defeating or obstructing the administration of justice, and perjury against General Khumalo and others.
“The attached draft chargesheet outlines the acts committed by each of the seven suspects in a very comprehensive way, which includes charges of corruption, defeating or obstructing the administration of justice and perjury.”
Employment contracts fall under the definition of gratification in the PRECCA Act for purposes of charging corruption offenses.
“Gratification in the definition of gratification under PRECCA, employment, contract of employment falls within the definition of gratification in the Prevention of Corrupt Activities Act.”
The gratification definition under PRECCA includes money, gifts, employment, contracts of employment, and other advantages as possible forms of gratification, relevant to the charges.
“PRECCA in section 1 defines gratification as: Including money, within cash or otherwise, any donation, gift, loan, fee, reward, valuable security, property or interest in property or any description, whether movable or immovable or any other similar advantage... Any office, status, honour, employment, contract of employment or service or any agreement to give employment or render services in any capacity and residential or holiday accommodation...”
Colonel Padayachee admitted there is evidence of illegal, dishonest, unauthorized, biased acts and abuse of position related to offering employment as gratification in the docket.
“Is there evidence of anyone acting personally or by influencing another person in a manner that amounts to the illegal, dishonest, unauthorised, biased acts that amounts to the abuse of position ?… Yes, Commissioner.”
Colonel Padayachee stated Mokwele received employment as gratification which was not due and that there was manipulation in the appointment process.
“The gratification that she received was the employment which was not due. The investigation and evidence that we looked at, we looked at the documents, we looked at the application and where we could clearly see that the applicant should have not been appointed. There was manipulation.”
The gratification given to Mokwele is understood to be returned at some future date due to the powerful post she was appointed to and under the authority of the panel chairperson.
“The giving back or return for the gratification does not have to be immediately. It can be at some other time. And given the situation that she is appointed in a very powerful post and the Chairperson of the PANEL who was the Commander of that whole section.”
Colonel Padayachee agreed that the return for the gratification given to Mokwele might not be immediate but could be at a later stage given her powerful appointed position.
“What she is supposed to give back was not going to be immediately, but can be given at a later stage because of the position that she was appointed in.”
In an affidavit from June 2025, Colonel Padayachee acknowledged that the position was advertised externally, indicating that he knew of this at that time.
“I have read your affidavit, the same affidavit we are looking at from June 2025 and in that affidavit you say so, in so many ways that this position was advertised externally.”
Colonel Padayachee stated he only became aware of the advert after the relevant documents were subpoenaed and received around February/March 2025.
“I did not say that it is now, only get to know now. When the documents were subpoenaed and we got the documents, the whole appointment documents, the advert was there.”
The act suspected to be committed by the employee is the capture of Crime Intelligence, meaning placing people in positions to manipulate tenders and give out information unlawfully.
“When we look at the investigation of Crime Intelligence, and when we talk about capture, it is when the division, your people are placed in specific positions to do certain things... It could mean tenders, manipulating of tenders, it could be giving out information on operations that are there.”
General Khumalo selected the panel that appointed Ms Mokwele and controlled the panel and manipulated the appointment process.
“My apologies, Commissioner. The panel was selected by General Khumalo. He selected the panel. The members on the panel, together with General Khumalo, it was very clear that they manipulated the process of appointing.”
General Khumalo selected the panel himself and sent it to the HR department of head office for approval, which was then approved.
“When it was stated that it actually meant that Khumalo selected the panel himself. And it was sent up to the HR department of head office, which was approved.”
Approval granted by the head office makes the panel an approved panel and recommendations given by General Khumalo are approved by head office.
“Well, if the panel is approved by head office, it is approved. It is an approved panel. So that means the recommendations given by Khumalo is approved by head office.”
Investigators receive briefing from the Chief Criminal Investigator which sets the scope and tasks for investigations based on documents like section 28(1) authorizations.
“It is what the chief criminal investigator, as he does the briefing, from the briefing, we take the cue from there.”
The section 28(1) document authorizes a full-blown investigation after a preliminary investigation is done and the prosecution has presented it.
“That is a full-blown investigation. So after your preliminary investigation is done and your prosecutor put together the preliminary investigation and they present it and it is the request for it to go into a full-blown investigation, which is 28(1)...”
Seeing one's name on the section 28(2) document indicates involvement or authorization to be involved in the operation but does not necessarily mean the person is the lead investigator.
“Your name appears on the document, right, but it does not tell you, you are the lead investigator. It gives you the name of the investigators you are authorized to be involved in the operation. That is the document.”
The preliminary investigation under section 28(13) was authorized on 6 December 2024 but the authorizing document is not currently available with the witness.
“It was the 6th of December where the preliminary investigation was authorised in terms of 28(13). ... I do not have a copy of it.”
Investigators must have sight of a section 27 referral affidavit to satisfy themselves that it meets the requirements to trigger IDA jurisdiction before proceeding with an investigation.
“You now appreciate going forward to insist when you are appointed a investigator that you have sight of it in order to satisfy yourself that that affidavit meets the requirements of section 27 and that yes, indeed, the jurisdiction of IDA has been triggered.”
Colonel Padayachee asserts that if he discovers a Section 27 referral was improper or unlawful and has already started an investigation, he would step down from that investigation rather than participate in something that began unlawfully.
“if I feel that a particular section 27 referral was improper or was unlawful or whatever and I have commenced with an investigation at that moment in time, I will step down from the investigation because I will refuse to participate in something that started off unlawfully”
Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi made allegations that IDAC was operating outside its mandate, and that Colonel Padayachee lacked the requisite experience as a detective and as a senior investigator at IDAC; these allegations are substantiated by how IDAC and Colonel Padayachee handled the investigation into General Khumalo leading to his arrest on 26 June 2025.
“General Mkhwanazi made allegations that IDAC , on one, IDAC is operating outside its mandate. And secondly, that you, Colonel Padayachee, do not have the requisite experience as a detective and you are a senior investigator at IDAC. And that three, those facts that he alleges are substantiated by how IDAC and yourself as the investigator have handled the, what I will call the Khumalo matter, the investigation into General Khumalo that led to his arrest on the 26th of June 2025.”
Colonel Padayachee was headhunted and appointed as a senior investigator at IDAC in October 2021 on contract by the former Investigating Director Advocate Herman Cronje, head of IDAC at that time.
“I was headhunted and thereafter appointed as a senior investigator in October 2021 on contract by the former Investigating Director, Advocate Herman Cronje, who was the head of the Investigating Directorate at that time.”
Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi publicly alleged on 6 July 2025 that Colonel Padayachee was appointed to a senior position in IDAC despite lacking the required skills, experience, and qualifications, and that he used his role to influence and control investigative outcomes and court proceedings, particularly regarding the criminal charges against Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused related to Brigadier Mokwele's employment.
“The notice requires me to deal with the following issues on which Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi testified . First , I was appointed to a senior position within IDAC despite lacking the required skills , experience , and qualifications . I have used my role to influence and control investigative outcomes , court proceedings , in particular the criminal charges against Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused .”
The second matter involved an arrest of several senior Crime Intelligence members: Generals Khumalo, Lekalakala, Lushaba, Madondo, Brigadiers Mokwele and Ncube.
“The second matter was General Khumalo, General Lekalakala, General Lushaba, General Madondo, Brigadier Mokwele, and Brigadier Ncube.”
General Mkhwanazi was fine with the first case involving General Lushaba and with the second case involving General Khumalo on 27 June 2026.
“I just wanted to put it in context that General Mkhwanazi was fine with the first case of General Lushaba. He was fine with the second case of General Khumalo on the 27th.”
After the arrest of General Khumalo, Colonel Padayachee received two missed calls from General Mkhwanazi but the message sent was not read until 6 July 2026, after a press briefing where General Mkhwanazi gave a briefing.
“During the latter part of the afternoon, this is directly after the arrest of General Khumalo, there were two calls that came, two missed calls... The missed calls were from General Mkhwanazi... The message was not read the Sunday and the Monday... until the 6th of July, when I saw the press briefing and General Mkhwanazi giving the press briefing.”
An affidavit from General Mkhwanazi related to an ongoing Crime Intelligence investigation from April 2025 is in the confidential docket disclosed to the Commission; it has not yet been publicly disclosed.
“That affidavit was made. I took General Mkhwanazi's affidavit, I think it probably was in April 2025... that affidavit is in the docket, and I do not think it has been disclosed yet... it is in the confidential docket... it is in the docket that is disclosed to you, the third docket.”
Colonel Padayachee submits he is qualified for his role as senior investigator at IDAC with 44 years of experience and has no foundation to a conclusion that he used his position to influence investigative outcomes or court proceedings, especially in relation to charges against General Khumalo and his co-accused Brigadier Mokwele.
“I am more than qualified for the work that I am doing as a senior investigator at IDAC... I have taken the trouble to read the transcript of the evidence of Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi. There is no foundation for his conclusion that I use and/or have used my position to influence and control investigative outcomes and court proceedings. In particular, the criminal charges against Lieutenant General Khumalo, his co-accused as related to the employment of Brigadier Mokwele...”
Crime Intelligence has been a corrupt and dangerous environment where no single Divisional Commissioner stayed long without being removed for corruption, and the referral leading to arrests was unprecedented.
“It has been for more than three decades that Crime Intelligence has been the front in the media space on corruption. There is not a single Divisional Commissioner that has held his post and stayed there. Most of them were charged for corruption, for allegations of corruption and removed, and there was always acting, acting, acting. Crime Intelligence is a very closed environment, a dangerous environment too as well. ... it led to the arrest of the executive of Crime Intelligence.”
Colonel Padayachee has known General Khumalo since 2006 and considered him a friend; contact ceased after Khumalo’s promotion and transfer to Pretoria; Khumalo was appointed Acting Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence in 2022/2023, which excited Padayachee.
“I have known General Khumalo since 2006, when he was just promoted to a Captain... I know him well... In 2022/2023, he was appointed as the Acting Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence, and I was excited for him.”
The witness is cautious about dealing with the merits of the cases investigated to avoid compromising any criminal cases or witnesses, guided by the Chair.
“My criminal case before court has to be presented and I do not want to compromise anything , witnesses or whatever deeper stuff that I have to present before court ... I will be guided by the Chair on whatever limits that he wants me to go through .”
Colonel Padayachee stated that the allegation concerning his role in interference in criminal investigations and prosecutions is vague and without evidence showing any interference by him.
“The allegation is vague. It does not contain evidence in fact showing any interference on my part or on any investigations and prosecutions. The IDA cooperates on a prosecution investigation methodology which is headed by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. It discounts personal influence on investigations and prosecutions.”
Colonel Padayachee has no authority or power to influence prosecutions; his role is only investigative.
“I am only an investigator that goes out and investigate. I have no authority or power to influence prosecutions. I go out, I am directed by the prosecutors, investigate, collect the evidence... That is in the domain of the prosecutors.”
Colonel Padayachee denies any knowledge or involvement with a 'Khan IDAC cabal' in SAPS or IDAC.
“I have no knowledge of an existence of a Khan IDAC cabal in SAPS. I also have no knowledge of a Khan IDAC cabal within IDAC. It follows that if such cabal exists, I have no party to it. I have never investigated such because I do not know of it and neither am I involved in it.”
Colonel Padayachee denies disclosing any investigation or SAPS docket information to Major General Khan regarding an ongoing criminal investigation against Khan.
“I have never disclosed any investigation or any docket to Major General Khan... The allegation that I disclosed the SAPS docket to General Khan relating to an investigation against him... I have a complete denial that I shared any information and docket with regards to him.”
Colonel Padayachee knew Major General Khan as a senior officer in Crime Intelligence but had no official working relationship with him during his time there, and he had reservations about Crime Intelligence senior officers.
“I know Major General Khan is a senior officer... I had strictly no official working relationship with him. I had my reservations during my time Crime Intelligence on senior officers there...”
The reservations expressed relate to promotion irregularities within Crime Intelligence, indicating corruption with personnel recruited irregularly and promoted bypassing ranks.
“there were many things that took place during, and as mentioned by Mkhwanazi, which I support what he says about the corruption within Crime Intelligence ... some of them worked at supermarkets or wherever, that came into the police and ... they came in on the rank of a Captain ... a prominent person's wife was also promoted to a full Colonel ... it did exist during those times. But the manner in which it was done is questionable”
Colonel Padayachee was designated by Advocate Johnson, the Investigating Director at head office, to be part of a Section 28(13) preliminary investigation team for a prosecution-led investigation related to Ms Mokwele's case.
“I was designated by the investigating director as the head of office ... I was designated on that ... Advocate Johnson ... the investigation starts from the referral where section 28(13) preliminary investigation starts ... designate investigators, prosecutors to that particular team ... I was designated on that”
In the investigative team, Colonel Padayachee serves as a docket carrier responsible for administration, while the lead investigator role is shared among several individuals, including Chief Criminal Investigator Perumal.
“In the investigating team, the word lead investigator is utilised. I am not the lead investigator. I am a docket carrier ... there are other investigators that assist with that ... Perumal is our chief investigator in that investigation team ... the chief criminal investigator, Perumal is our chief investigator”
Colonel Padayachee clarifies that for the specific case involving Brigadier Mokwele, he is a docket carrier and not the lead investigator, but accepts the terms lead, docket carrier as effectively the same for ease of reference.
“I look at myself as not a lead investigator. I look at myself as a docket carrier ... lead, docket carrier, one and the same thing ... I will accept it as that way”
Colonel Padayachee states that in the Mokwele investigation, he acted as both the lead investigator and the docket carrier, reporting to the chief criminal investigator Mr Perumal.
“the lead investigator or the docket carrier is myself . But I report to all my work and everything that is done has to pass through the criminal investigator, chief criminal investigator.”
Colonel Padayachee clarifies that the terms 'lead investigator' and 'docket carrier' will be used interchangeably but prefers 'lead investigator' to avoid confusion.
“I know it creates confusion, but we will stick with lead investigator.”
Advocate Khumalo suggests Colonel Padayachee might be trying to avoid responsibility by initially claiming he was just the 'docket carrier' and not the lead investigator.
“... it sounded as if you were trying to avoid responsibility about certain things and you were trying to say, oh that is the responsibility of the lead investigator, I am just the docket carrier...”
Colonel Padayachee states the appointment and designations of the investigative team for the Mokwele case are done by the investigating director with their management.
“The appointments and designations of the team is done by the investigating director with their management, that is what I know.”
Colonel Padayachee denies accessing SAPS dockets or disclosing any docket to General Khan relating to any ongoing criminal investigation.
“I do not work with SAPS dockets, neither do I have access to SAPS dockets. I deny that I disclosed any docket to General Khan relating to any ongoing criminal investigation against him.”
The Evaluation Committee determines the seriousness of matters based on various factors unknown to Col. Padayachee, who has no authority over that matter.
“you said the Evaluation Committee determines what is serious based on a number of factors that you do not necessarily have to know about”
Col. Padayachee does not have authority or in-knowledge about how the Evaluation Committee operates and is a couple of tiers below management.
“I do not have any authority on that matter. I cannot comment on that because I do not have the in-knowledge of how they operate on management. I am still a couple of tiers below that”
IDAC management hierarchy consists of the Head of Office, Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions, and chief investigators; below them are senior and junior state advocates and investigators, with Col. Padayachee at the third tier.
“You have the Head of Office. Then you have the Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions. And then you have your chief criminal investigators, chief financial investigators, and your chiefs and the others... Below that you have your senior state advocates... So that is where I fit on that level ... third tier”
There were three dockets opened in Cape Town related to the issues discussed, with varying CAS numbers and locations including Orlando and Villeria stations in Gauteng and possibly Protea.
“There were three dockets opened in Cape Town and they were... The Cape Town dockets was like 1651, 1652... Then Gauteng, I am going to say Gauteng because it is Orlando station and Villeria.”
The referral under section 27 was found to have reasonable grounds and accepted, and this decision was made by the Case Committee within IDAC.
“That referral was sent to the Case Committee. They looked at that referral. They made a decision that it falls within the IDAC space. The decision on accepting it, and that it has grounds, reasonable ground, or whatever, that reasonableness, the grounds, is determined by that committee that sat there and made that decision”
Section 27 complaints are not entered in the docket but are handled at management level within IDAC, involving the Head of Office, physical interviews, and referral.
“That section 27 is the complaint . It is there with the Head of Office . We go and physically interview . He has made , referred this complaint .”
IDAC dockets are normal police dockets, registered at the relevant police station (Brooklyn Police Station) but the section 27 complaint itself is managed separately before docket registration.
“It is registered at Brooklyn police station . IDAC does not have access to their own systems of registering dockets . So , it is registered at the police station ... It is a normal police docket .”
CAS numbers in docketing represent the month and year the case was opened at the police station, not when individual affidavits were taken in preliminary investigations.
“... the last figures , 025 , denote the year in which that case was opened .... The numbers before the year , 06 , denote the month in which it was opened ... It is the month . It is the register serial number according to the system ... Once you have got all your affidavits and all your evidence , and then you register a case docket , which could be months later ... The CAS number now is on the date when the docket was registered , but the affidavit was taken in January ... That affidavit was taken during the preliminary investigations , so that is why the date is January .”
During preliminary investigations, affidavits are taken but do not have CAS numbers; the CAS number applies only when a docket is registered.
“... during the preliminary investigation , a number of affidavits are taken in the early stages of the investigation ... your witness statement does not have a CAS number ... Nothing is CAS’d ... once you have got all your affidavits and all your evidence , and then you register a case docket ... you will register your case docket .”
A section 27 referral leads to a section 28(13) preliminary investigation inquiry stage before docket registration and full criminal investigation.
“You have a section 27 referral that is sent in , and then your section 28 ( 13 ) preliminary investigation commences . So it is an inquiry , it is an inquiry stage ... Your docket is not registered at that stage ... So once you have done all of that , and then you are now going into your full - blown investigation , it is now ready , you will register your case docket .”
Every investigation uses an inquiry number for summonses and document requests, which will later be associated with a CAS number once the case is registered at the police station.
“It will refer to an inquiry, it will be that 28(13) is registered as inquiry, it will have an inquiry number. So, that is the inquiry number that I will use for my investigation, for summonses, to request documents, I will use that. So, once my case is registered, finally at the police station, that inquiry number will fall out, and I will be using a CAS number.”
Colonel Padayachee denies having taken the statement attributed to him and was not present when the statement was taken, correcting earlier misunderstanding.
“I did not take the statement , and I was not present during the statement .”
The investigator Colonel Padayachee did not inquire who completed the cover page document for the affidavit as he was out of the country in January 2026 and only came back later, and he did not ask about the completion of the statement then.
“I was not around. I was out of the country ... at some point I came back. I did not ask about the completion of the statement.”
There are allegations of manipulation of promotion and vetting processes by high-ranking police officials to unduly benefit a civilian person without policing experience, by appointing her to a Crime Intelligence post.
“allegations related to officials involved in manipulating promotional and vetting processes to unduly benefit somebody”
The manipulation of promotional and security vetting processes to benefit a civilian without policing experience is presented as a serious allegation that requires investigation under section 27 referral and a preliminary investigation under section 28 (13).
“serious allegation being made here, that there is manipulation of processes by high-ranking officers giving a civilian with no experience and appointing her in a Crime Intelligence post”
COLONEL PADAYACHEE admits that the referral was sent to management who approved the section 27 referral and authorized the section 28 (13) preliminary investigation, and that he took his cue from there.
“this referral was sent to management who approved the section 27 referral and then authorized a section 28 (13) preliminary investigation. So I take my cue from there when that preliminary investigation is initiated”
Colonel Padayachee was satisfied that the jurisdictional facts had been met for a Section 27 referral in relation to an appointment to a technical post without qualifications, which he interpreted as fraud and corruption needing investigation.
“I am going to say yes. Yes, Commissioner. ... It is what was being said there, a person has been appointed in a technical post without qualifications. It is a civilian. For me, that amounts to fraud and corruption that needed to be looked at to be verified.”
The appointment to the technical post potentially involved granting and receiving a gratification as defined under PRECA, which Colonel Padayachee considers a form of corruption.
“When we look at the 27 and the mandate falling in terms of the statutory offence of PRECA, the appointment is one, is the giving of a gratification, and two, the receiving of a gratification in terms of section 3(a) and 3(b) of PRECA.”
Colonel Padayachee testified that the jurisdiction for IDAC to get seized of the matter is through a Section 27 referral based on a reasonable suspicion of a specified offence related to fraud and corruption in the appointment.
“Yes ... That has been your testimony. ... That is what gave us jurisdiction. That is what got us started.”
Colonel Padayachee acknowledges difficulty with the statutory requirement of Section 27 as the specified offence referenced in previous legislation no longer exists, yet maintains satisfaction that jurisdictional requirements were met.
“I am still struggling with it, Commissioner ... 7(1) has been deleted ... 7(1A) does not deal with specified offence ... I am still satisfied that it is present.”
Colonel Padayachee only deals with section 27 referrals at the tail end when preliminary investigation is authorized and is mindful that management level deals with section 27.
“I only get to deal with it at the tail end when the preliminary investigation is authorized. But be that as it may... I will respond as such, that reasonable grounds, looking at the referral, there is allegations and serious allegations being made...”
Colonel Padayachee is the investigating officer authorized to handle a preliminary investigation into serious allegations concerning Crime Intelligence, relying on information from management and the chief criminal investigator, rather than directly on the section 27 referral affidavit.
“I am the investigating officer here at the tailend that receives the authorization. I am authorized there to be involved in the investigation. I look at the allegations, go out and see whether what is said here is true or not true. They are serious allegations.”
Colonel Padayachee does not have sight of the section 27 referral affidavit initially and relies on verbal briefing from his chief criminal investigator who directs the investigation team.
“The section 27 referral, I do not see it. ... My end where I come in is the designation 28(13). It comes up to say I am now appointed on this preliminary investigation. ... The chief criminal investigator who we report to ... has the puzzle of what this whole allegation investigation is about. He briefs us, and we follow his directives from there ... we are the work soldiers out there. Management make a decision, authorize it, it comes down, we comply.”
Despite the chief investigator's briefing, the referral affidavit that is the primary source document for the investigation is not provided directly to the investigators like Colonel Padayachee, which the Chairperson finds illogical.
“The chief investigator tells you orally what happened, what referral is about, and you are then required to investigate. Even if they are very good at relaying information that they have come across, the bottom line is the best source is the document they relied on in briefing you. So what I am saying is, does it make sense for you not to be given that source document? Does it make sense?”
Colonel Padayachee admits he did not have sight of the referral affidavit at the time he was tasked but later obtained a copy which he provided to Counsel.
“At that particular time, I did not request it. I did not ask for it. ... I did not have sight of it initially, sir. ... I did have sight of it after and I was the one that had given Counsel a copy of the section 7.”
Colonel Padayachee leads a team responsible for multiple investigations, including two currently in court, and others involving appointments, the Leshaba matter, properties, and a secret service fund.
“I spoke about myself in a team with investigation. There are several investigations. Two of them I have, which are in court. There is another investigation that was finalized. And there are other investigations that are still being investigated and to be finalized. To name them was the appointments, the incident of the Leshaba matter. There is the properties. There is a secret service fund.”
The suspicion regarding siphoning money from the secret service fund is expressed as a suspicion, not as a confirmed fact or allegation with specified reasons or evidence.
“It is a suspicion. It is not an allegation. ... He is not alleging any facts. In fact, he is not saying, I allege that they are siphoning money. He says, I suspect they are doing that.”
Documents received during a preliminary investigation showed possibilities of money being utilized unlawfully from the secret service fund, providing a basis to investigate the secret service fund.
“On the basis of documents that were received, there was investigations done where the secret service fund came into the frame of it, which gave us a basis to say we need to look at this while we are busy with this investigation.”
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.”
If there is something in an investigation that is found unlawful or wrong, including being totally unfounded, COLONEL PADAYACHEE states he would refuse to continue involvement.
“If there is something that I do not agree within an investigation and I find that it is unlawful or that there is something wrong here and that there is an agenda, then I will refuse.”
Investigations under Chief Investigator Perumal cover broader issues arising from a referral, including multiple investigative offices and cases.
“And that, those other investigations will fall under the ambit of Chief Investigator Perumal who is responsible for the broader investigation with the different investigating offices.”
There was a planned workflow of investigations starting with the Lushaba matter followed by the Mokwele matter and then Madondo matter, but investigations were halted due to allegations which led to stepping back.
“We had a plan of action into what we were going to do with our investigations. So we started with the Lushaba matter, first case matter. And then there was going to be a short break and then we go with the second matter which is the Mokwele matter. And after that there will be a short break and then we would have went onto the Madondo matter and then followed through with the others. So if, for example, if there was, what we have done is that we respected that there was going to be a Commission of Inquiry or the Commission of Inquiry, the Commission and the other committee that, with respect, we stepped back because of the allegations and we stepped back.”
There are multiple investigations referred to as the Crime Intelligence matter, including the Lushaba matter, the Mokwele matter, and the Madondo matter, with a fourth matter still under investigation.
“You have the allegations on the different matters that are there. So the first one you had was ... the Lushaba matter. ... The second scenario is the Mokwele matter. And then you have the Madondo matter. I am not going to say about the fourth one, because that is still in the oven.”
Colonel Padayachee did not see the referral document at the time of the briefing and did not think about the referral then, indicating it did not cross his mind during the investigation briefing.
“the fact that I did not see the referral, if there was something else there that I actually put myself in a bad position, I am saying at that moment in time when the briefing was done with regards to the investigation, I did not think or it come to my attention”
Moving forward, Colonel Padayachee will request a copy of the referral in future investigations and has learned from prior media coverage to implement more thorough practices.
“if there is such investigations again, I would request a copy of the referral, and that is what I will do moving forward”
Colonel Padayachee asserts under oath that he never received the section 27 referral document until a couple of months ago when it became an issue, and he only then had sight of it.
“I say to you that I am under oath, that I never received that section 27 referral until a couple of months ago when it became an issue and when I had sight into it”
Colonel Padayachee expresses that it is painful for him to hear speculation in the media as he knows the truth because he was there and has served for 44 years committed to fighting corruption.
“It does hurt when I know the truth because I am there... I have served for 44 years. I have come back to assist to fight corruption... But people want to know the truth, so there will be uncomfortable moments”
Colonel Padayachee states he reports the truth to the Commission and is not manipulating facts, noting he has submitted a Zondo affidavit and highlights that a whistleblower in Crime Intelligence who exposed corruption has been in the witness protection program since 2012 and has received no punishment but protection.
“I am here, I am under oath, and what I am saying is the truth... I have submitted a Zondo affidavit. General Mkhwana may come and also say that, yes, he pointed it out then. We have a person sitting in the witness program since 2012 to date that exposed the corruption in Crime Intelligence. His punishment or his reward is that to date he is still in the witness protection Program”
Some names were submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee for possible probe, including President Ramaphosa, Padayachee, Moodley, and others; the name of General Khan came from EFF's list of 18 people to be called as witnesses.
“We submitted names like President Ramaphosa, and the other names were Padayachee, Moodley, and the likes... the name General Khan was mentioned, I was busy on the other names mentioned by General Mkhwanazi... the list was submitted... the name General Khan comes from EFF, where they had a list of 18 people.”
The witness started investigating why General Khan's name was specifically pushed, drawing parallels with President Ramaphosa whom the ANC would want to protect, and identifying a so-called 'Indian Cabal' related to IDAC involving persons such as Johnson, Padayachee, Khan, Paul O'Sullivan, and Brian McKnight.
“Then later, that is when I started looking at this thing... so-called Indian Cabal... a subject of many in IDAC... there is a certain relationship when I connect dots between Johnson, Padayachee, Khan, I also put in Paul O'Sullivan there, Brian...”
Weapons including 65 guns were reported lost at Pheri Police Station, with only 2 recovered from a dustbin, raising suspicion about the loss and recovery story.
“there was a story of 65 guns that got lost e Pheri Police Station and he recovered two ... what kind of a criminal would leave 10 guns in the dustbin?”
