Referred to as: Mr Sesoko · Mr S · Head of Operations
No picture yet. Upload one or paste an image URL.
Only the Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP) can allocate cases to junior prosecutors; Mr. Sesoko cannot do so.
“No, he, that does not fall within his mandate”
The IDAC manual was signed in 2024 and guides day-to-day operations of new IDAC employees, serving as an induction manual for new officials.
“I think it was signed in 2024, I am trying to get the date, by Mr Sesoko and the ID.”
The two chief investigators are spread across all four IDAC groups, with monthly reports via a structure chaired by the Head of Investigation Operations Mr Sesoko.
“they are spread within all four groups ... deputies, chief investigators and project managers report on each matter through a structure chaired by the Head of Investigation Operations, Mr Sesoko”
New matters from the public are evaluated for jurisdiction under IDAC's mandate via an intake process involving a secretariat chaired by Mr Sesoko, with a Deputy and a chief investigator reviewing and recommending disposition.
“once the IDAC was set up ... the manual talks of a secretariat which will receive these cases ... then there is an intake criteria which has to sit to determine whether these cases belong ... Mr Sesoko will always sit in those ... there would then be a Deputy and a chief investigator ... it also recommends either senior state advocate or a chief investigator”
Advocate Serunye sought the section 27 referral document from August to 31 October 2025, including raising the issue on 31 October with Mr Sesoko, but did not receive it from anyone including prosecutors or Ms Hlatshwayo.
“So from August, I was looking for that document, but no one could give it to me ... I spoke to the prosecutors. I was getting... Hlatshwayo did not know about it at all, she said she has not seen it.”
Advocate Serunye emailed Mr Sesoko and others on 31 October 2025 indicating one of the accused is seeking further particulars and needs to see the section 27 referral.
“ADV SERUNYE”
Advocate Serunye submitted a recusal memo dated 16 September 2025 to the Investigating Director and Mr Sesoko due to personal association with accused number 4, Josias Lekalakala.
“wrote the memo then on the 16th of September. I then emailed it to, as per page 1 of the batch, you will see I then emailed it to the admin personnel, Senyane Manshidi, with the subject: 'Recusal from the matter of state General Khumalo and others'. The memo is dated 16 September 2025 ... The memo is directed to Advocate Johnson, Investigating Director and to Mr Sesoko, Head of Operations and Investigations from Advocate P Serunye, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions ...”
Despite resigning last week, Advocate Johnson's good work at IDAC allowed the organisation to continue functioning well without a permanent head.
“She resigned last week ... the organisation can continue to run itself with the help of, obviously, the CEO Mr Sesoko, and the three deputies that are there ... all because of the good work that she has put in”
Advocate Serunye requested Mr Sesoko to attend a meeting to give feedback to the Investigating Directorate about his view that the docket disclosed no case.
“I am then saying to them: 'I am going to request Mr Sesoko also attends so that he can give feedback to the ID about my views.' I wanted him to be part of the meeting, and I can confirm the meeting was then held.”
ADV Serunye stated that after reviewing the docket and submissions, they were still of the view that there was no prima facie or winnable case to be made, and planned to provide a written report to the Investigating Directorate and the team.
“I am sorry to say that I am still of the view that we do not have a prima facie or winnable case . I will provide my written report to the ID , Mr Sesoko , and the team in due course .”
ADV Serunye did not provide the written report to the ID and Mr Sesoko due to events overtaking the matter, and ceased to be part of the case by 16 September.
“I did not , Commissioners . I am saying I was overtaken by – everything was overtaken by events here . This is 29 August , and by 16 September , I then ceased to be part of the case . I did not write the report , but it is the emails I sent them to the ID .”
Management meetings did not discuss the merits of the case since those present were not designated to be part of the case; any discussion would have been separate with Mr Sesoko and relevant people.
“No , it was not discussed . I indicated in the management meeting , we would not have gone into the merits of cases because other people sitting in those meetings are not designated to be part of these cases . So , if anything , I would discuss separately with Mr Sesoko and the relevant people , but not with the other managers that are not designated in the case .”
The witness was raising issues by email about cases being rushed to court and questioning them with investigators and Mr Sesoko at the ID (likely investigating department).
“my emails are telling the story. I am questioning and raising these issues, not only with the investigators, but with the ID, with Mr Sesoko, that these cases were rushed to court, and I am raising a lot of issues here.”
Investigators do not independently choose their projects; project assignments and team composition decisions are made by management including chiefs, DPPs, and the Head of office, Mr Sesoko.
“the investigators do not have a say or they do not choose which project they belong to. So what will actually happen is the, let me just call them management, the upper level where chiefs, DPPs, and the Head of office, and Mr Sesoko sits. They are the ones that decide who belongs where, who is going to work where”
Mr Raphesu called Mr Sesoko to inform or query if he knew about a new project, hoping to get more clarity on the situation involving meeting allocations and fight for lead roles.
“On the way to Villieria, I decided to phone Mr Sesoko to inform him, or maybe to ask him if he knew about this new project”
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 S is identified as Mr Sesoko.
“Mr S would be Mr Sesoko.”
On 9 October 2025, MS Ramsamy sent an email to Advocate Johnson, Mr Perumal, Mr Sesoko, and Mr Tlale saying that she was contacted by Enoch, that Mr Perumal had directed her to keep the section 27 referral affidavit safe but she could not trace it, and that Mr Perumal did not contact her that day but Mr Tlale did.
“Good day, Advocate Johnson. I was contacted by Enoch, in respect of: That I was contacted by Mr Perumal today regarding the above referral, and that I indicated you told me to keep it safe, and that I cannot trace it. Mr Perumal did not contact me today. Mr Tlale contacted me today. He contacted me this morning, and I explained to him as follows: On the morning of the 5th of December 2025 ...”
Advocate Johnson received a section 27 referral in July 2023 and held a consultation with the deponent and the deponent's legal representative, instructing the team to handle the matter secretly due to sensitivity and implicated persons.
“In July 2023, I received a meeting invite from Advocate Johnson...Advocate Johnson stated that she had received a section 27 referral and that had held a consultation with the deponent and the deponent's legal representative...Advocate Johnson...instructed the team that no one was to know that we were handling the matter, owing to the sensitivity of the information and of the implicated person or persons.”
Documents including a recommendation and a summary are submitted for approval through Mr Sesoko and Advocate Johnson, who must approve the recommendation for the process of mandate and investigation application to proceed.
“This is our recommendation having regard to what had been provided to us, and then you include your summary, the 19-pager.”
Mr Sesoko was removed from the process of signing or approving authorizations, with former requirements changing to Advocate Johnson signing instead.
“Mr Sesoko has been made redundant with regards to signing or approving documents. He does not even see that... Later on, it was changed to, it has to be signed by the DD or Deputy Director... and then, or recommended by the Deputy Director and authorized, and then Mr Sesoko was removed. Later on, it just became Advocate Johnson that signed.”
Advocate Johnson with Advocate Mhaga from the NPA called Mr Sesoko to engage and attempt to retrieve the requested documents related to the secret fund siphoning by Minister Bheki Cele.
“And what I did together with Advocate Mhaga from the NPA, we did call Mr Sesoko... I told him what the Commission is looking for... he undertook to engage them, find it if he can, and will then liaise directly with Mr Mhaga”
There is no record of any investigation within IDAC following an extensive search with Mr Sesoko.
“there is absolutely no record of any investigation within IDAC following your extensive search with Mr Sesoko”
Mr Sesoko has asked a colleague from IPID to find their response to the letter because he recalls there was a response, but so far it has not been found.
“Mr Sesoko says he did see a response. He has asked a colleague from IPID if they can find their response because he clearly recalls that there was a response to the letter”
The referral process on a section 27 affidavit involves discussion between advocates and then referral to the team and project manager who work through the document.
“...you get a section 27 , you then discuss it , you take a view, you then discuss it with Mr Sesoko , you give it to him to then take his own view, the two of you agree something , and after you have agreed that there is an offence in this referral , you then refer it to the team .”
Mr Manilall together with Mr Sesoko and Advocate Johnson review documents before passing to the team leader for decision making on section 27 affidavit distribution.
“once the document is after Mr Sesoko and myself have gone through it and we decide falls within the mandate, we give it to the team leader ...”
Advocate Johnson did not engage with Mr Sesoko regarding the section 27 referral and affidavit in this matter, despite prior testimony suggesting otherwise.
“I did not engage him on this referral.”
Adv Johnson clarified that there is no committee; rather he is a single person consulting with investigator Mr Sesoko, and no committee handles section 27 referrals as they come in.
“There is no committee at the moment that deals with any of the 27's as they come in... I did indicate yesterday, there is no committee, and I cannot call Mr Sesoko and I a committee.”
Ms Johnson regularly engaged with Mr Sesoko on section 27 affidavits generally, but did not engage him on this particular referral.
“in most of them, I would engage with Mr Sesoko. ... I did not engage him on this referral.”
ADV Johnson stated there is no committee, he's one person, and consultation occurs with Mr Sesoko as an investigator, but no formal intake committee exists dealing with Section 27 referrals.
“there is no committee at the moment that deals with any of the 27's as they come in.”
After necessary deliberations by Mr Sesoko, section 27 affidavits go to a team composed of investigators and prosecutors for further work on investigations, including deliberating allegations and offences.
“once I have a section 27 or it has come from Mr Sesoko, then necessary deliberations have been made, they go to a team ... The team has different levels of investigators and prosecutors ... they have to sit and deliberate on this document and work out what investigation would have to be instituted, what the allegations would be”
Even if the Investigating Director is absent, operations continue led by heads of operations and senior managers.
“Even if the Investigating Director is not in the office, it does not mean these operations do not happen. There are other senior persons. The Head of Operations, Mr Sesoko, is there together with other senior managers”
Final decisions on whether to arrest or summon an accused person lie with a team beyond the Investigating Director, including lead prosecutors, lead investigators, and heads of operations.
“When myself and those managers who have been briefed leave the room, you have a lead prosecutor and lead investigator, and they also have the benefit of the two chief criminal investigators, as well as Mr Sesoko, who is the head of operations, and they will deliberate on what we have suggested , and they take it on board and make the final decision because the execution is theirs, not the ID”
The Adams 27 team is overstretched with court matters and investigations, requiring reassignment of workload based on seniority and expertise.
“but they are already overstretched with court matters and their investigations . We then look to the office to see where can we best allocate this matter . Mr Sesoko and I will have a conversation . It also talks to the allocation of work , which team might have a little less than another team , but there is also expertise . So you look at the seniority especially the criminal and the financial investigators and the advocates and then you assign them a matter there and then this process is run .”
Investigating Director is not always present but senior managers led by Head of Operations, Mr Sesoko, conduct similar operational discussions and planning.
“Even i f t h e I n v e s t i g a t i n g D i r e c t o r i s n o t i n t h e o ff i c e , i t d o e s n o t m e a n t h e s e o p e r a t i o n s d o n o t h a p p e n . T h e r e a r e o t h e r s e n i o r p e r s o n s . T h e H e a d o f O p e r a t i o n s , M r S e s o k o , i s t h e r e t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r s e n i o r m a n a g e r s , a n d t h e y w o u l d c o n v e n e i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n .”
While the Head of Institution (ADV JOHNSON) can make input in decision-making, the final decision on arrests and summons rests with the lead prosecutor, lead investigator and operations team, not with the Head of Institution.
“A l o t o f t h e t i m e s , t h e i n p u t i s t a k e n o n b o a r d . W h e n m y s e l f a n d t h o s e m a n a g e r s w h o h a v e b e e n b r i e f e d l e a v e t h e r o o m , y o u h a v e a l e a d p r o s e c u t o r a n d l e a d i n v e s t i g a t o r, a n d t h e y a l s o h a v e t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e t w o c h i e f c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s , a s w e l l a s M r S e s o k o , w h o i s t h e h e a d o f o p e r a t i o n s , a n d t h e y w i l l d e l i b e r a t e o n w h a t w e h a v e s u g g e s t e d , a n d t h e y t a k e i t o n b o a r d a n d m a k e t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n b e c a u s e t h e e x e c u t i o n i s t h e i r s , n o t t h e I D .”