section 28(13)

Investigators only get involved in Section 27 referrals once Section 28(13) or Section 28(1) is authorized and designation is made, after which team meetings inform the members of their roles.

“when the 27 is referred, we are only getting involved when the section 28(13) or section 28(1) is authorised. It will then mean once the designation is made, your name is put there, then there will be a meeting ... you are going to be informed that this is the team that is going to be working on this matter”

An investigation under section 28(13) was instituted, but Mr Raphesu thinks it might be better described as under section 41(6).

“You say in that paragraph 63 that there is a section 28 (13) investigation that was instituted... I might be wrong... but I think better to say there was an investigation under section 41 (6).”

Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumalan instructed to proceed with a section 28(13) investigation authorization that was drafted and approved within a short timeframe in December 2024.

“Advocate Johnson had stated they had made a decision that the matter was to proceed in terms of section 28(13) and that I was to draft the authorisation and email it to her on the same day that the referral was handed to me because she wanted to approve it by Friday, the 5th of December 2024.”

Investigations are sometimes found outside the parameters of initial legal sections (like section 27) but are justified under other sections such as 28(13).

“may not have been in the section 27... but when we do investigations under 28(13), then we end up finding stuff, and that becomes justification...”

In some investigations, an addendum was used to attach new information to an existing section 28(13) without needing a new section 28 authorization.

“I asked her, should we do another new 28? So then I asked, can I not do an addendum and she said it was fine. The addendum was drafted and it was attached and filed to the original 28”

Despite PKTT not being mentioned in the section 27 affidavit, its investigation was not precluded and could be pursued via a section 28(13) addendum.

“even though it is not in the section 27 affidavit... we should still investigate it... I would have still asked to do an addendum”

MS Ramsamy has done multiple section 28(13) affidavits, most of them vague as per instructions or practice.

“I have done multiple 28(13)'s ... most of them are vague as this”

Section 28(13) was not a carte blanche for full-blown investigations on flimsy or non-existent grounds, but allows hearing or obtaining evidence to determine if reasonable grounds exist to investigate.

“2 8 (1 3) allows you to hear evidence or obtain evidence to determine whether or not there are grounds for an investigation.”

Under section 28(13), there must be sufficient evidence collected to establish reasonable grounds to proceed to a full investigation.

“You must have enough evidence that there are reasonable, that the suspicions are reasonable and that there are reasonable grounds on which to conduct that full-blown investigation”

Section 28(13) does not give carte blanche to conduct a full investigation without reasonable grounds, it only permits hearing evidence to determine if such grounds exist.

“2 8 ( 1 3 ) allows you to hear evidence or obtain evidence to determine whether or not there are grounds for an investigation.”

IDAC used section 28(13) to conduct a full investigation before proper authorization, then granted authorization post-facto on 30 May to apply for arrest warrants and arrest suspects.

“it appears to me, and perhaps I am looking at it wrong, that IDAC used the mechanics of section 28(13) to conduct a full-blown investigation which would render it wholly unauthorised. And then to post-facto grant the authorisation on the 30th of May, which opened the way for applying for arrest warrants and actually arresting them.”

Investigators abused section 28(13) preliminary investigation to conduct a full investigation before authorization and obtained documents from SAPS to prepare an A1 statement in January.

“I will say the investigators in this case abused the section 28(13) preliminary investigation to conduct a full-blown investigation before you so authorise them. They have gone so far as to obtain documents from SAPS to prepare an A1 statement in January.”

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

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

The hearing of evidence under section 28(13) involves conducting interviews with prospective witnesses, which can be a recorded process.

“It is the conducting of the interview with the witnesses, prospective witnesses... It can be a recorded process, yes. More often than not, the 28's are a recorded process, or it is an interview process, and then the statement is taken.”

Col. Padayachee explained the process from referral to investigation, stating that the Intake Committee decides if a matter falls within IDAC's mandate and the Investigating Director then authorises a preliminary investigation under section 28(13).

“Once the Intake Committee decides whether or not this falls within the mandate of IDAC, the Investigating Director, the management and the Investigating Director authorises a section 28(13) investigation, which is a preliminary investigation”