section 27 affidavit

The reason the section 27 affidavit is important is that it started the investigation and the lead prosecutor needs to have sight of it.

“there is no controversy about what is the section 27 affidavit that started this investigation ... why it is important for the lead prosecutor to have sight of that section 27”

Section 28 summons are not legally supported by the evidence in the Section 27 affidavit and associated A1 statements, making any investigation arising from these summons legally problematic.

“Then the investigation is problematic. Whatever follows is problematic.”

The official Section 27 affidavit is silent on any purchases of a forklift, whereas the supplementary statement contains new details about such procurement issues that were not present in the original affidavit.

“My concern is section 27 affidavit, as we have it, is absolutely silent on any purchases of a forklift. Where would that detail have come from in the supplementary when the purpose of the supplementary was to address shortcomings in the original section 27?”

There appears to be confusion or discrepancy over the existence of multiple Section 27 affidavits concerning the PKT reference, with at least two different versions being discussed.

“The section 27 affidavit we have been sitting with here and working on is not their section 27 affidavit. The section 27 affidavit ... had references to the forklift purchase and had direct reference to the PKTT, both of which are missing in our version. So I am saying there appears to be two when there should be only one”

One Section 27 affidavit dated December 2025 is referenced which was the only one on that date, but it is not the one in their files; this affidavit referenced PKTT and forklift purchases.

“the supplementary affidavit on 3493, it is dated December 2025. These three people were together in Cape Town on that date. And the simple point Advocate Sello is making is that on that date ... there was only one section 27 affidavit, and it is not the one that is in our files. It is the one that made reference to PKTT and forklifts and other things”

The Section 27 affidavit being reviewed was likely backdated to 21 November 2024 although produced much later, raising questions about which version the commissioners reviewed.

“this section 27 we are looking at was produced at a much later date and then back dated to 21 November 2024”

There is uncertainty about which Section 27 affidavit Advocate Johnson looked at in early or mid December 2024, especially regarding references to PKTT and forklifts.

“I cannot recall ... I can not recall seeing forklift and the PKTT ... No that I am not recalling ... No now that you are putting it to me, I cannot give you a definitive answer. I do not know which one I saw... This one is the most familiar, let me put it that way...”

The Section 27 affidavit only lists suspicions and does not contain sufficient facts or grounds to justify the suspicions, meaning it cannot by itself justify an investigation under Section 1A.

“We settled that all that affidavit does is to list suspicions. It does not say what is the basis of those suspicions ... requires that there must be grounds for it”

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

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

Advocate Khumalo SC asserts that the Section 27 affidavit provided to the prosecutor does not mention most people named in the annexure, nor state that these people have committed offences, so there is no basis to form a view that they should be investigated.

“We have seen the section 27 affidavit. It does not mention most of the people in the annexure. It does not say any of these people have committed offences... All you gave her was a list of names. What could she write back to you based only on the affidavit and the list of names that would make you form a view that these people have committed such serious crimes that would justify an investigation against them.”

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

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

Advocate Khumalo states that the Section 27 affidavit does not mention most of the people in the annexure, nor does it say that these people have committed offences - thus only giving a list of names without any allegations does not justify investigation against them.

“My difficulty is this, that you give her the affidavit. We have seen the section 27 affidavit. It does not mention most of the people in the annexure. It does not say any of these people have committed offences... All you gave her was a list of names.”

A full-blown investigation conducted during the preliminary investigation stage based on a wholly inadequate section 27 affidavit is improper and is a misuse of the section 28(13) preliminary investigation process to assist a poor referrer make up a case improperly.

“a full-blown investigation happens on the back of a preliminary, of a decision for a preliminary investigation ... you had this wholly inadequate section 27 affidavit ... You then authorise a preliminary investigation ... but you use that to show up a poor referrer ... So that is not the purpose of your section 28(13) preliminary investigation ... It is not to fix Mr Adams’ poor section 27 ... It is not to use that process for a purpose other than intended.”

Advocate Johnson does not personally know the exact timing of when someone saw the section 27 affidavit but stated he will verify and come back with an exact answer.

“I do not know that there is a decision who to give and who not to give ... I think it is a question that you must verify and come back to us with a specific period.”

Advocate Johnson acted upon a list of names that includes people not mentioned in the section 27 affidavit, which he only authorized based on the section 27 affidavit.

“You are authorizing an investigation into eight people who are not mentioned in the singular document you have...”

Advocate Johnson admits the investigation was not abiding by the terms of the section 27 affidavit by authorizing investigation into persons not mentioned in the affidavit without proper basis.

“It is ... a misuse of powers to take intrusive steps and action against people on this affidavit. You have no justification whatsoever on this affidavit to be looking into...”

There was no prepared section 27 affidavit at the time of the Minister's referral dated 11 November 2024; the affidavit was dated later on 21 November 2024, indicating a cure of the referral deficiency as the Minister's letter does not constitute a valid section 27 referral to IDAC.

“That is not a fact. Look at that affidavit. It is dated 21 November 2024. And the Minister's letter is the 11th of November 2024. So there was no prepared affidavit.”

The procedure after receiving the section 27 affidavit involves determining if it falls within the mandate, and if necessary, instructing a preparatory investigation by the investigating director via a section 28(13) application.

“If the Investigating Director considers it necessary to hear evidence in order to enable him or her to determine if there are reasonable grounds to conduct an investigation in terms of subsection (1)(a), the Investigating Director may hold a preparatory investigation.”

In practice, the office follows a procedure where after receiving the section 27 affidavit, they review it and if found necessary, make a section 28 application to hold a preparatory investigation, though this is an unwritten office practice.

“That is a practice, yes.”

Advocate Ramsami works purely on the section 27 affidavit, applying her mind to the law and drafting the section 28(13) application, without seeking to obtain extraneous documents.

“So she works purely on the affidavit? That is correct.”