section 7(1A)

The investigation focuses on whether the Investigating Directorate (ID) operates outside its prescribed legal mandate as per section 7(1A) of the NPA Act, analysed solely on the affidavit's contents without considering subsequent facts.

“what we are trying to establish is whether IDA Cooperates outside of its mandate in terms of the prescribed legal prescripts, namely section 7 (1A) of the NPA Act. So our engagement is aimed at establishing that. That is why we are looking at the affidavit as it stands, and we are saying, would IDAC, looking at the affidavit, without the subsequent knowledge of facts that you came to learn about a year later ...”

Paragraph 6 of the affidavit mentions crimes such as cover-up and theft of property, which needs careful consideration to determine applicability under section 7(1A).

“When you look at it in terms of what crimes were committed in terms of the relevant mandate, you cannot just extract it from this affidavit just like that because it talks about a cover-up, right, and the theft of property. So when looking at the paragraph, you cannot say that what is required in terms of (1A) is in this just by looking at it as it is. That, yes, that is the way I look at it.”

The word 'suspect' or 'suspicion' in allegations triggers only a possibility, requiring more substantiation for investigation powers under section 7(1A).

“I think from the words suspect, or suspicion, it does hang in there, you know, in terms of bordering on that, because you need more information, substantiated on that you know. It is just saying I suspect.”

Investigator states the words 'suspect' and 'cover-up' in the affidavit do not provide strong grounds to meet section 7(1A) requirements for actuation of investigation powers.

“When I look at it and I see the words suspect, I suspect, cover up. It is just my opinion that when I look at it in comparison with what section (1A) said, it is my opinion that these words do not give much.”