Complainant

Mr Padayachee was not supposed to have met the complainant before the investigation was authorized, as is usual for senior investigators to avoid involvement in such matters.

“he was not supposed to have met with the person who is referring thematterat that time, because all of us at our level, we do notget involved in those things”

The docket information was insufficient to progress, leading investigators to meet the complainant as a team, after an initial appointment failed to materialize.

“the information that was in the docket, it was not enough for us to have gone anywhere ... So we basically made an appointment to meet with the complainant ... but that meeting never materialised ... So we decided to meet as a team on the 19th.”

During a meeting with a complainant and Mr Perumal, the witness volunteered information and Mr Perumal attempted to interject but was pushed back, so the witness continued without interruption.

“The witness just volunteered the information. And from what I was gathering, when Mr Perumal was trying to interject or maybe says something, he was just pushing him. It looked like... maybe they fought about something because he did not even want to entertain him. So the witness just volunteered this information and we put it exactly as he was saying.”

Mr Raphesu confirms there was no issue or surprise from the interaction involving the PKTT topic during the meeting with complainant and Mr Perumal.

“No at all, Chair. There was no issue.”

Evidence in possession of witness includes documents shared in confidence by complainant, potentially leading to identifying further witnesses or sources for investigation.

“He does have documents in his possession, which I understand were shared with him in confidence. I am of the view that we should request the same from him during our meeting. He might put us in touch with possible witnesses or sources to further our investigation.”

Dylan indicated he had spoken to the complainant prior to preparation of the summons and associated documents.

“Dylan had indicated that he had spoken to the complainant.”

The consultation with the complainant regarding Section 28 summonses was scheduled for 9 December 2024 in Gauteng.

“the consultation with the complainant was scheduled for the 9th of December 2024 in the Gauteng”

The Section 27 affidavit/referral stems from a complainant and is not an internal document, thus should be considered with the view to disclosing the founding affidavit as well along with any supplementary affidavits.

“But it is not internal. It is not an internal document. It is a document that comes from a complainant. And so, to categorise it as an internal document, as if it is an internal document, is misleading. And it is a document that seems, if you are going to disclose a supplementary affidavit, then it does not make sense that the founding affidavit would not be disclosed.”

The complainant is informed where to go, and the referral agency is also notified with what information was received, even if the matter is outside IDAC's mandate.

“We inform the complainant where they can go, and then we also write to the agency that we are able to send it to, together with a copy of whatever information might have been received.”

Colonel Phillips was tasked to obtain an affidavit from the complainant, but the complainant appeared to be evading the request.

“Colonel Phillips of this office was asked to obtain the affidavit . However , after numerous attempts , it seems as if the complainant is evading the request”

Colonel Phillips stated in his report that the complainant's statements were superficial, based on hearsay and did not contain all elements of the alleged offences, and attempts to obtain evidence from the complainant were unsuccessful.

“In his report, Colonel Phillips states that the complainant's statements were superficial, based on hearsay and that they did not contain all the elements of the alleged offences. It further details his communication with the complainant and the attempts that he made to obtain evidence in order to support the allegations, which the complainant alleged to be in possession of. These attempts proved unsuccessful.”

General Khan's warning statement was prepared with the benefit of the evidence against him, which is concerning as the complainant and suspect worked at the same place with a senior-subordinate relationship.

“General Khan prepared this e-statement with the benefit of the evidence against him. This was particularly concerning in this case because the complainant and the suspect worked at the same place and the suspect was the complainant's senior and direct superior.”

The fact that the suspect had access to the contents of the docket prior to submitting his warning statement raised a huge red flag and was a very big concern due to the entitlement rules.

“To me that is a huge red flag and a very huge concern because you are not entitled to any statements at that point in time. You are entitled to what the charges ... but to come to the investigating officer with a prepared statement, warning statement, it seems to me that you had to have prior knowledge of your version of events based on the evidence that was given to you and on which you can base your affidavit.”

A report states a complainant was investigated by the Port Shepstone Serious Organised Crime Unit but never responded and therefore was never interviewed.

“An email was sent to the complainant ... that Port Shepstone Serious Organised Crime Unit was investigating the matter , but he never responded . As a result , an interview was never conducted with him .”

The progress report indicated they were unable to find or interview the complainant at that stage.

“At this stage they were not able to find the complainant in order to interview the complainant.”

Brigadier Nyuswa did not speak to the complainant nor anyone who had spoken to the complainant and did not recall if the complainant verified any reports.

“Did you ever speak to the complainant ? No. Did you ever speak to anyone who had spoken to the complainant ? I do not think the complainant was ever found .”

The complainant and three others were arrested on 2021-07-09 and charged with dealing in drugs as per Booysen CAS 98/07/2021.

“the complainant and three others were arrested on 2021-07-09 and were charged with dealing in drugs as per Booysen CAS 98/07/2021”

The document describing the case was generated after receiving the complainant's statement and registration of the case.

“It is after we receive their statement. Remember, we only registered this after they have already registered the case. So with the statement of the complainant, that is when we can generate this document for approval.”

Sergeant Nkosi advised the complainant to give any information directly to Brigadier Ramangwa to prevent leaks.

“I then advised the complainant that the relevant person here is Brigadier Ramangwa. I even, maybe, prefer if you do not even give me anything, because there are a lot of police officials here. We cannot trust that who is leaking information to who and how. That is how I connected the complainant directly now to Brigadier Ramangwa. Telling the complainant now that it is best and better to, whatever that you have, give it to Brigadier Ramangwa, so that the information must not leaking anyhow.”