Brian Padayachee

Brian Padayachee was a senior investigator not in Advocate Serunye's team for the Mokwele case.

“Padayachee was not in my team.”

Advocate Serunye requested the section 27 referral document multiple times from Mr Brian Padayachee but was never given it, indicating that either he did not have it or it was lost or disappeared.

“It was never given to me, Commissioner Baloyi. I asked for it. I spoke with Mr Brian Padayachee on about three, four occasions. And every time when I was asking for that, he could not give it to me ... It appears either it was lost or disappeared.”

Permission was obtained from the Investigating Director (ID) to oppose the Section 65 application and all affidavits including that of Mr Brian Padayachee were sent to the ID.

“and then she gave us permission to go ahead with the opposition on thesection 65 ... all the affidavits of the accused were sent to the ID ... ourresponding affidavit of Mr Brian Padayachee was sent to the ID”

ADV SERUNYE tried to mediate between Investigators especially Brian Padayachee and Advocate Ramsamy who were not on speaking terms.

“The relationship was not that good ... especially Brian Padayachee and Advocate Ramsamy. They were not in speaking terms when I came into the team. So I tried to put them together. In some of my emails, I am saying to them ... we are playing for the same team”

Adv Serunye sent a 'Saturday homework' email to team members including Advocates Hlatshwayo, Ramsamy, Mr Brian Padayachee, Chief Investigator Daylan Perumal, Investigator Charles Eales, Investigator Patrick Mlambo, and project manager Mr Sipho Tlale to keep the team informed and attached queries for trial preparation.

“I sent it at 2.51 on the Saturday to the team members, Advocate Hlatshwayo, Advocate Ramsamy, Mr Brian Padayachee, Chief Investigator Daylan Perumal, Investigator Charles Eales, Investigator Patrick Mlambo. And I also copied the Project Manager, Mr Sipho Tlale... I sent them this email, and the email had an attachment containing queries”

The arrest warrant was only issued after the Magistrate initially refused to grant it, requiring a second application.

“The Magistrate refused to issue a warrant once, and the next time they succeeded after compiling another application.”

High profile cases involving senior government officials should be prepared over time with strong evidence before arrest and placement on court roll, contrary to this case which was prepared quickly and had insufficient evidence for arrest.

“You do not just arrest people...these cases we prepare them over a period of time...I must prepare it in such a way that there is at least a prima facie case...This case started in December or November 2024 and by June 2025 they put it on the roll. For that six months, these issues ought to have been covered.”

Emails were sent to the whole team on August 17th regarding issues to be followed up for court preparation, and responses came from Brian Padayachee and Pat Mlambo promising investigations.

“I think I did get responses from either Mr Brian Padayachee or one, I remember Mr Pat Mlambo who said thanks for the advice, we will do as you... promising that investigations are going to be done as I was raising issues.”

The relationship between prosecutors and investigators was not good, there were conflicts between these investigators and Crime Intelligence, and the cases were rushed to court with mistakes and loopholes, resulting in poorly conducted investigations.

“the relationship between the prosecutors and investigators was not good ... they made a lot of mistakes here ... it appeared they were rushing this case ... there is some conflicts between these investigators and investigators in Crime Intelligence ... The two cases were not supposed to be in court ... The cases were not properly investigated”

Chief Perumal briefed Mr Brian Padayachee before the meeting, surprising Mr Raphesu who expected to receive the briefing as well.

“Chief Perumal indicates that he had already briefed Mr Brian Padayachee. So I was then surprised to say, if we have now been briefed about this now, and he is saying that he has already briefed Mr Padayachee”

Mr Brian Padayachee's name appeared on a designation list before a meeting though he was not present at the meeting, which was considered odd.

“the name of Mr Brian Padayachee already appeared on the designation, although he was not at themeeting”

Mr Padayachee was already briefed before the meeting in question, not the other way around.

“he was already briefed here, not the other way around”

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”

Mr Padayachee was already briefed and is involved in fighting for lead investigator status on the matter, which caused concern to Mr Raphesu.

“the behaviour of Mr Padayachee already been briefed and this one fighting for being a lead”

Accused numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in the Mokwele matter were granted bail by the Magistrate's Court with conditions prohibiting them from visiting Crime Intelligence premises nationwide and designating Mr Brian Padayachee to assist them with collecting personal belongings.

““Accused number 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are prohibited from being at any premises of Crime Intelligence within the country, RSA, while the matter is pending.” ... “Mr Brian Padayachee will assist the accused with the collection of any matters or items of personal nature the accused may have at the premises in the Crime Intelligence offices.””

Crime Intelligence witnesses indicated they were subjected to intimidation and victimisation, justifying bail conditions that barred accused persons, including General Khumalo, from accessing Crime Intelligence premises.

““The assertion being that Mr Padayachee would be allowed to have access to Criminal Intelligence is incorrectly interpreted, mainly because we have witnesses at CI. Those witnesses had indicated that they had been intimidated and victimised. The condition for them not going to CI was to ensure that the witnesses were not intimidated.””

Brian Padayachee submitted an affidavit on behalf of IDAC opposing the amendment of bail conditions for Accused 3 (Madondo), arguing it was not in the interest of justice as she lacked top secret security clearance and had a propensity to commit criminal offenses.

“The purpose of this affidavit is to inform the Honourable Court why it is not in the interest of justice to admit the bail conditions of accused 3.”

The A32 affidavit is a complete affidavit covering the entire investigation from start until the building of the warrants of arrest; it is an ordinary affidavit without specification of its purpose on the document's face.

“Then you will have an affidavit. It is a complete affidavit that covers the whole thing, covers the start until the building of the warrants of arrest. Excuse me. Until the warrant of arrest. It means it gives you the whole package up until the warrants. The other, A32, is just a plain affidavit. The heading is affidavit. I undersigned, Brian Padayachee. So that is an affidavit. It does not say what it was furnished in support of. It does not say the purpose for which the affidavit was signed on the face of the document itself. It does not”

The A32 affidavit is referred to as an 'anchor affidavit' by the investigators because it contains the entire scenario from start until end, and it is intended for court use.

“A32 is what we call an anchor affidavit... It contains the whole scenario of everything, from start up until the end... It is for the court... So that is why us as investigators, we call it an anchor affidavit”

The entire set of documents from A1 to A36 is intended for court use.

“From A1 to A36 is intended for court”

Colonel Brian Padayachee confirms receipt of Rule 3 notice and subpoena related to allegations made by General Mkhwanazi.

“Do you confirm? I confirm, Chair”

Colonel Brian Padayachee submitted a nine-page affidavit dated 16 October 2025 with annexures 1 to 29 (pages 1 to 107) to the Commission.

“it should have on its spine Brian Padayachee's statement and supplemental statement ... It is a nine-page document ... I confirm, Chair. This is my affidavit ... the annexures that will run in range from Annexure 1 to Annexure 29 ... from pages 1 to 107 ... Do you confirm that those are your annexures ... I confirm ... Do you confirm the correctness of this statement? I confirm”

Colonel Brian Padayachee is a retired Colonel of the South African Police Service with 44 years of experience, currently employed as a senior investigator at the National Prosecuting Authority's Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC).

“I am an adult male employed at the National Prosecuting Authority as a senior investigator assigned to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption , IDAC . I am a retired Colonel of the South African SAPS . I have served the SAPS for 38 and a half years ... It is now 44 years of my law enforcement career.”

The summons issued to Colonel Brian Padayachee requires him to respond to allegations about infiltration, capture, exertion of undue influence, and corruption within the South African Police Service, the National Prosecuting Authority, and other criminal justice system components by criminal syndicates, politically connected persons, and unlawful actors.

“The summons requires me to appear before the Commission on Monday 13 July 2026 for the purposes of giving evidence and be questioned about the following. Matters arising from the evidence of Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi during his evidence before the Commission on 17, 18 and 19 September whether criminal syndicates, organised criminal groups, politically connected persons or other unlawful actors have infiltrated, captured, exerted undue influence over or otherwise compromised the South African Police, the NPA, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, Crime Intelligence, Independent Police Investigative Directorate or any other component of the criminal justice system.”

Colonel Padayachee is summoned to give evidence concerning allegations that the Investigating Directorate for Corruption (IDAC) operates outside its legal mandate under the NPA Act section 7(1)(A).

“Allegations that IDAC operates outside its mandate in terms of prescribed legal constructs, namely section 1(a) of the NPA Act as amended.”

There are allegations concerning Colonel Padayachee's involvement in political interference in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

“Allegations concerning my role in the interference in criminal investigations and prosecutions.”

Colonel Padayachee denies the allegations that IDAC pursued a criminal case against Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo and other Crime Intelligence officials as part of ongoing political interference at SAPS, stating that the allegations are baseless and that IDAC has sufficient evidence to sustain the charges.

“I deny these allegations. They are baseless and devoid of merit. The IDAC has sufficient evidence to sustain the charges on the criminal cases against Lieutenant General Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence. This criminal case is currently pending before the Magistrate's Court Pretoria. I deny as baseless any allegations of political interference or hidden agendas in respect of the investigations that are conducted by IDAC against these senior officers within Crime Intelligence and SAPS.”

Colonel Padayachee states that there is no political interference in the investigations he is involved in and that he has never received undue pressure or calls related to those investigations.

“There is no political interference. And this I say so from my personal investigations into the matter. I have never received any calls or placed under any undue pressure.”

Colonel Padayachee explains that investigators cannot influence the investigations because they are prosecution-driven, and the prosecution team decides who to charge and what charges to bring.

“These investigations cannot be influenced by investigators because they are prosecution driven. There are processes in place which are managed by the prosecution team. They decide who to charge. They decide what charges.”

Colonel Padayachee describes the process when a complaint comes in via a section 27 referral, handled by the Intake Committee which determines whether it falls within IDAC's mandate, including legal prescriptions and preliminary investigations if needed.

“When a complaint comes in via a section 27 referral, that referral is taken by the Intake Committee, which decides whether this falls within the mandate of IDAC. All the legal prescripts, everything is there. That referral is then a section 28(13). If it falls within the mandate and if it still needs more information, a preliminary investigation in terms of section 28(13) is...”