Mokwele matter

On 8 August 2025, Investigating Director included Advocate Serunye formally into the matter to oversee two cases and attend to a bail amendment application, with Advocate Drushantha Ramsamy and Advocate Hlatshwayo as lead prosecutors of different matters.

“On 8th of August, 2025, the Investigating Director convened a short meeting and informed me that she had decided to include me in the matter... She asked me to oversee the two matters, the Lushaba matter and the Khumalo, and others (Mokwele matter) with Advocate Drushantha Ramsamy as remaining the lead prosecutor in the Lushaba matter, and Advocate Hlatshwayo remaining the lead in the Mokwele matter. She further asked me to attend to an anticipated bail amendment application under section 63 of the Criminal Procedure Act...”

The Mokwele matter involved a large arrest of high-ranking police officers on 26 June 2025, attracting significant attention and talk within the office.

“My involvement in the Mokwele matter, paragraph 21: 'On the morning of 27 June 2005, I arrived at the office as usual ... This arrest was on a number of high-ranking police officers.'”

In the Mokwele case, there were arrests made which would have implied investigations had already taken place within IDAC, but Advocate Serunye was not aware of such investigations because the case was not in their group.

“Once an IDAC matter reaches the stage of an arrest, there would surely have been some investigations already ... That is what has to happen ... You cannot arrest without doing investigations ... I was not aware because this case was not in my group.”

Advocate Serunye was appointed as supervising DPP for the Lushaba and Khumalo/Mokwele matters, coming in after no DPP was previously appointed to oversee those cases.

“I was coming in as a supervisor... there is no DDPP appointed into the matter, so I am coming in after the fact as a DDPP to oversee the two cases.”

Concerns were raised about the Mokwele matter involving lack of evidence and unsustainable corruption charges.

“My concerns regarding the Mokwele matter ... I was not satisfied that the corruption charge was sustainable on the available evidence and current formulation of the charge sheet and I said so in writing at the time”

Ms Johnson was made aware of concerns about the Lushaba and Mokwele matters personally by Adv Serunye.

“She was, I did that personally”

The investigation cases were grouped into four groups: Lushaba matter, Madondo matter, forklift matter, and PKTT matter. The Mokwele matter was not included in these groups.

“we decided that we are going to group the cases into four groups ... the Lushaba matter ... the Madondo matter ... the forklift matter ... the PKTT matter ... the Mokwele matter ... is not included.”

MR RAPHESU had a serious concern about an A1 affidavit in the Mokwele matter being purportedly commissioned on 6 January without his presence or knowledge, and Mr Adams never mentioned the contents during his information provision.

“So my concern is , on the day in question , there were only four supplementary affidavits that were obtained , and if that purported A 1 is indicated that was obtained on that day , on the 6th , it was not obtained in my presence . So I am basically also indicating that if there is a possibility that it was obtained on that day , I cannot dispute that , but it was obtained not in my presence . I also indicate that the information that Mr Fadiel Adams provided to us on that day , he never said anything about what was contained in that A 1 , and it could not be that it was obtained at that day , because that information was not readily available at that time .”

The Madondo matter was related to a promotion and vetting issues and later became known as the Mokwele matter.

“… the Madondo matter was related to a promotion and had vetting issues ... I do not know when did Mokwele overtake the Madondo.”

M R R A P H E S U raised the issue of early 204 statement taking with Ms Ramsamy and Mr Sesoko, and was advised to concentrate on the Lushaba matter, while the other two persons would continue with their matters.

“No, they gave me feedback. They indicated that I should continue concentrating on the Lushaba matter and the other matter, the other two guys will continue with it... and Mr Padayachee assumed the responsibility of being a lead on that other matter.”

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.””

If Chief Perumal's statement, not produced with the other investigators, forms the basis for warrants and charges in the Mokwele matter, it would be misleading and undermine the ends of justice.

“If in fact, as we know has happened in the Mokwele matter, if the docket that is before the Court and that is disclosed to the accused and that is the basis for the warrants that were obtained for instituting for the charges, it is in fact Perumal's questionable statements, not the ones that were properly taken. That would amount to, it seems to me, that that would have amounted to defeating the ends of justice, lying to the Court, lying to you, misleading everyone that is involved with this and failure to disclose the true contents of the docket. Am I correct in all of that? I am assuming Perumal's are in fact a manufactured statement that is being used.”

The Mokwele matter involved poor grounds for issuing a warrant, investigation, and prosecution, illustrating how IDAC can make a case out of nothing.

“we have seen what happened with the Mokwele matter, which you have conceded the facts are very poor for the issuing of a warrant, for an investigation, let alone for a prosecution, an ongoing prosecution ... the Mokwele matter may well be one of those cases where charges were going to be preferred”

The National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) has the authority to review prosecutorial decisions on matters such as the Lushaba and Mokwele cases, and cases with warrants of arrest for Generals Khumalo and Madondo.

“The NDPP has the right to review, or have to be reviewed the Lushaba matter, which is in court, the Mokwele matter, which is in court, and the matter for which warrants of arrest had already been obtained for Generals Khumalo and Madondo”

IDAC has not investigated any employment, appointment, or recruitment issues besides the Mokwele matter.

“Before this Mokwele matter, or apart from this Mokwele matter, has IDAC investigated any employment, appointment, recruitment issues, ever? No, not that I am aware of”

The first investigation was the General Lushaba matter, followed by the Mokwele matter, then other matters arising from the Section 27 referral.

“Started with the General Lushaba matter. Yes. That is the first matter. The Mokwele matter being ...”

Each major investigation (Lushaba matter, Mokwele matter) has its own separate CAS number.

“I do know that with the Lushaba matter, it is a separate CAS, of course, as is with the Mokwele matter, and that had the other matter been enrolled, it would have also had its own case.”

There are at least six separate investigations relating to a Section 27 referral involving General Lushemba matter, Mokwele matter, and others including Lieutenant-General Khumalo and General Madondo.

“When the prosecutors got the Section 27 referral, Counsel, they broke it up as follows. Started with the General Lushabama matter. Yes. That is the first matter. The Mokwele matter being ... there is a third investigation ... warrants were held over for Lieutenant-General Khumalo and General Madondo ... there are other matters ... five, six ... there would be six.”

There was a complaint about interception of dockets relating to the Mokwele matter, but it was not seen in the docket; it is unclear if IDAC pursued that specific complaint or focused generally on the Section 27 referral initiated by IDAC.

“I did not see that particular investigation in the docket, and I wanted to find out whether IDAC ever pursued that complaint, that specific complaint of interception of Mr Adams' docket, or whether it concentrated more on that part of the Section 27 referral that, as I suggest, was initiated by IDAC.”

The magistrate imposed a bail condition to prevent witnesses from going to the Crime Intelligence office in the Mokwele matter to protect them.

“He gave this condition because he is protecting the witnesses in the Mokwele matter.”

The investigation in the Mokwele matter was complete according to the prosecutor, and there was no risk of interference.

“On the investigation that has been completed according to the prosecutor, your prosecutor, the investigation has been completed, there is no risk of interference.”

In the Mokwele matter, one leg of the matter is already being investigated by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) and IDAC is not involved in it because it falls under DPCI's space; IDAC liaises with DPCI who are busy with their investigations.

“DPCI is already engaged with that , so we are not involved with it because it is also reported that this particular thing took place and when we looked at it , it is in DPCI space , we liaise with them , they are busy with their investigations , so that does not form part of our leg .”

There were about six or seven dockets in the Mokwele matter related complaints, but they were essentially duplicates describing the same case, reduced to four different complaints for investigation, with one already investigated by DPCI; IDAC did not interfere with that docket and took the remaining dockets for investigation.

“When you look at it , you know , the Cape Town dockets and the dockets that were opened here in Gauteng , it is about basically one and the same thing ... it is like duplicated ... I narrowed it down to four different complaints . One of those dockets ... was already being investigated by , I think it is DPCI ... It had to do with something that was purchased . They were busy with that . So that docket there , the actual docket that was opened , we did not interfere with that docket . We took the remaining dockets and , ja , we conducted investigations from there .”

There was a planned workflow of investigations starting with the Lushaba matter followed by the Mokwele matter and then Madondo matter, but investigations were halted due to allegations which led to stepping back.

“We had a plan of action into what we were going to do with our investigations. So we started with the Lushaba matter, first case matter. And then there was going to be a short break and then we go with the second matter which is the Mokwele matter. And after that there will be a short break and then we would have went onto the Madondo matter and then followed through with the others. So if, for example, if there was, what we have done is that we respected that there was going to be a Commission of Inquiry or the Commission of Inquiry, the Commission and the other committee that, with respect, we stepped back because of the allegations and we stepped back.”

There are multiple investigations referred to as the Crime Intelligence matter, including the Lushaba matter, the Mokwele matter, and the Madondo matter, with a fourth matter still under investigation.

“You have the allegations on the different matters that are there. So the first one you had was ... the Lushaba matter. ... The second scenario is the Mokwele matter. And then you have the Madondo matter. I am not going to say about the fourth one, because that is still in the oven.”