The document originated from Advocates Manilala and Ramsami but lacked their signatures, which is unusual compared to normal IDAC practice where their signature and space for comments is expected before approval/sign off by others.
“I hear you , but the document does come from them , with the date . It just did not have the signature . But I take your point . It is done , in IDAC they do put it in a memorandum request , and it is usually signed , there is space for comment , and then form to indicate whether approved or not approved , and then the application is also attached .”
Documents regarding Langlaagte contracts should contain signatures from Advocate Manilala or Advocate Ramsami but the document before the Commission lacks these signatures and instead is signed only by Advocate Johnson, which is unusual.
“It is recommended that , there was supposed to be a signature either from Advocate Manilala or Ramsami , and then for me to be able to agree and sign off the ... That is correct ... Their signature , space for me to comment , and then the signature that followed on 3311 ... That is how normally they would be within IDAC ? That is correct ... I honestly cannot tell you why , but it is different ... The lack of signature ... Yes ... And with full application of mind , you though it appropriate to sign ... Advocate Ramsami ... She brought this application to me on the th . We went through the application , and I then signed the application ... I did apply my mind to the recommendation , the signature notwithstanding ... I can confirm it is not , but I take the point that you are making about how it comes across ...”
IDAC received the dockets on 9th December after requesting them on 6th December, and they were received by Investigator Rapetsu who shared them with Advocate Ramsami for appraisal.
“We requested them on the 6th of December . They were received on the 9th of December . The dockets when they were received , were received by Investigator Rapetsu . Investigator Rapetsu then shared those dockets with Advocate Ramsami , who already had the 27 and she appraised those dockets together with the section 7 .”
There was further engagement in January between Advocate Johnson, Investigator Rapetsu, Advocate Ramsami and Mr Adams to supplement the statements in the dockets.
“what did happen later on in January is that Mr Rapetsu , Advocate Ramsami and Mr Perumal , after having gone through those dockets together with the section 27 , then had further engagements with Mr Adams in order to amplify or supplement the statements that were in the docket”
Investigator Rapetsu received the dockets and shared them with Advocate Ramsami who appraised them with section 7 alongside section 27.
“The dockets when they were received , were received by Investigator Rapetsu . Investigator Rapetsu then shared those dockets with Advocate Ramsami , who already had the 27 and she appraised those dockets together with the section 7 .”
After initial appraisal, Mr Rapetsu, Advocate Ramsami, and Mr Perumal engaged with Mr Adams to supplement statements that were not up to standard or sufficient.
“Mr Rapetsu , Advocate Ramsami and Mr Perumal , after having gone through those dockets together with the section 27 , then had further engagements with Mr Adams in order to amplify or supplement the statements that were in the docket , which I guess by interpretation means they were not up to standard or sufficient .”
Advocate Ramsami obtained the list of names from Mr Perumal after engaging with Mr Adams regarding the section 27 affidavit and application.
“Advocate Ramsami indicated last night that she had got the list of names from my office, wherein I had indicated that this list had been provided by Mr Perumal after his having engaged with Mr Adams”
Advocate Johnson requests to see the application that Advocate Ramsami would have submitted, asserting that it should link the people named to the offences they are alleged to have committed.
“I would just like to, if I can, have sight of the application... The application would have had to link them to the offences, and I would just like to see that part.”
Advocate Baloyi SC states that linking names to specific factual allegations would not be in the submission from the prosecutor, but in whatever submission was made by Chief Perumal, who would have explained why the people were implicated and must be included in the list.
“The linking of these names to any specific factual allegation would not be in the submission from the prosecutor. It would be in whatever submission was made to you by Chief Perumal. So the one that gives, by the time you give the list to the prosecutor, Ms Ramsami... already have been told these people are implicated...”
Commissioner Baloyi states that the prosecution submission would not link names to specific factual allegations, but that such linking would occur in submissions made to the advocate by Chief Perumal, and it would justify including names in the list for the application.
“The linking of these names to any specific factual allegation would not be in the submission from the prosecutor to you, it would be in whatever submission was made to you by Chief Perumal... So the one that gives, by the time you give the list to the prosecutor, Ms Ramsami, in this case, you already have been told these people are implicated.”
The witness was told by Ms Ramsami that the list was obtained from Chief Perumal, and the witness confirmed having spoken to Chief Perumal about the list.
“once you were told by Ms Ramsami that you told her that you got it from Chief Perumal”
Advocate Johnson acknowledges that the additional names (items 4 to 12) presented in the annexure were not in the section 27 affidavit and he did not inquire from Ms Ramsami where she got the names from.
“This application came to me from the prosecutor ... I did not have that [engagement with her].”
Advocate Johnson confirms that he acted on the basis of the section 27 affidavit containing only three names, and Ms Ramsami put together the additional eight names not reflected in the affidavit.
“As I indicated, according to me she only had the 27. And she would have then put together the 8.”
Advocate Johnson accepts that the names from 4 to 12 are not from the section 27 affidavit and someone must have given them to Ms Ramsami.
“You accept that it is not from the section 27 affidavit that she got the names. You accept that someone must have, if they come from her, someone must have given her these names.”
Advocate Johnson acknowledges that there was a conversation with Advocate Ramsami from which the additional list of names emerged, but he does not have an independent recollection of it and will need to follow up to find out the details.
“I am saying she and I must have had a conversation and I will follow that up because I do not have an independent recollection of a conversation and I will, she would have to indicate then if she had a conversation with somebody else. I would not just have blindly signed it without finding out from her.”
Advocate Johnson received a section 7 referral and gave it to Advocate Ramsami for further perusal and determining next steps.
“I received the section 7 referral. Once I received the referral, I myself perused the referral. It then decided to give the referral to the team of Advocate Manilal. ... I gave it to the advocate in his team, which is Advocate Ramsami.”
Advocate Ramsami perused the section 27 affidavit and applied for a section 28(13) preliminary investigation authorization on 20 December.
“Advocate Ramsami then perused the section 27 and brought a section 28(13) application ... And in doing that, she applied for a section 28(13), which is a preliminary investigation on the 20th of December.”
The section 27 affidavit had references to dockets that were not previously available, so Advocate Ramsami sought to obtain those dockets first before amplifying the section 27 affidavit.
“She realized that there were references made to dockets, and because we did not have those dockets, the best way ... is to first get those dockets, because he is talking to allegations in these dockets, and he makes reference thereto.”
Adv Johnson instructed Advocate Ramsami to prepare a section 28(13) application following the section 27 affidavit, but the application document is not currently in the subpoenaed documents.
“Advocate Ramsami prepared the section 8 (13) application... Are you able to provide one?... I give an instruction to Advocate Ramsami and the section 27 affidavit... Correct.”
Ms Johnson received a section 7 referral, perused it, and allocated the referral to a team led by Advocate Manilal, specifically Advocate Ramsami, to assess the sufficiency and next steps.
“I received the section 7 referral. Once I received the referral, I myself perused the referral. I then decided to give the referral to the team of Advocate Manilal. ... I gave it to Advocate Ramsami. The purpose is ... they would then peruse, see whether there is sufficiency, what next steps must flow.”
Advocate Ramsami applied for a section 28(13) preliminary investigation on 20 December to determine whereabouts of dockets.
“she applied for a section 28(13), which is a preliminary investigation on the 20th of December. ... for us then to have an authorized investigation in order to determine where these dockets were.”
Advocate Ramsami did not make an application on 6 December; the authorization to initiate the section 28(13) preliminary investigation was given on that day.
“so it cannot be on the 6th of December that Advocate Ramsami made an application, because you are only making a decision on the 6th of September to initiate a 28(13) preliminary investigation.”
Advocate Johnson states that Advocate Ramsami agreed with the contents of the section 27 affidavit and did not express any view that it was deficient or non-compliant with section 27.
“When she brought the section 28 application, I realized that she agreed with the contents of the section 27.”
Advocate Johnson confirms that Advocate Ramsami drafts the section 8(13) application purely based on the section 27 affidavit, without seeking extraneous documents.
“She works purely on the affidavit? That is correct.”
Advocate Johnson authorized a preliminary investigation after receiving the section 28(13) application from Advocate Ramsami on 6 December.
“You then subsequently received, I take it the section 28 (13) application from Advocate Ramsami and then you authorised the preliminary investigation.”
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.”
After receiving the section 28(13) application from Advocate Ramsami, a preliminary investigation was authorized.
“And you then subsequently received, I take it the section 28(13) application from Advocate Ramsami and then you authorised the preliminary investigation.”