Investigators do not independently choose their projects; project assignments and team composition decisions are made by management including chiefs, DPPs, and the Head of office, Mr Sesoko.
“the investigators do not have a say or they do not choose which project they belong to. So what will actually happen is the, let me just call them management, the upper level where chiefs, DPPs, and the Head of office, and Mr Sesoko sits. They are the ones that decide who belongs where, who is going to work where”
Project team members including the DPP, prosecutors, sometimes financial investigators and data capturers are designated and announced in meetings after management decisions.
“you will be called to a meeting where you will be told there is this project, then names of people that will be working on that project will be put on the designation where everybody will know who is going to be working on that group ... you will get who is going to be the DPP on that project. You will also get the name of the prosecutors allocated. Sometimes it will be financial investigators allocated to assist. There will be also data capturers that will be part of that team”
Teams generally include a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDP), but occasionally there may be no DDP in the team, though this is not frequent.
“in the composition of the team, there should be always a DPP, but there will be instances where maybe there is no DPP. Sometimes it happens ... No, it is not often”
Information notes and diary entries in the docket did not assist the investigation, only relaying messages about challenges faced and contact attempts with the complainant.
“there were information notes, there were some entries ... but it was not assisting also ... they were just relaying the message about what is actually happening about the cases.”
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.”
The documents discussed were about victims, people at Crime Intelligence, and related to the procurement of a forklift.
“The documents were basically talking about the victims ... more or less about the people at Crime Intelligence ... information relating to the procurement of the forklift.”
Investigator notes were taken in a way to protect sensitive information by making handwriting difficult to interpret for others.
“we do not write in such a way that ... the person who will have it will not be able to make out what was this about, because we are dealing with sensitive information ... So you try to be as vague as you can, but at least you as the writer, you will be able to remember what was this about.”
Supplementary affidavits commissioned by Mr. Raphesu should be part of what gets disclosed to the accused in the court process if done properly.
“These supplementary affidavits that you put in the docket, would they be what gets, part of what gets disclosed to the accused in the process in court? That should be the way you have put it.”
If supplementary affidavits commissioned by Mr. Raphesu were not in the docket when shared with the accused, it implies those affidavits were swapped or hidden.
“If they were not in the dockets when the dockets were shared with the accused, that can only meant that somebody swapped the affidavits that you commissioned for the affidavit that Advocate Pooe is showing you now. Not only swapping, it can also be that the others were hidden so that they cannot be.”
Full and proper disclosure requires that both Perumal's affidavits and Mr. Raphesu's supplementary affidavits be disclosed as part of the docket.
“Even if there were a statement that was supposed to be obtained by Mr Perumal that day, it was supposed to be marked as supplementary also...for proper and full disclosure both his affidavits and your supplementary affidavits have to be disclosed. They are all part of the docket.”
Mr Raphesu states that in a meeting with Mr Adams and Mr Perumal he did not see the original 27 affidavit concerning the PKTT and that he never saw such affidavit when meeting with Mr Adams.
“You have not seen the original 27 affidavit which speaks about the PKTT. You had not seen it. As far as Mr Perumal and Ms Johnson are concerned, you have never seen that affidavit when you meet with Mr Adams, right? Thank you, Commissioner, yes.”
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 understood from the interaction that Mr Perumal is building on the Section 27 statement and referring to various topics including the PKTT and the forklift issue.
“So when you take his supplementary, you understood, you understood from that interaction that he is building, he knows he is building on the section 27. That he spoke about the various topics.”
Mr Raphesu had a small conversation with Mr Perumal about the mention of a person named Dlamini and informed him that he knew Dlamini, but they left it at that.
“So just to indicate further, the same name of Dlamini also came up. And I also informed him that I know Dlamini. So we had a small conversation about it, but we left it at that.”
Mr Raphesu confirms that affidavits commissioned by Chief Perumal to Cape Town/Pretoria should have been named supplementary affidavits if intended as such, but one affidavit was not preceded by 'supplementary'.
“Just to complete your point about the Cape Town/Pretoria affidavits commissioned by Chief Perumal, you said they too should have been named supplementary affidavits. May I take you to page 3483? That is one of Chief Perumal's affidavits or rather affidavits commissioned by him. You see there between the tram lines at the top of 3483, there it says ‘affidavit’. An affidavit is not preceded by supplementary. That is correct, Chair, I confirm.”
Comparing affidavit 3483 and 3485, the latter commissioned by Mr. Raphesu, the affidavit 3485 was properly preceded by a supplementary affidavit.
“Yes, so whereas if you compare it with the affidavit at 3485, which was commissioned by you, there you do have supplementary before affidavit. That is correct, Chair.”
Obtaining a 204 statement at the beginning of an investigation is problematic as it risks being directed and misled by the suspect involved, potentially diverting the investigation incorrectly.
“And just for clarity, what is a 204? A 204 is a statement that is obtained from... it is a suspect. So we obtain that statement from the suspect that he will incriminate himself on the subject matter... It is a problem because you are running a risk of being misled by this person of interest because he can actually divert or push you into a wrong path... So it is not advisable to start things that way.”
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.”
M R R A P H E S U was instructed to contact Mr Paul O'Sullivan to find out the details of an investigation and whether a case had been opened, and during the interview received two emails from Mr O'Sullivan containing a letter and a report.
“Yes, I was instructed to contact Mr O'Sullivan and to find out from him what he was investigating and whether he had reported or opened a case... he sent me two emails... it is the document that I have already explained, the letter and the report that I have already indicated.”
M R R A P H E S U printed the two annexures and recorded them in the docket for filing and diary entry at page 40.
“Yes, the two annexures, I printed them as they are. Then I recorded them in the docket to be filed. So, I also made an entry in the diary of the docket... At page 40, I confirm, that is the entry.”
Mr Raphesu was accused of leaking information by phoning a person of interest, Mr Cedric Nkabinde, informing him about an ongoing investigation against him and naming the investigator.
“I was being accused of leaking information ... it was indicated that I phoned a person of interest ... I informed him about information that is investigated by IDAC ... and I gave him the name of the investigator who was investigating him”
Mr Raphesu denied leaking information to Mr Nkabinde and stated that it was actually Mr Perumal who phoned Mr Nkabinde and instructed or spoke to him to make allegations.
“I responded to the allegation indicating and denying that I leaked information to Mr Nkabinde... the person who actually phoned Nkabinde, it was Mr Perumal, Chief Perumal ... instructed or maybe spoke to Nkabinde to phone the ID and make those allegations”
Mr Raphesu indicated that there were further charges or allegations against him which he denied in an affidavit (MRR9).
“In the affidavit, I am explaining my position, and I am also indicating that there were further charges, or further accusations that were made. And I am also denying those further allegations”
The further allegations against Mr Raphesu tried to substantiate that he was the person who phoned Mr Nkabinde, but Mr Raphesu maintains it was fabricated.
“They were just trying to substantiate and to put more information that will try to indicate that it was indeed me who phoned... I knew that he would not provide because this thing was just concocted. It was just fabricated to look like it is legit”