Investigating Director

Advocate Serunye states that in their experience, the Investigating Director (ID) has never instructed them to draft applications under sections 28(1) or (13), but the ID makes recommendations and notes on such applications.

“No, it has never happened to me in that sense, but there are instances where, let us say, my memo would ask her to authorize the matter in terms of 28(1A), but after going through what would have been presented before him, she, I know of one matter where she would have said, no ... she then makes notes on the memo. She sort of recommends or does not recommend. When she recommends, she makes notes, or if she does not recommend, she also makes notes saying why.”

Advocate Serunye confirms that any application to the ID is made by them first, and the ID then makes a recommendation; the ID has never approached them to initiate an application independently.

“Indeed, Commissioner, I would have made an application and she then makes a recommendation. She has never approached me to say I ...”

The reporting structure of IDAC includes the Investigating Director (Advocate Andrea Johnson) at the top, with Head of Investigations and Operations (Mr Matthew Sesoko) reporting directly to the ID, alongside four Deputy Directors who also report to the ID.

“The Investigating Director, Advocate Andrea Johnson, heads the unit. The Head of Investigations and Operations, the position is held by Mr Matthew Sesoko. He sits at the same level as Deputy Directors and reports directly to the Investigating Director.”

Operationally, teams report to Mr Sesoko, who acts like a CEO managing daily operations and briefs the Investigating Director.

“Yes. Chair, we report to Mr Sesoko, we brief him as the investigation, as we are busy with the investigation, we call him, we even make reports, quarterly reports and there is a structure which he is heading where on a monthly basis we meet and we then present these cases to him with a view that he will then brief the ID on how far the cases are, where we need resources will inform him, where we are having challenges, we inform him.”

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 Investigating Director reports to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Parliament, including appearances when called.

“The Investigating Director in turn reports to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and also to Parliament as and when she is called.”

The group would deliberate and compile memoranda for Investigating Director (ID) to authorize investigations based on Commission reports, requesting authorization under section 28(1A) or 28(13).

“Once a possible matter was identified from a Commission report, we would deliberate as a group, and I would then compile a memorandum addressed to the Investigating Director motivating for the authorization of an investigation. In the said application, I would also then request the ID, if she finds that to be in order, to authorize the matter, either in terms of section 28(1A) or 28(13).”

Approval of investigations includes designation of officials such as financial investigators, data analysts, and prosecutors, subject to Investigating Director's approval.

“In the application, ask her to authorize the designation of the officials that I would have listed in the application, financial investigators, investigators, data analysts, and so on. The ID would then consider the application, and if it is approved, we then get a feedback via the project manager, then we start working on the matter.”

The Investigating Director reviews and approves or suggests changes to the team composition, including possible inclusion of additional investigators or prosecutors.

“She would suggest, maybe looking at the balance of the team, that you still need another prosecutor, either a junior or a senior, without specifying a name, without recommending includes so-and-so. She would just advise, beef up your team, you still need another data analyst to this or that, but without specifying a name.”

Advocate Serunye described the meeting with the Investigating Director as very short and more of an instruction than a consultation, being told what to do without raising concerns about a junior lead prosecutor.

“It was a very short meeting, being told what to do, and it was the end of the meeting... It was an instruction, more than anything.”

Advocate Serunye recognized accused number 4 as a person from the same township with whom he had played soccer, leading to his recusal from the matter due to personal association.

“I recognised accused number 4 as a person known to me. We come from the same township and had played soccer together, a fact I had not previously appreciated. I consider that this personal association precluded my continued involvement in the matter, and I submitted a memorandum to the Investigating Director requesting to be recused from the matter.”

Advocate Serunye was requested by the Investigating Director to complete a section 63 bail application before formally withdrawing from the case involving Josias Lekalakala.

“the Investigating Director informed me that she had considered my request and granted it, but asked that I first complete the section 63 bail application before withdrawing from the matter ...”

Ordinarily the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or if non available, the chief and lead prosecutor attend and allocate the matter at inception, not the Investigating Director Advocate Johnson.

“Ordinarily the DPP's are the ones that take over those duties. And if may be there is no Deputy Director, then it will be the chief and the lead prosecutor.”

The Investigating Director (ID) gave evidence indicating that the PKTT was not part of the ongoing investigations referred to in section 27, which was in conflict with the complaint document seen by Mr. Raphesu.

“the ID gave evidence relating to the investigations that were ongoing and she mentioned that the PKTT was not part of the investigation... I was shocked because the section 27 that I saw that information was there.”

Mr. Raphesu was shocked by the ID's evidence because it was not entirely correct and appeared false in part.

“I was shocked that the information that she was putting there was not entirely correct.”

Section 28(1)(a) and 28(13) were used interchangeably in summonses under preparatory investigation, with section 28(13) referring specifically to preparatory investigations conducted when the Investigating Director suspects an offence is being committed or attempted.

“Just the reference to 28(1)(a), on some of the other summonses under the preparatory investigation there, it specifically says 28(13). This one says 28(1)(a). Was it used interchangeably, because it does seem to me that on this one, and if you, I think you have been given a copy of the Act, if you go to 28(1)(a), is: “If the Investigating Director has reason to suspect that a specified offence has been or is being committed or that an attempt has been or is being made to”

The investigations authorized under section 8(13) by the Investigating Director pertained to all allegations of fraud and corruption as per dockets reviewed, but the initial statements by Mr Adams were considered flimsy and other dockets required additional statements.

“The investigation was authorised by the Investigating Director in terms of section 8(13) of the NPA Act into allegations of fraud and corruption... original dockets by Adams were exactly what General Chamane says. They were flimsy. So they took additional statements”

Section 28(13) of the NPA Act allows the Investigating Director to hold a preparatory investigation by hearing or obtaining evidence to determine if there are reasonable grounds for a full investigation.

“Section 28(13) of the NPA Act says that: “If the Investigating Director considers it necessary to hear evidence in order to enable him or her to determine if there are reasonable grounds to conduct an investigation in terms of subsection 1A, the Investigating Director may hold a preparatory investigation.””

Section 28(13) allows the Investigating Director to hear evidence to determine if reasonable grounds exist to conduct a formal investigation under section 28(1).

“28 (13) allows you as the Investigating Director, specifically single you out , Advocate , to hear evidence to enable you to determine if there are reasonable grounds to conduct an investigation . So it is a process to enable you to make a decision whether or not to investigate .”

Allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams are deemed quite sensitive and contain allegations of criminal conduct, leading the officer to request the Investigating Director to consider investigating them.

“Due to the nature of the allegations made by the Honourable Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive and which contains allegations of criminal conduct, the officer requests the Investigating Director to consider investigating the same.”

Allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams are quite sensitive and contain allegations of criminal misconduct, prompting the Minister's office to request the Investigating Director to consider the matter.

“Due to the nature of the allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive, and which contains allegations of criminal misconduct, this officer requests the Investigating Director to consider the same.”

There are allegations of criminal conduct made by Honourable Fadiel Adams that are deemed quite sensitive and an investigating director was requested to consider investigating the same.

“due to the nature of the allegations made by the Honourable Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive and which contains allegations of criminal conduct, the officer requests the Investigating Director to consider investigating the same”

A letter from Mr Nkabinde contained allegations implicating senior members of the SAPS and requested the Investigating Director to consider investigating alleged criminal misconduct by Honourable Fadiel Adams.

“a letter from Mr Nkabinde ... Allegations contained therein implicate very senior members of the SAPS and are reviewed in a serious light ... due to the nature of the allegations made by Fadiel Adams, Honourable Fadiel Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive and which contains allegations of criminal misconduct, this officer requests the Investigating Director to consider investigating the same.”

The allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams are quite sensitive and contain allegations of criminal misconduct, prompting the Minister's office to request the Investigating Director to consider the matter.

“Due to the nature of the allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive, and which contains allegations of criminal misconduct, this officer requests the Investigating Director to consider the same.”

Investigations under Section 28(13) involve preparatory investigation processes where evidence is 'heard' through interviews which are often recorded and statements taken.

“the Investigating Director may hold a preparatory investigation ... It is the conducting of the interview with the witnesses ... More often than not, the 28's are a recorded process, or it is an interview process, and then the statement is taken.”

The procedure after receiving the section 27 affidavit involves determining if it falls within the mandate, and if necessary, instructing a preparatory investigation by the investigating director via a section 28(13) application.

“If the Investigating Director considers it necessary to hear evidence in order to enable him or her to determine if there are reasonable grounds to conduct an investigation in terms of subsection (1)(a), the Investigating Director may hold a preparatory investigation.”

It is a practical consideration that the Investigating Director does not decide who must be investigated; the application is brought to them and they apply their mind, becoming the decision-maker per section 28 of the Act.

“the Investigating Director would then have to apply her mind to the application on what offences, persons, etcetera, must then be investigated. That then becomes my decision, or the Investigating Director's decision in terms of section 28 of the Act”

No undue influence is exerted by the Investigating Director on investigators or prosecutors to act outside evidence, law, or prosecutorial policy.

“you say you have not instructed or otherwise influenced any investigator or prosecutor to act other than in accordance with the evidence, the law, the applicable prosecutorial policy”

The Investigating Director and other senior managers engage with presentation teams to clarify evidence and question witnesses during briefing sessions.

“In those presentations, myself and whomever the other managers are that are present, are allowed to engage with the presentation. Sometimes it may not be as clear how a person is linked. There might be questions around a witness”

Even if the Investigating Director is absent, operations continue led by heads of operations and senior managers.

“Even if the Investigating Director is not in the office, it does not mean these operations do not happen. There are other senior persons. The Head of Operations, Mr Sesoko, is there together with other senior managers”

Final decisions on whether to arrest or summon an accused person lie with a team beyond the Investigating Director, including lead prosecutors, lead investigators, and heads of operations.

“When myself and those managers who have been briefed leave the room, you have a lead prosecutor and lead investigator, and they also have the benefit of the two chief criminal investigators, as well as Mr Sesoko, who is the head of operations, and they will deliberate on what we have suggested , and they take it on board and make the final decision because the execution is theirs, not the ID”

The Investigating Director and senior managers make suggestions, but the final decision on arrests is not theirs and rests with another team, possibly at IDAC.

“[p123 #6 ADV SELLO SC] And we will come back to this just so I understand. Specifically, the aspect Commissioner Baloyi just engaged you on , whether or not an accused person is arrested or someone took what you say , it is not your final decision . It is not yours.”

Investigating Director has no power to overturn arrest decisions made by the other decision-making team.

“So where that team has made that decision , you have no power to overturn it as the ID”

No powers to overturn arrest decisions have been exercised by the Investigating Director; however, suggestions are made and often taken on board.

“[p124 #2 ADV JOHNSON]”

There is uncertainty or lack of clarity about whether the Investigating Director has the legal power to overturn decisions.

“Do you have that power as a matter of fact and law, or you do not? Whether you have exercised it or not is neither here nor there for the moment. Do you understand yourself to have such a power?”

If an investigating director disagrees with actions taken by investigators, the director has the authority to override or require correction of those actions, including preventing proceedings from continuing if there is insufficient evidence.

“if the investigating director disagrees with anything, I have the authority to then say this cannot proceed, this must not happen, and/or as I indicated earlier, you have to correct this. If we do not have it corrected, there is insufficiency of evidence, it cannot proceed.”

Investigating Director cannot seek to influence investigations, but can engage in presentations and ask questions to clarify evidence.

“I t i s n o t t o s e e k t o i n f l u e n c e . In t h o s e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , m y s e l f a n d w h o m e v e r t h e o t h e r m a n a g e r s a r e t h a t a r e p r e s e n t , a r e a l l o w e d t o e n g a g e w i t h t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n . S o m e t i m e s i t m a y n o t b e a s c l e a r h o w a p e r s o n i s l i n k e d . T h e r e m i g h t b e q u e s t i o n s a r o u n d a w i t n e s s . W h y d o y o u h a v e a 2 0 4 w i t n e s s ? W h a t d o y o u h a v e t h a t c o r r o b o r a t e s ?”

Investigating Director is not always present but senior managers led by Head of Operations, Mr Sesoko, conduct similar operational discussions and planning.

“Even i f t h e I n v e s t i g a t i n g D i r e c t o r i s n o t i n t h e o ff i c e , i t d o e s n o t m e a n t h e s e o p e r a t i o n s d o n o t h a p p e n . T h e r e a r e o t h e r s e n i o r p e r s o n s . T h e H e a d o f O p e r a t i o n s , M r S e s o k o , i s t h e r e t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r s e n i o r m a n a g e r s , a n d t h e y w o u l d c o n v e n e i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n .”

Colonel Padayachee admits he did not have authorization from the Investigating Director to investigate further related matters beyond section 28(1)(a) referral authority.

“No, sir.”

Colonel Padayachee states the appointment and designations of the investigative team for the Mokwele case are done by the investigating director with their management.

“The appointments and designations of the team is done by the investigating director with their management, that is what I know.”

Col. Padayachee explained the process from referral to investigation, stating that the Intake Committee decides if a matter falls within IDAC's mandate and the Investigating Director then authorises a preliminary investigation under section 28(13).

“Once the Intake Committee decides whether or not this falls within the mandate of IDAC, the Investigating Director, the management and the Investigating Director authorises a section 28(13) investigation, which is a preliminary investigation”