The Magistrate recused himself from a bail-related matter because he had been subpoenaed by the Commission, which was found to be legally unsound upon review and the recusal decision was challenged.
“On or about 14 October 2025 ... the Magistrate recused himself on the basis that he had been subpoenaed by the Commission ... I was of the view that the reason given was not legally sound, and after consulting the team and Investigating Director, I ... launched an application to review the recusal ... the reasons that he was giving were not in line with the established principle of recusal”
Charge of corruption did not make sense as contending a future corrupt act is pure speculation.
“At paragraph 48, he explains why the charges of corruption did not make sense, in particular that to contend that a future corrupt act would be purely speculation, as observed by the Commission would be fortune-telling.”
Mr Raphesu intends to open a criminal case but delayed opening to not appear as countering the ongoing investigation into him, hoping the Commission will provide assistance with investigators to handle it.
“I am intending to open a criminal case... I did not want it to look like I am countering whatever they were investigating against me... I am hoping that the Commission will also assist by providing investigators to take over that case.”
The Commission issued a subpoena to Advocate Johnson requesting specific dockets, emails, and communications.
“on the 7th of July 2025/26, the Commission issued you with a subpoena requesting that you submit certain documents, and that subpoena is dated the 7th of July 2026.”
ADV SELLO SCDay 150 · 29 Jul 2026Refers to: 2026-07-07Evidence: Subpoena dated 7 July 2026
Commissioner Baloyi requested documents or information pertaining to former Minister Bheki Cele’s siphoning of secret funds.
“Commissioner Baloyi had specifically requested documents or information pertaining to the former Minister Bheki Cele’s siphoning, I think, of the secret fund”
Advocate Johnson with Advocate Mhaga from the NPA called Mr Sesoko to engage and attempt to retrieve the requested documents related to the secret fund siphoning by Minister Bheki Cele.
“And what I did together with Advocate Mhaga from the NPA, we did call Mr Sesoko... I told him what the Commission is looking for... he undertook to engage them, find it if he can, and will then liaise directly with Mr Mhaga”
ADV Johnson indicated that he learned for the first time in the Commission on 6 January 2025 that the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT) was under investigation or inquiry.
“you indicate that you learned for the first time in this Commission yesterday that there was a complaint regarding PKTT”
There is a suggestion of a 'hidden hand' involved in the engagement concerning the summons for PKTT-related documents, but no confirmation or direct knowledge of such involvement is admitted by Adv Johnson.
“That there is a hidden hand, because that is an engagement this Commission would be fully entitled to have and might arrive at an answer. ... you have neither any knowledge of that hand, nor are you a part thereof. That is correct.”
A complaint dated 21 July 2026 was submitted to the Commission from attorneys Malebye & Maleho Incorporated on behalf of Sergeant FEN Kosi about unlawful conduct by IDAC during an investigation linked to the Medicare 24 contract.
“I would like to invite you to CJC 387 ... complaint addressed to the Commission ... dated the 21st of July 2026 ... complaint in relation to unlawful conduct by IDAC ... on behalf of Sergeant FEN kosi”
If no basis is found in the file for allegations against certain officers, this raises a legal issue for IDAC and the Commission.
“if we find that there is no basis for what is contained in Annexure B against these officers, what does that mean for IDAC and the Commission and the law?”
Colonel Padayachee testified before the Commission that the investigation was confined to the recommendation and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele and he could not account for how other names got included in the summons.
“Colonel Padayachee appeared before the Commission and was engaged on this document testified that this investigation was confined to the recommendation and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele... he could not account for how the names of 1.1 to 1.5 and 1.7 found its way into this summons”
Section 28 summons are not legally supported by the evidence in the Section 27 affidavit and associated A1 statements, making any investigation arising from these summons legally problematic.
“Then the investigation is problematic. Whatever follows is problematic.”
The Commission needs to update exhibit files due to potentially contradictory documents filed by Advocate Johnson that require review before testimony.
“... it has become necessary for the Commission to update the exhibit files, because we have what could potentially be documents contradicting the very documents she has filed and I was moving on to that topic now.”
The video footage is an inappropriate form of evidence because the underlying issue is a medical issue; such footage not being analyzed or responded to by a clinician is inappropriate secondary evidence.
“on its own, not being led through a clinician and not being analysed by a clinician or responded to by a clinician is inappropriate secondary evidence”
The Commission relies on evidence including CCTV footage, Apple Pay data, and geolocation data, but the clinician asserts that such evidence only shows movement and does not determine the clinical issue of why the client cannot attend the Commission to give evidence.
“The medical practitioner says that the Commission relies on a bunch of evidence such as CCTV footage, Apple Pay data regarding payment accounts, movement data gleaned through geolocation data... is all that demonstrates is movement of some kind... is of no value in determining the clinical issue as to why the client cannot attend or attend the Commission to give evidence”
There is a concern about the publication of exact GPS coordinates from mobile data geolocation information due to the risk of reverse-engineering exact locations, especially near sensitive facilities in Durbanville suburb.
“when it is projected onto the Commission's screen, if the Commission intends on doing that, to prevent the publication of exact GPS coordinates is because it opens the threat that the GPS coordinates, when projected onto the screen, can be used to reverse-engineer exact locations ... I am raising a concern in respect of the facility, for example, and geolocation data near the facility ... in respect to the suburb that the facility is located in, that the name of the suburb is not mentioned explicitly”
The video footage related to the matter is unnecessary, inappropriate as evidence, and does not serve any legitimate purpose, particularly given that allegations have been admitted by the client and representatives already.
“I am going to respectfully submit that the video footage is unnecessary today, and more than being unnecessary, it is also not appropriate and does not serve a legitimate purpose ... the allegations made by the Commission have now been admitted, answered to, and amplified by my client and the people deposing on his behalf ... the footage is not needed to prove admitted facts”
The Commission's complaint regarding the client's postponement is medically based and therefore secondary evidence like CCTV or geolocation data without clinical analysis is inappropriate.
“...what underlies the Commission's concern and the Commission's complaint regarding my client's postponement is a medical issue ... this geodata information or CCTV footage or whatever it is, on its own, not being led through a clinician and not being analysed by a clinician or responded to by a clinician is inappropriate secondary evidence which is being used to gain say the medical opinion expressed about that exact approach”
The Commission's case doubts the medical evidence of Mr Carrim's treating clinician based on his presence at X place recorded on CCTV footage.
“the thesis underlying their opposition to the postponement and why they want to tied down my client to a specific date is to say the fact of these movements, the fact of these payments, the fact that he is not in the hospital all the time brings into doubt the medical diagnosis that the clinician has given him”
The Commission's case challenges the medical evidence on the basis that Mr Carrim was at a shopping complex in Durbanville, which contradicts his clinical diagnosis.
“the very attitude of the Commission through the Evidence Leaders is not to say that, oh, this is a benign piece of evidence, the CCTV footage... The entire thesis underlying their opposition to the postponement and why they want to tied down my client to a specific date is to say the fact of these movements, the fact of these payments, the fact that he is not in the hospital all the time bring into doubt the medical diagnosis that the clinician has given him.”
The Commission's expert report does not dispute the clinical observation of Mr Carrim's treating doctor, but raises two collateral issues, including inappropriate suggestion that Mr Carrim's doctor should perform an Independent Medical Examination (IME).
“There is an expert report, ... put up by the Commission, which generously does not actually dispute that clinical observation. What it does is it speaks to two collateral issues. ... he talks about it being inappropriate for Mr Carrim's physician... to perform what is called an independent medical exam on Mr Carrim... that IME cannot be used as a basis to impugn Mr Carrim's medical doctor's clinical observations because Mr Carrim's medical doctor never performed an IME.”
The Commission's expert argues that Mr Carrim's treating doctor is not independent enough to perform an IME, which leads to undermining the clinical evidence presented by that doctor.
“the Commission's expert... says that the treatment Mr Carrim is receiving can never be an IME exercise because he is not, inverted commas, independent enough of Mr Carrim... seems to undermine the clinical evidence in front of you from that doctor is to say he is not entitled to perform an IME and what he is given you is not an IME.”
The Commission's legal power to compel examinations is questioned and opposed by ADV PREMHID, who distinguished the Commission's powers from those of a High Court in civil proceedings.
“That was opposition and you even, that was the context in which your referred to the rule in the context of civil proceedings, you said, you questioned our power... Our legal power to even compel. ... That is opposition”
There were letters written to Mr Carrim's attorneys requesting him to avail himself for an independent medical assessment, but there was no known positive response; instead the Commission faced vehement opposition to the possibility of such an assessment.
“at least two letters... were written to Mr Carrim's attorneys requesting him to avail himself for an assessment by an independent doctor. Initially there was no response and was there a response the second time around? ... what we got was the vehement argument by you against that as a possibility”
ADV PREMHID accepts the history and acknowledges the need to read the transcript to clarify the extent of opposition to an independent medical assessment and the nature of instructions from Mr Carrim.
“No, I accept that and I am not going to try and relitigate that history now. It was on the characterization issue about voluntary or compelled...”
The expert report presented by the Commission expressly does not offer an opinion on the underlying medical assessment made by Mr Carrim's clinician.
“the expert report put up by the Commission itself expressly qualifies itself by saying I do not offer an opinion on the underlying medical assessment made by that clinician”
There is a threat of referral for prosecution if Mr Carrim does not appear again before the Commission, regardless of medical advice not to appear.
“there is a threat of a referral for prosecution if Mr Carrim does not appear again, whether advised or not advised to not appear based on his medical condition”
If Mr Carrim does not appear again before the Commission, the Commission's Evidence Leaders will not entertain any postponement requests and will ask the Commission to make conclusions on the basis of unanswered evidence.
“the Commission's Evidence Leaders were emphatic that if Mr Carrim does not come again, they are not going to entertain this business about a postponement or no postponement, they were going to ask the Commission to make conclusions”
There are many new allegations introduced in the answering affidavit to the Commission, including an accusation of trial ambush which is contested and has innocent explanations.
“there are many new allegations... a statement made about trial ambush... made clearly for Mr Carrim and his legal team and the deponents on his behalf to answer, and then they are ambushed after the fact”
ADV PREMHID accepts history of opposition but will re-review transcript and may clarify or apologize if wrong about prior positions on compelled vs voluntary assessments.
“I accept that and I am not going to try and relitigate that history now. I think I am going to go and read the transcript because at this stage I am going to respectfully say recollections may vary and then I can come back to you and reply and clarify that as needed because I am, as I say I remember the debate having happened slightly differently and it was on the characterization issue about voluntary or compelled and it did not go beyond specifics about what if it is voluntary then what is the instruction in the way that it was put to me today... If I am wrong about that then obviously I will be wrong and I will apologize to the Commission accordingly, but if I can move on.”
There is no principled objection by the treating doctor to the idea of interposing another doctor, provided engagement occurs and conditions agreed upon.
“he is given a report, then he must be engaged with about his report by the Commission and if we land at not being satisfied out of our engagement with him arising from his report, then he does not have an objection to the interposition subject to whatever he says there . I understand you and the Chairperson to have formulated it as follows, that as matters stand, the doctor does not have an objection to an interposition provided there is a condition, the conditions in there met. Am I misunderstanding?”
There is no rebuttal expert medical evidence challenging the direct medical expert evidence regarding Mr Carrim's condition in the Commission, so alternative evidence sources should be viewed with caution.
“so far as there is direct medical expert evidence in front of you is concerned, there is no rebuttal of that, it remains unchallenged”
The Commission's own expert report expressly declines to offer an opinion on the underlying medical assessment made by Mr Carrim's clinician, indicating limitations in the alternative evidence's clinical value.
“the expert report put up by the Commission itself expressly qualifies itself by saying I do not offer an opinion on the underlying medical assessment made by that clinician”
There is a challenge regarding the reliability and manner of obtaining some electronic data evidence in the Commission, questioning its weight compared to direct medical evidence.
“there is a challenge to some of the evidence in front of you, how it was obtained, but more than just simply how it was obtained, whether it is reliable because of identified instances of errors in that evidence”
Any weight assigned to electronic evidence should be less than that assigned to direct medical evidence in assessing Mr Carrim's medical condition.
“to the extent that any weight is going to be placed on that you should place less weight on that than you should the direct medical evidence in front of you”
There is a threat of referral for prosecution if Mr Carrim does not appear again, regardless of medical advice about his condition.
“there is a threat of a referral for prosecution if Mr Carrim does not appear again, whether advised or not advised to not appear based on his medical condition”
Evidence Leaders had previously warned that if Mr Carrim did not appear again before the Commission, they would not consider postponements and would ask the Commission to make conclusions based on the unanswered pieces of evidence.
“the Commission's Evidence Leaders were emphatic that if Mr Carrim does not come again, they are not going to entertain this business about a postponement or no postponement, they were going to ask the Commission to make conclusions”
There are many new allegations introduced in Mr Carrim's answering affidavit, including a claim of a trial ambush, but there are innocent explanations for these allegations.
“there are many new allegations that are introduced in the answering affidavit of the Commission, and particularly in the correspondence, ... there is a statement made about trial ambush ... there are innocent explanations for these things”
Mr Carrim has suffered another medical incident and cannot provide instructions regarding the matter; the treating doctor has expressed frustration over the pressure Mr Carrim is under from attorneys relating to the Commission business.
“Mr Carrim has suffered another medical incident and that no instructions can be obtained by him in respect of what Chair has put to me... the clinician has expressed his frustration to Mr Carrim's attorneys because in his view, his client's position is deteriorating as a result of the pressure being put on him by his attorneys in respect of Commission and Commission business.”
A medical report supporting the postponement request was not initially provided and had to be obtained by the Commission after requests from Mr Carrim's attorneys.
“It required requests from the attorneys for the Commission to obtain the necessary medical report to underpin the postponement request that was made.”
All postponements until 15 July were granted on the understanding that Mr Carrim was hospitalized and his movements were restricted.
“all of the postponements were granted, we were permitted on the understanding by the Commission and the Evidence Leaders that Mr Carrim was hospitalized and that his movement was restricted”
Mr Carrim was hospitalized and his movements were restricted, with all postponements of proceedings initially permitted on that understanding until the whistleblower reports on 14 July questioned it.
“Mr Carrim was hospitalized and that his movement was restricted”
The doctor’s medical assessment and report to the Commission were based on flawed factual foundation due to lack of full knowledge of Mr Carrim's comings and goings from the facility.
“the doctor’s own medical assessment and the report that was furnished to the Commission appears to have been based on a flawed factual foundation”
The treating doctor's assessment is unchallenged and must be accepted by the Commission, leading to circular reasoning that no independent assessment is allowed and no challenge is possible.
“accept what, his says ... no, you cannot have an independent assessment ... no one is able to assess the treating doctor's determination is unanswered ... it is unchallenged and so it must be accepted ... it is circular reasoning”
The doctor's report is not definitive and breaches professional guidelines by being provided by the treating doctor who is inherently subjective and an advocate for the patient, thus the assessment of capacity should be independent and forensic.
“the argument that the doctor's report is definitive is ... a breach of the professional guidelines ... the treating doctor should not be the person to provide an independent assessment ... the individual's capacity ... the objective determination of the capacity”
Despite multiple requests, there was never a positive response from the other party to the request for an independent medical examination; this lack of response amounts to a binding acceptance of the treating doctor's assessment.
“there was never a positive response to this, which is yes or no ... so why not? ... no response ... our expert is unchallenged ... and therefore ... the Commission must be now bound by that doctor's assessment”
Foreign authorities support the principle that if a second opinion, an independent medical opinion, is requested, it should be permitted and that commissions, tribunals, and courts are not bound by expert opinions but must consider sufficiency of evidence including independent expert evidence.
“if there is a request for a second opinion , an independent medical opinion , that should be permitted . And the foreign authorities support the same ... a commission and a tribunal and a court are not bound by an expert opinion ... standard is for sufficiency of evidence and , importantly , independent expert evidence on the issue”
There has been a reply to the Commission's expert's report at paragraph 16 of the replying affidavit on pages 334 to 335, addressing inaccuracies raised about the treating doctor's affidavits and reports.
“You will find that reply at paragraph 16 of the replying affidavit, at pages 334 to 335”
The Commission is not impugning the treating doctor but rather questioning both the doctor's bona fides and clinical expertise in their affidavit, as confirmed by the doctor himself.
“the Commission is not impugning the treating doctor, in effect that is exactly what they are doing, both his bona fides and his clinical expertise, and in the affidavit that is filed in those paragraphs and pages I referred you to, and that it is confirmed by the doctor himself”
The treating doctor is not performing an independent medical assessment for the inquiry but is giving clinical opinions; any engagement between the independent doctor and the treating doctor should occur before the interview to understand the treatment plan.
“Our doctor has never pretended once to be performing an independent medical assessment inquiry. He is the treating doctor, and he is giving his clinical opinions...the engagement between the independent doctor and the treating doctors should occur before the interview by the treating doctor”
The Evidence Leaders have not materially responded to questions about the medical examination, including whether it can be voluntary or compulsory and whether there is power to order it.
“the Evidence Leaders who have not responded materially to those questions”
If the Commission believes it has the power to order an independent medical examination, it must exercise that power, but there is no direct answer provided to clarify the source of that power and it is an ultra vires question.
“if the Commission believes it has the power, then it must exercise its power...if you do not have the power, you do not have the power. That is an ultravires question”
The Commission is impugning both the bona fides and clinical expertise of the treating doctor, despite claims to the contrary.
“even though my learned friends says that they are not, the Commission is not impugning the treating doctor, in effect that is exactly what they are doing, both his bona fides and his clinical expertise”
The doctor's report states the Independent doctor should be advised that the treating doctor wishes to be engaged by the independent doctor before any interview so the independent doctor understands the treatment plan.
“he actually says the following: “The Commission should even advise the independent doctor that the treating doctor is the treating doctor, wishes to be engaged by the independent doctor …” And he goes on to say: “It is my opinion that the engagement between the independent doctor and the treating doctor should occur before the interview by the treating doctor, the independent doctor, so that the independent doctor understands the treatment plan …””
The Evidence Leaders have not responded materially to questions regarding instructions about the medical examination, specifically about whether it can be voluntary or compulsory and the power of the Commission to order it.
“it is actually the Evidence Leaders who have not responded materially to those questions, which my client expressly says through his attorneys will allow us to take a final position on this question of the medical examination, because of course, Chair, if there are insufficient answers to those questions, particularly the question at 10.2 in bold, which is on page 24, statutory authority, it does not matter whether it is voluntary or compelled, if you do not have the power, you do not have the power.”
If the Commission believes it has the power to order the medical exam, it must exercise it and do so instead of avoiding the question repeatedly.
“if the Commission believes it has the power, then it must exercise its power and do so. But we cannot be caught in an endless loop where the question is asked, where is your power? There is no direct answer and then you get accused of not answering the question or giving a position where knowing the source of the power is a fundamental issue that requires clarification.”
There is ongoing pressure related to events starting from 4 May, involving a medical expert whose credibility is being questioned but who has volunteered to give evidence under oath at the Commission.
“the phenomenon only started on 4 May onwards... This doctor has made himself available to the Commission in numerous instances”
Mr Carrim is confined to a hospital, but geolocation data and CCTV footage have been used to question whether he spends all his time there, raising relevant issues for the Commission.
“Mr Carrim is confined to a hospital... once there was information that in fact he does not spend all his hours in a hospital, that is relevant information to be brought to the Commission”
The factual inaccuracies should not be used to impugn the clinical diagnosis, which remains unchallenged, and the medical response was confirmed by the treating doctor.
“Let us accept that there is a problem here and then say what is the clinical opinion in respect of that so-called problem that is on the papers in front of you and not challenged, and that is what the doctor warns the Commission, the Commissioners, from drawing an inappropriate conclusion on, that those mere facts are elevated to considerations that impugn, or not even impugn, that open to doubt the clinical diagnosis even if that is not the direct intention of disputing those facts. And what the doctor's evidence is regarding those facts is that they are what they are and they might be what they might be, but you cannot draw it based purely on those facts.”
Advocate Khumalo states it would be unusual for Advocate Johnson to be comfortable answering subjudice issues before the Ad Hoc Committee but not now before this Commission due to the change in the nature of the forum and applicable powers.
“The attitude to the same questions would change. I would find that strange, because the same risk would arise if you answered these questions before the Ad Hoc Committee.”
On Friday prior to the hearing, the accused, Brigadier Mokwele, submitted an additional document to the National Director and Advocate Bell, which references evidence of Mr Padayachee relevant to completing representations.
“On Friday, the Friday that passed, the accused, Brigadier Mokwele, did submit in writing, for the attention of the National Director, as well as Advocate Bell, who now oversees these matters, an additional document wherein her legal team alludes to the evidence of Mr Padayachee especially in relation to aspects elicited during the examination at the Commission on the section 27, and makes it clear that these cannot be ignored for purposes of completing the representations.”
The section 27 referral made by Colonel Padayachee was not part of the formal docket given to the accused and was only dealt with in this Commission.
“As I understand it, and this is what we engage Colonel Padayachee on, the section 27 referral was not part of the docket. The entire docket has been disclosed to the accused, but the section 27 referral is not a part of that docket. It only became, it was only dealt with here, and was submitted to this Commission.”
Advocate Johnson filed a response dated 20 July 2026 to a Rule 3 issued following the testimonies of three witnesses that appeared before the Commission the previous Friday.
“this statement is dated the 20th of July, which is yesterday, and it was filed in response to a Rule 3 issued following the testimonies of three witnesses that appeared before the Commission last week Friday.”
The rules of the Commission apply to Advocate Johnson because she is appearing before the Commission, which may have precedence over other legal rights available elsewhere.
“Ms Johnson is before the Commission. The rules of the Commission apply ... it may very well be that the Act accords her more rights than she otherwise would have, or vice versa, but the rules of the Commission are the rules of the Commission and that is what applies”
Advocate Johnson stated he holds the view that the Commission's fact-finding mandate does not override his constitutional protections against self-incrimination under any circumstances and placed a statement before the Commission to preserve those rights.
“I hold the view that the Commission's fact-finding mandate does not override my constitutional protection against self-incrimination under any circumstances”
Advocate Johnson placed a medical certificate before the Commission explaining his non-appearance on 13 July 2026 and requested that the medical condition he suffered from not be made public.
“I placed before the Commission a medical certificate on which a dim view was taken. I have since approached my doctor for the preparation of what I believe is a medical certificate that would be acceptable to the Commission for its details of what led to me being indisposed... I request that the medical condition I suffered from not be made public”
The first statement by Advocate Johnson was commissioned and submitted to the Commission in either October 15 or October 25, 2025, but one page (with a stamp of the Commission) is missing from the copy available.
“It was submitted to the Commission... on the 25th, it is either the 15th or the 25th of October 2025... there is a page missing with a stamp of the Commission”
The witness did not appear before the Commission on 13 July 2026 due to illness and placed a medical certificate before the Commission.
“prior to my then-scheduled appearance on 13 July 2026, I took ill and did not appear before the Commission . I placed before the Commission a medical certificate”
Subpoenas have started trickling in from the Commission to IDAC and Mr Bodlani regarding the status of documents requested.
“this morning we started with subpoena issued by the Commission to IDAC and Mr Bodlani, addressed you, Commissioners, about the status of the documents requested. Just to confirm that these have started trickling in and we will update the exhibit files.”
The rules of the Commission apply to Ms. Johnson who is before the Commission, meaning those rules supersede any other rights she might have elsewhere.
“The rules of the Commission apply. She is not before IDAC. She is not before the ID. It may very well be that the Act accords her more rights than she otherwise would have, or vice versa, but the rules of the Commission are the rules of the Commission, and that is what applies.”
The subpoena served on 4 July 2026 required appearance to give evidence on issues arising from Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's testimony on political interference and criminal syndicates in SAPS and related bodies.
“On 4 July 2026, I was served with a subpoena in terms of section 32 of the Commission's Act 8 of 1947, requiring me to appear personally before the Commission on Monday 3 July 2026 to give evidence and to be questioned about ... matters arising from the evidence of Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi before the Commission ... Political interference ... criminal syndicates... SAPS...NPA...Crime Intelligence...IPID ...”
A prosecution memorandum referred to by Advocate Johnson was requested by the commission but not originally made available as it was assumed to be in the docket; the commission requests the memorandum and related documents.
“My request to you, are you able to provide the Commission with that prosecution memorandum your referenced at paragraph 30, or, and I doubt, do you require the Commission to issue a subpoena to obtain same?”
Advocate Johnson did not appear before the Commission on 13 July 2026 due to being ill and has provided a medical certificate which he requests be kept confidential.
“prior to my then-scheduled appearance on 13 July 2026, I took ill and did not appear before the Commission ... I request that the medical condition I suffered from not be made public.”
The witness believes the Commission's fact-finding mandate does not override their constitutional protection against self-incrimination under any circumstances.
“I hold the view that the Commission's fact-finding mandatedoes not override my constitutional protection against self-incrimination under any circumstances”
The witness has submitted an affidavit preserving their constitutional rights and to avoid prejudice from parallel prosecutorial processes.
“I accordingly place this affidavit before the Commission to preserve my constitutional rights, to avoid any further prejudice arising from parallel prosecutorial processes”
The witness did not appear before the Commission on the scheduled date of 13 July 2026 due to illness and submitted a medical certificate whose details they wish to keep confidential.
“I took ill and did not appear before the Commission. I placed before the Commission a medical certificate on which a dim view was taken. I have since approached my doctor for the preparation of what I believe is a medical certificate that would be acceptable to the Commission... I request that the medical condition I suffered from not be made public”
The witness accepts that they may be required to answer questions arising from the affidavit and other matters, subject to timeous notice and legal representation, and is willing to make themselves available.
“should I be required to answer questions flowing from this affidavit and other matters in respect of which it has been determined that I would be of assistance to the Commission... I would be willing to make myself available”
The subpoena served on 4 July 2026 required testimony about allegations including IDAC operating outside its mandate, pursuing politically motivated criminal cases, and interference in criminal investigations and prosecutions.
“On 4 July 2026, I was served with a subpoena in terms of section 32 of the Commission's Act 8 of 1947, requiring me to appear personally before the Commission on Monday 3 July 2026 to give evidence and to be questioned about... matters arising from the evidence of Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi ... Whether criminal syndicates, organised criminal groups, politically connected persons, or other unlawful actors have infiltrated... SAPS, NPA, Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, Crime Intelligence, IPID... The factual and evidentiary basis for any allegations attributed to me...”
Someone accosted Advocate Johnson's daughter at their residential estate four days before a death threat was received, and the person spoke to him in Zulu immediately, which caused alarm because the person then asked for a lawyer and eventually left. This event is possibly connected to the death threat and might be linked to a subject of the Commission.
“... what had happened is someone accosted my daughter and I at our gate. We had lived there for almost 20 years and this had happened for the first time four days before. And I think the only reason it alarmed me was when the person walked up to the gate, he spoke to me immediately in Zulu. ... And then he said in English, I want a lawyer. ... A and also what I did not put in the affidavit is, at the time it did not seem related, but ... it might be a person who is also a subject at the Commission.”
Colonel Padayachee only received three pages of Annexure MK 15 instead of the full more than 20 pages, which was due to administrative error by the Commission.
“The Commission administration failed him. It is correct, he only got three pages of Annexure 10 MK 15, which is made up of more than 20 pages. Technically, what appears to have happened is somebody decided to draw out only the first three pages of Annexure MK 15 and provide him that”
Colonel Padayachee was deserving of the Commission's apology for only receiving part of the documents.
“Colonel Padayachee was quite correct. That is what he received. I do not understand how, but this is where we are. But I think he is deserving of the Commission's apology.”
The Commission seeks to treat all witnesses fairly and provide them opportunity to file supplementary affidavits if documents presented during testimony are new to them.
There are issues that Mr Matlala can deal with before the Commission despite the application saying the Commission process must be postponed pending finalization of the criminal process.
“the applications says the entire Commission process must be postponed pending finalization of the criminal process ... you have responded and said, no , no , no , there are. So there are issues that he can deal with before this Commission.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER highlights the importance of knowing what the client can answer before allowing the client to testify in the Commission to ensure truthful evidence based on facts.
“I am trying to ensure that my client comes to this Commission and gives evidence to you that is to your benefit, i.e. the work of the Commission, and not for him to answer things that...”
ADV VANDENHEEVER states the concern that their client might sit and say they do not know various persons on oath, and that legal officers cannot allow a client to testify without knowing what they are saying is right.
“That is the only issue that we can form common cause on that he can, at this point, answer... We are trying to come to the Commission and answer what we can. The problem is... I can only do so if I know what he can answer is shown to me in black and white... I will not perform my duty as an officer of the court if I allow that...”
CHAIRPERSON says they are not interested in the specifics of plea deal issues falling under section 35, but only on the broader issues which are not in question and can be dealt with by the Commission.
“I am not interested in the nitty gritty of what falls under the section 35 bucket. I am looking at the broader question of, on those issues on which there is no question whatsoever, which can be dealt with by this Commission...”
Witnesses must comply with rulings given by the Commission and adhere to undertakings or appearances on directed dates; otherwise, it hinders the Commission's work due to tight scheduling and limited time.
“Either witnesses respect the rulings given by the Commission and adhere to those rulings and file, or either appear on the dates that have been either directed by the Commissioners or on which they have made undertakings, because otherwise, it makes the work of the Commission impossible.”
The Commission is concerned that the approach by Mr Matlala's representatives is unappreciative of the operational challenges the Commission faces, particularly the impact on scheduling and limited time remaining.
“I am concerned about the approach being adopted by Mr Matlala's representatives and I do not think it is particularly appreciative of the challenges that the Commission faces. ... This Commission has got a limited time spent left to it.”
The Commission's interest is confined to the issues raised in the Rule 3 notice and subsequent Regulation 10.6 notice served on Mr Matlala, not any aborted or stillborn plea agreement with IDAC.
“the aborted or stillborn plea agreement with IDAC, at the risk of stating the obvious, that has got absolutely nothing to do with this Commission. What this Commission is interested in is its terms of reference. It is interested in the issues that were raised in the rule 3 notice that was served on Mr Matlala, as well as the subsequent regulation 10.6 notice.”
Facts should not change according to what happened under a plea deal and the Commission should not be hamstrung by any plea deals Mr Matlala may conclude in criminal trials.
“And facts are facts, and they should not change in accordance with whatever it was that went on under the plea deal. But as Commissioner Baloyi said, that is null and void anyway. In any event. And once again, it depends on whether I understood her correctly, it gets worse, because now it sounds like the Commission shall be hamstrung by any plea deal that Mr Matlala may choose in any criminal trial, whether ongoing or in the future, to conclude. So effectively, if Mr Matlala were to tomorrow face five charges in five different criminal trials, and he considers whether or not to conclude a plea deal in any one of them, then this Commission is hamstrung, unless I completely misunderstood Ms Vanden Heever.”
ADV Vanden Heever requests the Commission to facilitate weekend access to the client with electronic devices so the client can review evidence files efficiently.
“I am going to ask you and the Commissioners to consider the following. I am going to ask that we be assisted and that an order is made that we get access to the client over weekends with electronic devices, in other words, with the computers, to assist us in dealing with all of these things. It is very difficult if we cannot do that.”
The recordings served with Rule 3 notices were not random extracts but 13 recordings played during witnesses' testimonies, provided on 18 June, and further full recordings provided on 8 July after a ruling.
“The recordings that were provided were recordings that were played in this Commission during the testimonies of witnesses. As we do when we provide our Rule 3's, we provide the evidence that implicates the particular witness who is served with the Rule 3. Those are the 13 recordings that were played in here. They were not random.”
Mr Carrim has not provided information requested some time ago on the basis that he is not well, but new developments suggest he is going about his life, raising questions about his notability and ability to provide information or instructions to the Commission.
“Mr Carrim has not provided it on the basis that he is not well. Now, these developments ... suggest that Mr Carrim is going on about his life. That raises the question ... how can it be that he is notable, either himself to furnish that information, or to do so through others, and he is afforded an opportunity to respond ... and to move the application on Friday”
Mr Premhid clarifies that there is no inconsistency between wanting an independent examination and subpoenaing a doctor; both options are open to the Commission.
“My client placed on record that the power of independent examination is open to serious doubt... I used the phrase, there are less intrusive means that are available to the Commission, if there is a doubt about the medical evidence and the subpoenaing of the doctor is one such option. So there is no inconsistency between what I have said to you today and what I have said to you previously...”
An affidavit from General Mkhwanazi related to an ongoing Crime Intelligence investigation from April 2025 is in the confidential docket disclosed to the Commission; it has not yet been publicly disclosed.
“That affidavit was made. I took General Mkhwanazi's affidavit, I think it probably was in April 2025... that affidavit is in the docket, and I do not think it has been disclosed yet... it is in the confidential docket... it is in the docket that is disclosed to you, the third docket.”
The docket referred to as CJC 377 is an IDAC docket, provided directly by IDAC to the Commission.
“this docket was received by the Commission from IDAC... it is not a docket that we tendered or we provided. It comes directly from yourselves ... I confirm that.”
Media reports, publications by representative organizations, and market studies may contribute to public debate but do not constitute primary evidence of criminal conduct; serious findings should rely on reliable, independent, verifiable evidence before the Commission.
“Carnilinx further submits that media reports, publications produced by representative organizations and market studies, are each different forms of material carrying different evidential weight. While such material may contribute to public debate, it does not constitute primary evidence of criminal conduct. Serious findings against any person or corporate entity should be based upon reliable, independently verifiable evidence properly before the Commission.”
Carnilinx voluntarily made these submissions to ensure the Commission understands the company's history in its proper statutory, factual, and commercial context and requests that allegations be answered based on evidence relevant to the issues before the Commission, not historical regulatory engagement, unresolved tax disputes, media reporting, industry advocacy, or commercial rivalry.
“Carnilinx has made these submissions voluntarily because it believes that the Commission should have before it the company's own account before reaching conclusions that may affect its reputation and commercial standing. Carnilinx does not seek to minimize its history or avoid scrutiny, nor does it ask the Commission to determine disputes between itself and SARS concerning historical tax matters. Those matters are regulated by legislation and remain subject to the statutory mechanisms provided by South African law. Carnilinx asks only that its history be understood in its proper statutory, factual, and commercial context. ... Carnilinx respectfully submits that those questions should be answered on the basis of evidence relevant to the issues before the Commission and not by inferences drawn solely from historical regulatory engagement, unresolved tax disputes, media reporting, industry advocacy, or commercial rivalry.”
Carnilinx remains willing to cooperate further with the Commission and reserves the right to supplement submissions should additional information become relevant.
“Carnilinx remains willing to cooperate further with the Commission and reserves its right to supplement these submissions should additional information become relevant.”
Mr O'Sullivan questions the significance of Mr Mkhwanazi speaking up about previous collusion and cover-up when investigating political interference.
“what difference does it make that, he has spoken up. We are investigating exactly that as a Commission, whether indeed there has been political interference”
The Chairperson clarifies that the Commission should keep an open mind on matters within its terms of reference and explore all issues except those that are clearly settled.
“So the issue, and all of that, or all of those issues, because we are yet to submit a final report, all of the issues that have arisen are issues that we must keep an open mind on, except those perhaps that are clear and on which everybody has already said something.”
Mr O'Sullivan confirms the question of motive is within the Commission's terms of reference, but stresses the Commission should remain open minded about it.
The Chairperson rejects pursuing whether the press conference was a smokescreen and says criminality itself falls within the Commission's terms of reference.
“So the criminality itself would then have to be something that does indeed fall within our terms of reference, the criminality shielded by the smokescreen.”
When Mr Carrim was initially hospitalized, it was explicitly stated to the Commission that the legal team cannot act without instructions from the client if the client is medically indisposed, meaning the inability to deliver documents was due to Mr Carrim's medical condition, not wilful non-compliance.
“when Mr Carrim was initially hospitalized, it was explicitly stated to the Commission that the legal team, as creatures of instruction, cannot act without instructions from their client, and if their client is medically indisposed... it stands to reason that this allegation of not complying must be put in its proper context, that it is not wilful, and it is because the ability to deliver those documents is directly hamstrung as a result of Mr Carrim's medical condition”
There have been four subsequent medical reports making it clear that Mr Carrim is not able to attend the Commission nor fully engage with his legal team regarding instructions due to his medical condition.
“all the subsequent medical reports of which there have been four reports which make it abundantly clear that Mr Carrim is not only able to attend the Commission, he is also not fully able to engage with his own legal team regarding his ability to give instructions”
Possibility of subjecting Mr Carrim to a medical examination by a specialist of the Commission's choice has been raised before and is not a new issue raised for the first time yesterday.
“it was not raised yesterday for the first time in the correspondence. It had been raised prior, and that the parties had been engaging on that.”
Medical examinations, such as those for bodily injury or medical malpractice claims, follow prescribed procedures under Uniform Rule 36, but no equivalent procedure exists within the Commission's regulations for independent medical examinations.
“The first one is the regime that the Chair is putting to me is firstly in the context of medical negligence claims or damage from medical negligence... which we know arise under a prescribed procedure under Uniform Rule 36... there is no equivalent procedure in the Regulations, the Act, the Rules, or the Commission's own Rules that remotely cater for an equivalent procedure”
Previous objections were raised by Mr Bhana's legal team that certain lines of questioning fall outside the mandate of the Commission, reserving client rights to address those issues at appropriate times.
“previously when we have appeared in front of the Commission, we raised an objection to example for a certain line of questioning that our learned friend was putting to the witness... that the line of questioning fell outside the mandate of the Commission and that we reserved our client’s rights to place that an issue at the appropriate time”
The legal prescripts and powers of the Commission may not be unfettered and are subject to questions of remit and extent of mandate, which impacts the authority to order independent medical examinations concerning Mr Carrim.
“the question of the degree of the fettering of your power is tied directly into the issue of the mandate... you have an unfettered power to create the appropriate... but that power can never be unfettered”
A compelled medical examination of the client potentially breaches his medical rights under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Health Act and raises a question of vires and competency regarding the commission's discretion.
“It is a compelled examination. That is how we understand the proposal being put, and that which potentially breaches his medical rights whilst under treatment by a treating doctor in a manner that potentially breaches Sections 14 and 15 of the National Health Act”
If Mr Carrim does not voluntarily avail himself for the medical examination, the commission can only ask for such examination in a non-obligatory way and cannot compel it, thus addressing statutory prescription concerns.
“And if a ruling or directive from the Commission were to direct that Mr Carrim avail himself for such an examination, but be couched in a manner that does not make it obligatory that he do so... bearing in mind the fallback position that Mr Chaskalson has placed before us, in the event that Mr Carrim does not do so, would that take care of your concerns about the statutory prescripts”
There are concerns about adverse inferences being drawn against Mr Carrim for not participating in a voluntary medical examination, which must be addressed carefully in light of the nature of the commission's request and opportunity to respond.
“... if it is attenuated to being voluntary, that might not be objectionable in and of itself, but then it depends on what weight will be placed on the election that is otherwise voluntary to ask the Commission to draw adverse inferences against my client for not participating in a voluntary request...”
Undisputed evidence before the commission must be evaluated on its own merits without letting adverse inferences based on failure to testify override the consideration of the evidence present.
“There is an inference being drawn and becomes adverse because of one's failure to testify”
ADV Premhid submitted that if the Commission intends to make a prosecution recommendation against his client, they should be given an opportunity to respond before any adverse decision is made, as this is audi rights.
“if that is going to be the case, that the Commission ... chooses to make a motivation to the Commission that a recommendation be made that our client is prosecuted, that we get an opportunity to address the Commission before an adverse decision is potentially made against him, because that is audi rights”
Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Sebola misled the Commission by stating that downloads conducted on Mr Nku's devices and suspicious content recovered were incorporated into the investigation docket. However, the disclosed docket did not contain this evidence, nor was the digital forensic report disclosed.
“Lieutenant Joseph Sebola testified that downloads were conducted on my devices and that the allegedly suspicious content recovered from those devices was incorporated into the investigation docket. ... Upon examination ... the evidence ... was conspicuously absent. More importantly, the digital forensic report was never disclosed.”
The Commission requires and issues subpoenas and follows a process to determine the acceptable version if a witness is contradicted by another.
“He is required to address himself to the questions posed both in the regulation 10.6 and the subpoena to the extent that he is able to do so. Should another witness come forward after he has testified to contradict him, then that is for the Commission to engage with and to determine whose version is acceptable and on what basis.”
Since January 2026, the Commission has acquired significant relevant documents and testimony from other witnesses regarding the infiltration or influence of criminal syndicates over entities including the SAPS and DPCI.
“since his appearance in 2026, the Commission has been placed in possession of significant documents that are relevant to the issue. Other witnesses have testified and, too, produced documents before the Commission... what this Commission is mandated to interrogate is whether criminal syndicates, including but not limited to drug cartels, have infiltrated or exerted influence over a range of entities, including the SAPS, of which the DPCI is a part”
The Commission rules require that a witness become available and answer questions to the Commission's satisfaction, and Commissioners are entitled to recall witnesses to determine correct factual positions.
“our rules require that a witness be come available and answer the questions to the satisfaction of the Commission... Commissioners are entitled to recall a witness to assist them in determining the correct factual position.”
A letter dated 1 June 2026 from the Commission reminds clients that all witnesses are called to testify based on their knowledge and their knowledge is not dependent on others' testimonies, and that statements called for cannot be implicated by others' versions of the truth.
“With reference to your letter dated 1 June 2026... all witnesses are called to testify on their knowledge of any fact. It is important to mention and place on record that their knowledge is not dependent on whether others who testified before them, implicate them... Your client's statement that was called forth through relevant notices cannot in any way be implicated by someone else's version of the truth.”
Advocate Mpofu claims that General Nyuswa has not been furnished with a requested statement, demonstrating delays and incomplete disclosure by the Commission.
“we have been asking for the statement, the Commission’s statement of, what is it, Brigadier Nyuswa, just as an example, and we have not been furnished with that”
Maj-Gen Senona is willing to assist the Commission despite his ongoing disciplinary hearing that coincides with the Commission's dates.
“To show that I am willing to assist the Commission, I opted to come here, not to go to that side... There was a date for me to attend another disciplinary hearing today at 10 o'clock, it is currently ongoing.”
Maj-Gen Senona claims at least three witnesses have implicated him in the drug seizure and storage occurring on 22 June 2021, and that the Commission provided their statements only two days before his sworn statement deadline.
“At least three witnesses have given evidence implicating me in the drug seizure and storage of 22 June 2021... The Commission only furnished me with the statements late afternoon on Friday, 29 May 2026, a mere two days before my sworn statement had to be filed...”
The speaker asserts their evidence is controversial but insists that the irregular transfer alleged is incorrect and that they were not given regulation notices or materials by the Commission.
“I say with respect that my treatment at the Commission has been unfair ... the evidence implicating me is led and thereafter I respond thereto ... I was not served with the Regulation 3.5 statement and a Regulation 10.6 notice or any other material documents”
Suppressing answers due to fear of self-incrimination is a recognized legal right, but it is subject to the Commission's terms of reference and legal bases such as section 6 of the Commission's Act.
“There is also, I think it is section 6 of the Commission's Act... requiring witnesses to answer questions satisfactorily. Failure to do so is on pain of facing criminal proceedings.”
The Commission must decide if evidence gathered falls within its terms of reference before compelling witness responses if no legal basis to refuse exists.
“It is for the Commission ultimately to determine whether the evidence that we have gathered falls within the terms of reference or not... We can engage where there is Counsel or the witnesses themselves where the witness is not represented... Does this fall within the terms of reference or does it not?”
The disciplinary report by General Mosikili in 2021 recommended disciplinary proceedings but the speaker cannot discuss the report and was not aware of it at the time.
“General Mosikili's report and recommendations ... report to General Lebeya ... I cannot talk to that report ... I had never seen this report until provided by the Commission”
Brigadier Nyuswa submitted the detailed report with pictures of the complaint to the Commission, confirming the allegations against the officers were substantiated by the report and pictures.
“I must say also I have submitted this report to the Commission. It is a very detailed report with pictures. Yes. That report and pictures, do they bear out the complaint, the allegations against these officers? Yes. That is correct, Commissioner.”
The police officers involved were acting as a private team hired and paid by Mr Nku, outside their official employment duties, constituting a side hustle which breaches the law and could lead to criminal prosecution.
“I t w a s a s i d e h u s t l e t h a t t h e y w e r e d o i n g f o r M r N k u ... Yo u o r g a n i s e a t e a m o f p o l i c e o f f i c e r s t o d o t h e w o r k f o r a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n a n d t h e n t o b e p a i d b y t h e p r i v a t e c i t i z e n ... T h a t b r e a k s t h e l a w ... I t i s j u s t p l a i n c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t .”
The report leads to a domino effect drawing in General Khan, General Khumalo, General Mkhwanazi, Brown Mogotsi, and the Minister's Office, through processes involving interference and influence, ultimately contributing to the Commission itself.
“The recommendations in your report are what leads to General Khan being charged...General Khumalo getting involved...General Mkhwanazi getting involved...Brown Mogotsi interfering...Minister's Office getting involved...part of the dots that lead to this Commission.”
The statement submitted by Colonel Jacob to the Commission was overly brief and omitted details present in his original information note regarding reasons for moving the operation from the depot to Isipingo Police Station.
“the fact that your statement, the statement that you filed with the Commission, is overly brief and you would have wanted to highlight once again to the questions posed to you by the Commissioners, the detail that you had in your original information note, as you call it, but somehow did not find its way into the statement.”
The information note referred to by Colonel Jacob was not created in 2021, contrary to an impression given by the Chairperson, but at a later date for the purpose of developing a statement for the Commission.
“This information note you referenced, you prepared for purposes of developing a statement for the Commission, so it was not created in 021.”
COLONEL JACOB claims the narrative that he fabricated the unpack incident on 1 July to cover his back is false and damaging to his credibility.
“it is the narrative of the Commission that I somehow just fabricated this to cover my back. But should she not have been interviewed by an impartial or objective party to ask her indeed on the 1st of July was there such an incident?”
Colonel Jacob indicates that the distinction between being involved and being an investigating officer was made to show that the 22 June 2021 seizure was the first he handled hands-on from start to finish.
“Maybe I am trying to show the Commission that this was the first one I had handled hands-on from A to Z.”
The report prior to the bust provided by Lt-Col Duma is part of a confidential bundle accessible at reference 316, as confirmed by Adv Sikhakhane and Lt-Col Duma.
“No. In fact, it is in your bundle that you shared with me . . . Attached the SOP of ORS, you should go to 316, you will find it there . . . So this is the report that you provided”
Mr Mogotsi says he got the impression his protection from adverse findings was conditional on his willingness to provide information and documentation to the Commission.
“I was left with a distinct impression that my protection from adverse findings by the Commission was being made conditional upon my willingness to provide information and documentation.”
The affidavit submitted by the attorney for the Commission lacks locus standi and should not be considered valuable or beneficial as it refers to private communications between Mr Mogotsi and the evidence leader, which are matters for the evidence leader to answer, not the attorney.
“I am inviting the Commission to find that when it comes to the affidavit that was deposed to by the attorney for the Commission, that the Commission finds that that affidavit does not enjoy locus standi. The issues that are contained in that affidavit and the comments cannot be of any value or any benefit because it is comments that they know nothing about. It is personal communication between Mr Mogotsi and the evidence leader, and it is issues that the evidence leader should be answering and not the attorney.”
For a determination that the feared bias in relation to discussions in telephone calls is reasonable, facts must be presented to the Commission for it to decide on the apprehension of bias.
“if we do not have the facts about those calls, what was discussed, are we in a position, at least as it relates to those calls, is the Commission in a position to make a determination that whatever was discussed in the calls creates a reasonable apprehension of bias?”
Without knowing what was discussed in the telephone calls, the Commission is not in a position to rule on the apprehension of bias arising from those calls.
“In the absence of knowing, or the Commission knowing, what was contained in those telephone calls, the Commission cannot rule on the apprehension of harm ... or of bias.”
The apprehension of bias depends also on the applicant's perception of the contents of discussions in the telephone calls, and based on that, the Commission may be in a position to rule on bias.
“based on how the applicant perceives in his mind what the contents of these discussions are, then the Commission can be in a position to make a ruling as to whether or not there is an apprehension of bias.”
Evidence leaders assist and facilitate the work of the Commission and lead the presentation of evidence before the Commission but are not decision makers themselves; decisions belong to the Commission.
“What an evidence leader does ... is an evidence leader assists the Commission. He leads, organises, and tests evidence. That function must be performed fairly, but it is not adjudicative. It is an investigative function.”
The WhatsApp chat screenshots presented were constructed to appear as a genuine and complete set, while in fact concealing material deleted texts and calls, creating a misleading appearance.
“It is made to appear as a genuine and complete set of screenshots with the default WhatsApp speech bubble colours and with the default WhatsApp wallpaper. It, in other words, conceals that material texts and calls have been deleted... This is deliberately deceptive. This was misleading to the Commission.”
Affidavits in the Commission serve a dual purpose: to present facts and to make submissions to assist the Commission in applying the correct legal framework, rather than merely establishing legal foundation as in normal cases.
“Remember that that affidavit does not just deal with the facts, it also is here to make submissions. And to make submissions for the purposes of assisting the Commission, which is why we put to the Commission case law that is intended to set the correct legal framework for this.”
Mr Mogotsi alleges that Mr Chaskalson treated him unfairly during prior testimony and that Mr Chaskalson induced him to give false evidence against another witness before the Commission, which are very grave allegations.
“First, Mr Mogotsi says that Mr Chaskalson treated him unfairly when he previously testified before this Commission in the manner in which Mr Chaskalson questioned him. Second, he makes what we say is a very, very grave allegation that Mr Chaskalson induced him to give evidence and to give false evidence against another witness before this Commission.”
Mr Chaskalson's affidavit thoroughly denies the allegations by Mr Mogotsi and is supported by WhatsApp records comparing communications relevant to the allegations.
“The answering affidavit is more than a denial, and I will call it an answering affidavit, Mr Chaskalson's affidavit. That affidavit is more than a denial. It is a detailed factual account supported by the true WhatsApp record annexed as MC1 and a marked-up comparison annexed as MC2, which identifies the communications which Mr Mogotsi removed from his annexure, and his annexure is marked OBM2.”
Mr Mogotsi admits to manipulating WhatsApp exchanges with Mr Chaskalson before submitting them to the Commission but does not admit that he exerted improper pressure on Mr Chaskalson.
“He admits to manipulating the WhatsApp exchanges between himself and Mr Chaskalson before placing the record before the Commission. He does not use the word manipulating. He tries to explain it in several ways, but he admits to making several deletions.”
Mr Chaskalson categorically denies inviting Mr Mogotsi to give false evidence against Mr Carrim or suggesting he find evidence to implicate Mr Carrim and then protect him from adverse findings.
“He concludes at paragraph 23 with his categorical denials that he invited Mr Mogotsi to give false evidence against Mr Carrim, or that he suggested that if Mr Mogotsi could find evidence to implicate Mr Carrim, that he would then protect him from adverse findings.”
Mr Mogotsi deliberately gave false evidence to secure postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony, which is a serious dishonest manipulation of the Commission process.
“He deliberately gave false evidence to secure the postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony. That admission is serious because it does not only suggest dishonesty, but it is a deliberate attempt to manipulate the evidence leader and this Commission's process”
Mr Mogotsi was concerned about the Commission's treatment of him and its focus on issues outside its mandate, which motivated his attempt to engineer a postponement of Mr Carrim's testimony.
“He was concerned about the Commission's treatment and the focus on issues outside its mandate”
A 418-page tender document, tender TMPD 2-015/2016, which is central to Mr Malatji's testimony, was only received by Mr Nkosi and team the day before.
“there is a document which we received only yesterday. It is appearing on the bundle that we received from the Commissioner. It is a 418-paged document, which Mr Malatji ... It is the tender documents, tender TMPD 2-015/2016, the main document in which the crux of the testimony of Mr Malatji was based”
The statement submitted on Monday was not satisfactory to Mr Malatji and team, but was submitted under extreme pressure and out of respect for the Commission's directive.
“the statement which was submitted on Monday, it was not to our satisfaction, and even for the satisfaction of Mr Malatji. We were under extreme pressure ... but he just insisted ... to respect and comply with the directive of the Commission”
Director Malatji stated that although the requested ad hoc services proof was not part of his bundled documents, he believes proof was provided and can retrieve it for the Commission.
“The fact that it is not part of my bundled does not necessarily mean we did not provide that proof. And we can, I can always go back and have that, the kind of proof that we provided to him available for the Commission too”
Advocate Sello accused Commissioner Mkhwanazi of lying to the Commission by relying on false facts to obtain a postponement for his appearance.
“The point I seek to make is you know the correct, truthful position, and that position is as reflected in the documents, and therefore you lied to the Commission. ... You deny you lied. You say you are learning these facts for the first time ... My submissions to the Commission is that you must be held in contempt for lying, deliberately lying to the Commission, when you knew that the facts you were relying upon to obtain your postponement were false.”
The investigation will look beyond two tenders flagged by the Commission to include all related matters, including tenders already awarded or in place.
“we are going to look not only into this two tenders that has been identified or flagged by the Commission. We are looking at the entire, everything that you have mentioned that has got, even if it is, remember some of those were already awarded or some of them are already in place”
Sergeant Nkosi did not give a statement to the police explaining the source of funds shortly after receiving the money but waited to be asked by the Commission in December 2024.
“After the money was taken or maybe two days after or three days after or five days after, why did you not give a statement to the police explaining the source of those funds and how they came into your possession ? Why do you wait until you are asked by the Commission in December 2024 ?”
Sergeant Nkosi claims the video showing orange shoes but he was wearing black sneakers and blue jeans at the time, suggesting the video may have been altered.
“Because of the sneaker that I was wearing, they were black, but there they are orange ... I am showing the Commission that there are many things that are deceiving there ... the colours are not the same”
The address given was that of an officer investigating Mr Matlala and Mr Molefe, but Sergeant Nkosi denied knowing this at the time and not making a follow-up.
“this address, as you well know, is the address of an officer, the home address of an officer, who was investigating Mr Matlala and Mr Molefe . Do you deny that you knew that? ... At that time, I did not know. I only knew that when this information was provided to me by the Commission. But at that time, I did not know, nor make a follow-up on it.”
Sergeant Nkosi's witness statement does not implicate any politician or relation to the Commission's terms of reference and does not allege risks to his safety from attending the Commission venue.
“Sergeant Nkosi does not say that any of these relationships with politicians are relevant to the Commission's terms of reference. His witness statement does not implicate any of these politicians in any wrongdoing, and he does not allege that he intends to implicate these persons when his evidence resumes. Accordingly, it is not apparent on what basis any of the grounds on which Sergeant Nkosi relies are relevant to the question whether he should continue giving evidence remotely and off-camera. Importantly, he does not state how, if at all, attendance at the commission's venue poses any risk to his safety.”
The order of 30 January 2025 to have Sergeant Nkosi testify remotely only served to shield him from the discomfort of testifying in public, and is no longer justified as there is no cogent basis for fearing for his life from the evidence he intends to present.
“The order of 30 January 2025 only serves to shield Sergeant Nkosi from the discomfort of testifying in public. This is not the purpose of full or partial in-camera hearings. The sergeant will be questioned about his visit to Mr Katiso Molefe's house, during which he was seen leaving with a paper bag, evidence already presented by an earlier witness who showed his face and identified him by name. His image and name are, therefore, known to the public. While the Commission takes the safety of its witnesses seriously and will take all reasonable measures to ensure that its witnesses are not put at risk, it is clear to me that Sergeant Nkosi is no longer justified to testify, or rather, the order that he continue testifying remotely is no longer justified. There is no cogent basis for believing that any of the evidence he intends to present will place his life in danger. It was for these reasons that I made the order of 3 March 2026.”
Lt-Gen Shibiri indicates that the Commission is probing interference and infiltration of the South African Police Service (SAPS) by alleged crime syndicates at very high levels.
“Can you see this Commission is probing interference and infiltration of the SAPS? ... By alleged crime syndicates? ... I have full understanding ... And a again, without us coming to testify, the Commission will not exist.”
Lt-Gen Shibiri indicated that the Commission is assisting him with protection now but his legal team does not want certain recordings played publicly or discussed outside the Commission.
“The Commission is now assisting me ... my legal team, I indicated to them, I do not want this recording to be played. And if it is supposed to be played, it must be played in camera ... But my prayers were not met, so I will live with the consequences.”
The Commission is probing issues of interference and infiltration of SAPS by criminals syndicates at very high levels and if Lt-Gen Shibiri is reluctant to share relevant information, it hinders the Commission's mandate.
“Have criminal syndicates infiltrated SAPS at the very highest levels? ... If you are reluctant to share information with us, information that you know is relevant ... We are probing these very issues ... I do not want to be left with the feeling that General knew something, but he did not want to tell us or was reluctant to tell us.”
A client is willing to assist the Commission but requests the testimony be given partially off camera due to sensitivities involving covert operations and a high risk unit based in Gauteng.
“we filed an application for our client's testimony to be given partially in camera ... there are some sensitivities ... he runs some covert operations, and there is a very high risk unit that he is running based in Gauteng”
Some questions asked during witness testimony may render the witness identifiable due to references to publicly available information, but such questions cannot be avoided as they are directly relevant to the Commission's inquiries.
“some of the questions ... may render him identifiable with reference to information that is publicly available ... those are not questions I can avoid asking because they will be directly relevant to the enquiries of the Commission”
The speaker was reluctant to disclose the recording publicly but decided to disclose it after General Shibiri denied the speaker’s version of the call during evidence on 4 March 2026, to maintain credibility.
“Now that he has denied my version and effectively placed my credibility in doubt... I have no option but to disclose the recording publicly. I do so reluctantly... I gave the Commission's evidence leader permission to disclose the recording... to General Shibiri and the Commissioners and to play it during the public hearing”
Mr Bhana stated the hundreds of pages of evidence documents included numerous transactions and that they did not yet have an adequate or fair opportunity to deal with this evidence.
“The documents look like this, intense line items of hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of transactions. Now, it might be that the Commissions say it is not intending to refer to all of those transactions, but we have simply not had an adequate or fair opportunity to deal with this.”
The witness is not coming to assist the Commission and is seen as playing catch me if you can while the Commission seeks to find out facts about the relationship with Medicare.
“To me, is not a witness who is coming to assist the Commission. It is catch me if you can”
