Minister

Mr O'Sullivan sent two emails on 13 January 2025; the first with a ministerial directive annexure and the second containing details of Ms Mokwele.

“The first is sent at 14.11 and there is the directive of the Minister attached... The second email was sent on the same day... which contains Ms Mokwele's details.”

Attached to the email from Mr O'Sullivan to Ms Mokwele is the ministerial directive dated 31 December 2024 relating to Crime Intelligence, Points of Entry and Political Killings Task Team (PKTT).

“Attached to the email, perhap the Annexure MRR 13, is the directive of the Minister relating to Crime Intelligence, Points of Entry and Political Killings Task Team, dated 31 December 2024.”

Commissioner Baloyi correctly stated that irregular appointments in Crime Intelligence were investigated by the Public Service Commission, not IDAC, and related complaints had been previously addressed by the PSC with recommendations to the National Commissioner and Minister.

“... By the time Mr Adams brings these things to IDAC, the Public Service Commission has already investigated them and made recommendations... It is not IDAC's mandate to be investigating these issues because there are other bodies that are responsible for these investigations.”

Advocate Johnson states he did not discuss the Medicare contract at the meeting with the Minister and others.

“No.”

Despite the regularity of Khumalo's appointment, the PSC recommended that the Minister should facilitate corrective measures regarding sound record keeping and sensitising officials.

“Despite the determination that Lieutenant General Khumalo's appointment to the post of Head of SAPS CIU, was regular, the Public Service Commission recommends that the Minister should facilitate ... Corrective measures be put in place to ensure sound record keeping to sensitise officials regarding the importance of good record keeping.”

The witness was unaware that Mr Adams referred the matter to the National Commissioner of Police, the National Commissioner or the Minister.

“You are not aware of Mr Adams also referring this matter to the national Commissioner of Police , the National Commissioner or the Minister ? No , not at all .”

The witness claimed not to recall receiving anything from the office of the Minister at the time of questioning, despite evidence suggesting otherwise.

“I did not recall receiving anything from the office of the Minister”

The witness instructed Chief Perumal to get an affidavit from Mr Adams following an unhelpful letter from the Minister.

“The Minister's letter was unhelpful and you instructed Perumal to get an affidavit from Adams .”

IDAC reached out to Mr Adams based on the Minister's letter, contrary to the impression that Mr Adams came to IDAC on his own.

“It is IDAC that reached out to Mr Adams ... it is not Mr Adams who came to IDAC but yesterday you were quite clear that it is the Minister who came to IDAC”

Advocate Johnson stated that he was not aware of Mr Adams referring the matter to the National Commissioner of Police or the Minister.

“You are not aware of Mr Adams also referring this matter to the national Commissioner of Police , the National Commissioner or the Minister ? No , not at all .”

There was confusion about whether the Minister or Mr Adams approached IDAC regarding the matter; Advocate Johnson initially said the Minister sent a letter that was unhelpful and then instructions were given to Mr Perumal to get an affidavit from Mr Adams.

“the Minister 's letter was unhelpful and you instructed Perumal to get an affidavit from Adams .”

Advocate Johnson clarified that Mr Adams wanted IDAC to deal with his matter and that the office first received a letter from the Minister, but without attachments.

“it is the position of having first received a letter from the Minister . I did indicate that there were no attachments , I therefore asked Mr Perumal to please engage Mr Adams as Mr Adams wanted IDAC to deal with his matter .”

Advocate Johnson was unaware of a complaint laid with the Minister and did not recall receiving a letter from the Minister's office regarding the complaint.

“At the time, I did not remember that letter, at the time when I was at the adhoc Committee ... I did not recall that we had got a letter from the office of the Minister .”

Chairperson suggests the Minister's letter was unlikely to state that nothing could be done absent a section 27 referral, and this conflicts with instructions from the Minister to Mr Perumal to follow up with Mr Adams.

“That letter ... is not likely to have said what I am suggesting you ought to have done ... because that would have been at odds with you instructing Mr Perumal to follow up with Mr Adams.”

ADV Baloyi clarified that the letter did not contain a copy of an affidavit but only a copy of written correspondence addressed to the Minister by Mr Adams.

“this letter does not say here is a copy of an affidavit. It says a copy of a written correspondence addressed to the Minister.”

The Minister's letter constitutes a referral and request for investigation under section 27 as far as the Minister is concerned.

“as far as the Minister is concerned, his letter was the section 27 referral”

Mr Adams did not communicate any request for investigation to the party being addressed, the Ministry is the one requesting investigation under section 27.

“Mr Adams is not asking you to investigate. He has not communicated with you... It is Mr Nkabinde, he raises his complaint with the Minister. That is what he”

The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges a complaint described as a section 27 complaint but the reference to Mr Adams is only to note that the Minister received a complaint from Mr Adams.

“The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges with you a complaint and he calls it a section 27 complaint. The only reference he makes to Mr Adams is to say... the Minister has received a complaint from Mr Adams”

The Minister's letter constituted a section 27 referral for investigation under the NPAAct, making it an official request for investigation.

“So as far as the Minister was concerned, his letter was the section 27 referral”

Nothing in the Minister's letter actually directs the investigation request to Mr Adams but rather it is Mr Nkabinde who is the referrer of the Section 27 affidavit.

“nothing in this letter leads you to Mr Adams... if you were going to ask for a section 27 affidavit, it is from Mr Nkabinde that you ask for because he is the one that is purporting to refer”

The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges with the investigating body a complaint described as a section 27 complaint, but the reference to Mr Adams is only that the Minister has received a complaint from Mr Adams and is referring it for investigation under section 27.

“The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges with you a complaint and he calls it a section 27 complaint... the only reference he makes to Mr Adams is to say the Minister has received a complaint from Mr Adams, please investigate and I refer this to you in terms of section 27”

There is correspondence from Mr Adams to the Minister, containing serious allegations implicating senior members of the South African Police, attached to the Minister's letter.

“What we know from this letter is the Minister has been given correspondence by Adams. That is what that letter says. There is correspondence from Mr Adams.”

Advocate Johnson admitted that it is not appropriate for IDAC to solicit complaints from the public without a formal referral; therefore, upon receiving a letter from the Minister, he instructed Mr Perumal to engage Mr Adams and obtain a section 27 affidavit to cure the absence of an official referral.

“No, we are not supposed to solicit. And that is why I am saying the engage – I tell Mr Perumal to engage Mr Adams. I do not know if this was a prepared affidavit already. It was to say to him, we received a letter from the Minister, we are engaging you.”

There was no prepared section 27 affidavit at the time of the Minister's referral dated 11 November 2024; the affidavit was dated later on 21 November 2024, indicating a cure of the referral deficiency as the Minister's letter does not constitute a valid section 27 referral to IDAC.

“That is not a fact. Look at that affidavit. It is dated 21 November 2024. And the Minister's letter is the 11th of November 2024. So there was no prepared affidavit.”

Because the Minister's letter was not a section 27 referral, IDAC required a proper section 27 affidavit from Mr Adams to cure this defect before proceeding with investigation.

“So because you read the Minister's letter and you saw the difficulty that it would not trigger your power to investigate, you contact Mr Adams through Mr Perumal to cure that problem and to provide a section 27 affidavit.”

There was a discussion whether the content of a Minister's letter said anything substantive or made any allegations, with the consensus it said nothing and made no allegations.

“the letter ... says nothing ... it does not make out any allegations”

ADV Johnson denies being fearful of the Minister in relation to not writing the letter back to clarify no section 27 referral.

“Not at all”

ADV Johnson accepted he could not have written a letter to the Minister saying nothing could be done without a section 27 referral.

“you accepted that you could not possibly have written a letter to the Minister saying there is nothing we can do in the absence of a section 27 referral.”

The Minister said the allegations in the dockets implicate very senior members of SAPS and these are viewed in a serious light, and case dockets were registered using CAS numbers.

“The Minister says: “The allegations contained therein implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service and viewed in a serious light, and case dockets were registered as per the following CAS ...”

The correspondence from Mr Adams to the Minister implicates very senior SAPS members and suggests these members intercepted the dockets.

“The allegations contained in the correspondence from Mr Adams to the Minister implicate very senior members of the South African Police, and the implication is that they intercepted the dockets.”

Advocate Johnson is not saying the Minister or Mr Nkabinde saw the contents of the dockets, but referred to Mr Adams who is said to have made serious allegations implicating senior SAPS members, with case dockets registered with CAS numbers.

“I am not saying they saw the contents of the dockets. They referred to Mr Adams, and they say the allegations contained by Mr Adams implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service, and are viewed in a serious light, and case dockets were registered as per the following CAS numbers.”

Minister must have seen the dockets to have the reading ascribed to the letter as correct.

“The Minister must have seen these dockets, for your reading to be correct, it must be so.”

The Minister has been given written correspondence by Mr Adams, which is attached to the Minister's letter, and in that correspondence, Mr Adams makes serious allegations implicating senior SAPS officers.

“What we know from this letter is the Minister has been given correspondence by Adams. That is what that letter says. There is correspondence from Mr Adams.”

The first and second paragraphs of the Minister's letter sensibly refer to the attached correspondence from Mr Adams that implicates senior SAPS members in serious matters.

“A sensible reading of this first paragraph and the second paragraph is, the 'contained therein' refers or must refer to the attached correspondence. That is a sensible reading, otherwise why does he mention that letter to you?”

The allegations referred to in the Minister's letter about implicating senior SAPS officers are serious and sensitive, and would logically require the Minister to have had a conversation with Mr Adams about the dockets to know their content.

“More importantly and seriously, it works only if you say that the Minister must have had a conversation with Mr Adams about these dockets, to know that matter contained therein, in those dockets, is sensitive and it implicates senior police officers and who are those senior police officers.”

There was serious correspondence dated 1 November 2024 addressed to the Minister containing allegations that case dockets were intercepted, implicating senior police officers who interfered in the investigative process without notification to Gauteng.

“That email of 1 November 2024 at A21, that is the correspondence addressed to the Minister ... Then he implicates senior officers because he then says they interfered in the investigative process and he was not notified that Gauteng is following the same process. And the request to the Minister is: “I urgently and humbly ask the Minister to intervene to ensure the integrity of the investigative process is maintained.””

The referral to IDAC by the Minister was about allegations implicating senior officers, not taking over dockets opened in Orlando and Western Cape.

“This is the request that gives rise to the referral to IDAC. And that was Advocate Sello's point, that the referral to IDAC was about these allegations implicating senior officers. Not for IDAC to go take over the dockets that were opened in Orlando and the Western Cape and investigate those underlying allegations in those dockets.”

Advocate Johnson maintains that the Minister's referral and request for investigation per Section 27 deals with serious allegations set out in written correspondence by Fadiel Adams to the Minister and those probably refer to the dockets.

“I still maintain that although you have that email, this letter tells your referral and request for investigation in terms of Section 27. It does talk to copy of written correspondence to the Minister by Fadiel Adams. And therein are serious allegations. And due to the nature of these allegations, they are referring them to those, to the allegations as he makes out in his written correspondence, which must almost invariably, it would seem, refer to the dockets.”

The Minister's letter came first followed by Mr Adam's affidavit; no referral from Mr O'Sullivan was known to the office.

“The Minister's letter came first, yes. ... His affidavit came after. ... That is correct, Chair. ... That is correct.”

The Minister's final signature on the report includes a space for comments but does not contain any comments.

“where the Minister signs , there is a space for comments , but he does not seem to have made any comments .”

The authority to determine whether a potential conflict of interest is genuine in the public service rests with the Executive Authority, typically the Minister, who may appoint a panel to consider the conflict and provide independent recommendations.

“The authority rests with the Minister to determine whether this is a genuine conflict. In terms of the relevant regulations, the executive authority is supposed to appoint a panel of at least two persons to consider the interest and provide independent recommendations on what should be done.”

Suspension of Vusi Pikoli as NDPP was aimed at preventing the arrest and charging of Commissioner Selebi; this decision was taken unlawfully by then Justice Minister and then President.

“The then Justice Minister... took, in my opinion, an unlawful step, together with the then President, in suspending Vusi Pikoli because I understood that that suspension, in fact, was aimed at preventing the arrest and charging of Commissioner Selebi”

Minister intervened and ordered to drop charges against General Mdluli and put him back to work, contradicting proper disciplinary procedures.

“But then along came the Minister who said, cut all this up, drop the charges, put him back to work, and he did that”

The Minister instructed actions that effectively protected General Mdluli, enabling him to continue plundering the secret fund.

“he followed the Minister's instruction and put it as high as that was action, he acted to protect Mdluli who, for purposes of plundering the secret fund”

There were efforts taken to discipline General Mdluli which were disregarded when he withdrew the suspension at the Minister's instruction.

“You disregard all the efforts that he took to discipline General Mdluli ... in fact, when he did withdraw the uplift, rather, the suspension, it was at the instruction of the Minister”

General Mdluli was colluding to keep himself in place to continue plundering the secret fund, supported by the Minister.

“He made the decision to collude, to keep General Mdluli in place, so that he can plunder, continue to plunder the secret fund in the same way as he is doing in 2025”

Mr Mogotsi assisted the opening of a case on 7 December, the day after the raid, and started communicating with the Minister about getting an IPID arrest related to that case.

“So you did that , you assisted the opening of the case on the 7th of December , the day after the raid . You then started communicating with the Minister about getting an IPID arrest . Do you recall that ?”

Mr Mogotsi confirms attempts to sow division between General Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi, to have members of the PKT arrested for the raid on Mr Matlala, to involve IPID in an arrest arising from the raid, and an attempt to persuade the Minister that General Sibiya and Discipline General Khumalo are involved in a Constitutional Court judgment matter (Makala case).

“So , we have talked about your attempt to sow division between General Khumalo and General Mkhwanazi , your attempt to have members of the PKT arrested for the raid on Mr Matlala , your attempt to get IPID involved in an arrest arising out of the raid on Mr Matlala 's house . ... Your fourth , the fourth instance is your attempt to persuade the Minister that he or General Sibiya and discipline General Khumalo arising out the Constitutional Court judgment in the Makala case .”

General Mkhwanazi deployed a task team to make inquiries into specific cases following a meeting with the Minister.

“The Minister deployed Lt-Gen Mkhwanazi on that matter and then General Mkhwanazi informed me that he has got a task team on this issue to make enquiries”

Sergeant Nkosi said Mr Mthakathi Mswazi sent the list to make him aware of the investigation progress related to Mr Sibanyoni's cases.

“the call was about ... there is going to be a movement from the SAPS because we have already spoken to the Minister. So he was making a follow-up upon the photos that he sent me.”

The taxi industry regularly has meetings with the road and transport policing general and sometimes with the Minister and provincial Commissioner to resolve issues together in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN).

“the taxi industry, they are more interested in police because they are working hand in glove with them”

L T - General Shibiri does not know much about the association between Sergeant Nkosi and Mr Motsumi but believes they know each other and that prominent people often escalate police matters through high-level political contacts instead of police stations.

“I do not know really, but it seems they know each other...prominent people, they do not like going down to the police station. They start there on the top. They will phone their member of parliament from their constituency, who will phone the Minister...”

General Shibiri denies being part of General Sibiya's faction, stating his work-related interactions include the Minister, National Commissioner, and DIVCOM, implying he is perceived as a good worker rather than a faction member.

“I do not see anything to perceive me with General Sibiya because where he invited me to go, it was work-related. ... So, I must be perceived as a good worker rather than belonging to somebody.”