Booysen CAS 97/7/2021

Assistant Director Maphosho requests a summary of actions or omissions he may have committed to responsibly provide a further statement, referencing a prior witness statement in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021 and cautioning against abuse of the process by criminals in that case.

“Please provide me with a summary of the actions/omissions that you believe I may have committed or omitted for you to address this letter to me. I require this to be able to responsibly provide you with a further statement to the one I have already provided the police. As you know, I have made a witness statement in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021 and I am not sure if you have obtained a copy of that statement through the channels available to you. I trust that the DPP official directing you in this investigation has been in consultation with the State Advocate in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021 to avoid that your complaint/ss cutter or prejudice the criminal trial against them by opening a false parallel charge against police officials on the scene. You should know that this is often the tactic employed by corrupt law enforcement officials with an understanding of the criminal justice system and concomitant legislations.”

Assistant Director Maphosho notes the investigation is independent and impartial as per IPID's constitutional mandate, and IPID does not possess the statement from Booysen CAS 97/7/2021 referred to.

“The case is independently and impartially being investigated by IPID as per its constitutional mandate and not directed by any DPP official. IPID is not in possession of the statement you are referring to as submitted in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021.”

Assistant Director Maphosho told General Khan that if he wanted to use a statement he already gave in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021, he was supposed to bring that statement to IPID when completing the warning form.

“If he wanted to use the statement that he already gave in Booysen CAS, the CAS that he was referring to, he was going to bring the statement as his annexure when we complete the warning form, and it is something that I did mention to him when I was completing the warning form.”

Advocate Mosikili expresses concern that the summary of allegations does not appear as investigative questions directed to the suspect and that there is no request to provide the statement mentioned in Booysen CAS 97/7/2021 in the response letter.

“I have difficulties with that summary not being aimed at or at least appearing as investigative questions that ought to be put to a suspect. And then at paragraph 3, he has told you that he has a statement or he has provided a statement before under the CAS number 97/7/2021. Why, in your response, why is it that you do not ask for him to provide you with that statement as well?”

Advocate Mosikili criticizes that IPID’s response states only that they do not have the statement and leaves it hanging without expressing wanting or requesting the statement which they deem important.

“You do not say in this regard when you come, bring that statement or please give us a statement while you are coming to consult with us. Is there a reason why you do not ask that, because you do have the tools to ask or to demand even? ... You just simply tell him we do not have the statement. And I would have expected at least IPID to say we want that statement, whether you bring it before you come for an interview or you bring it with you, but we want it because we regard it as important.”