M S R A M S A M Y

Project management communication typically does not involve direct email contact with Advocate Johnson; documents go through deputy director or project manager before reaching Advocate Johnson's PA for signature and dissemination.

“when a project manager is allocated to the projects, as is with most projects, I would not even have direct email with Advocate Johnson. It would go to the DD, or me to the project manager... Then from the deputy director to the project manager ... The project manager would then take the documents to Advocate Johnson's PA. And then once it is signed, Advocate Johnson's PA would let the project manager know, he would collect it, he would scan it, and it would be disseminated amongst the team.”

The 'Diversion' project name originated as code to conceal the nature of the case using section 28 CI register to keep the investigation secretive within the system and process.

“I was thinking that we call this matter Diversion. Then we follow the register. Say Diversion and then no one knows what it is and we are using our system sin process.”

A specific investigation under Section 41(6) relates to one person suspected as a suspect, with documents used to obtain bank statements and cellphone records of multiple employees including M S Ramsamy.

“One person being named as the suspect, but I am also aware because I had handed the documents to the DPCI officer through the protected disclosure that I was busy with prior to this happening. That CIN number was used to obtain bank statements and cell phone records of multiple employees, including myself.”

Affidavits referred to as section 28 affidavits are not drafted properly and require consultation with the complainant to improve them.

“these affidavits are not drafted properly. We need to consult with him so that we may be in a better position to do same.”

Consultation with Mr Adams regarding the affidavits is set for 19 December in Gauteng to allow better preparation of summonses.

“the consultation is set for the 19th of December in Gauteng, GP”

Affidavits referred to are the A1 affidavits in the docket, distinct from section 27 affidavits or later affidavits from January 2025.

“He would have been referring to the affidavits, the A1 affidavits in the dockets.”

Affidavits (A1) were copied for concerned parties so they could follow the progress and not just originals kept for work off.

“I had made copies for all parties' concerns so that they could follow as to what was happening, and it did not make sense for the original to be them not to have copies of them to work off.”

The consultation with the complainant regarding Section 28 summonses was scheduled for 9 December 2024 in Gauteng.

“the consultation with the complainant was scheduled for the 9th of December 2024 in the Gauteng”

The summonses were prepared by Advocate Johnson and were to be issued notwithstanding opposition, as per Advocate Johnson's instruction.

“this message was already confirmation to me that the summonses was going to be issued by Advocate Johnson whether we liked it or not. She told us to prepare the summonses because she knew she would not take no for an answer when we met with her.”

Advocate Johnson gave instruction to serve summonses because she had information about R50 million and needed to stop the money being moved out of the account.

“Advocate Johnson gave an instruction to serve summonses because she had information about R50 million and that we need to stop it from being moved out of the account.”

Advocate Johnson instructed that two summonses must be issued under different dockets, naming one project 'Diversion' to obscure the purpose.

“Advocate Johnson responded that I must do two summonses and then she referred to the project for the first time as Diversion. She said it would be called Diversion, then no one would know what it is and that we were using our systems and process. None of it made sense.”

Prior to removal, there was distrust and discord; going against Perumal's wishes led to being attacked by Advocate Johnson; the witness was a target of such attacks.

“Prior to me being removed, there was a lot of distrust, discord... if you went against what Perumal was wanting to do, you were attacked by Advocate Johnson. So at that point, I was currently the target. I was literally the bullseye for that attack.”

The Section 27 referral affidavit given to the Commission was different from the one Advocate Johnson gave on the 5th of December 2024, and the witness only saw this flighted document for the first time at the Commission.

“this was not the 27 referral affidavit that Advocate Johnson gave me on the 5th of December 2024”