Advocate Johnson

Advocate Serunye and others found that Advocate Hlatshwayo was conducting bail proceedings without proper support from a senior state advocate or DDPP, which concerned them given the case's magnitude involving senior police members.

“I was concerned that in matters of this magnitude involving the arrest of senior members of the police was being handled without such support and without a DDPP overseeing it... We then decided, the three of us, we then decided to approach the Head of the unit, the Investigating Director, Advocate Johnson, to request permission to attend court to assist Advocate Hlatshwayo”

IDAC prosecutors are assigned to four groups but may work across groups for experience or to meet shortages; this flexibility was introduced by Advocate Johnson replacing a prior permanent group allocation approach by Advocate Cronje.

“person can be designated by that group that requires those services ... before the time of Advocate Johnson ... Advocate Cronje ... when you are designated to a group you belong to that group throughout, but when Advocate Johnson came she changed and she was of the view that people should get experience dealing with all the cases, type of cases and therefore no one investigator or prosecutor is permanently based in a group”

Advocate Serunye did not know that the bail condition imposed was not asked for by the prosecution at the time and was unaware whether Advocate Hlatshwayo reported back to Advocate Johnson after the bail application.

“Commissioner, I did not know at the time... I would have expected the prosecutor, Advocate Hlatshwayo, after the bail application to give a report to Advocate Johnson... Therefore, I did not know how much she knew of what happened in court on that day, and what she did not know.”

Advocate Serunye submitted a recusal memo dated 16 September 2025 to the Investigating Director and Mr Sesoko due to personal association with accused number 4, Josias Lekalakala.

“wrote the memo then on the 16th of September. I then emailed it to, as per page 1 of the batch, you will see I then emailed it to the admin personnel, Senyane Manshidi, with the subject: 'Recusal from the matter of state General Khumalo and others'. The memo is dated 16 September 2025 ... The memo is directed to Advocate Johnson, Investigating Director and to Mr Sesoko, Head of Operations and Investigations from Advocate P Serunye, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions ...”

There was difficulty for junior colleagues to raise issues directly with Advocate Johnson due to power dynamics and seniority, leading them to raise complaints with ADV SERUNYE.

“The two colleagues are juniors and it is not easy for them to go straight to the ID to raise issues ... Not that it was easy for me as well to approach Advocate Johnson ... I respect her a lot ... management style as well ... she could be unpredictable at times ...”

Advocate Johnson was described both as a very good manager and as someone who did not take kindly to questioning and could be unpredictable.

“She is a very good manager ... But on the other, if you were raising concerns and questioning her decisions, she did not take kindly to that ... She could be unpredictable at times”

Despite resigning last week, Advocate Johnson's good work at IDAC allowed the organisation to continue functioning well without a permanent head.

“She resigned last week ... the organisation can continue to run itself with the help of, obviously, the CEO Mr Sesoko, and the three deputies that are there ... all because of the good work that she has put in”

Advocate Johnson reprimanded ADV SERUNYE for raising the issue of section 27 referral in presence of junior colleagues and told them to stop questioning investigators.

“She was angry with me for raising the issue of section 27 ... She told me straight in front of the two juniors, why are we making an issue about this? Go and work ... Why do you keep on questioning a second guessing your investigators?”

ADV SERUNYE has known Advocate Johnson for many years and describes her as a good prosecutor and manager with a high level of management.

“I have known Advocate Johnson for many years ... she is a very good prosecutor, hard worker. When she came in as a manager at IDAC, the management was of a very high level”

A D V S E R U N Y E describes communication practice within the ID office, where emails are typically sent to the PA who then sends them to the Advocate. Urgent matters are directly communicated to the Advocate by sender.

“When I send it to Ms Sekhukhune, I am not, I am sending it to her to forward it to the ID. That was the practice, or that is the practice in the office... if it is urgent, urgent, then you even call her, say, ID, I have sent you an email, please check.”

No one raised concerns about the strength, merits or IDAC mandate of a case involving Generals and Brigadiers being arrested and postponed in court, according to Ms Johnson; Adv Serunye disputed this saying he raised concerns and referred to multiple emails.

“Ms Johnson ... firmly said no, no one ever did, none of the lawyers ... with respect to Advocate Johnson, I did. I raised ... there is two, maybe even three others that I referred to her ... I did”

Ms Johnson was made aware of concerns about the Lushaba and Mokwele matters personally by Adv Serunye.

“She was, I did that personally”

Adv Serunye asserts Ms Johnson was not truthful if she said no one raised concerns about the case in her office.

“She was not being truthful to us if she did say to us that no one in the office raised concerns ... She was not being truthful ... She was not being truthful”

Adv Serunye stated Ms Johnson received his emails and memos, including an instance where she responded regarding serving a 28 or her office writing to the National Commissioner.

“She received them ... she responds to me when I am asking her ... should we serve a 28 or is this office ... going to write a letter to the National Commissioner?”

ADV Serunye emailed Advocate Johnson on 25 August, attaching a trial preparation document and expressing the view that the enrolment was rushed and that the case showed a prima facie case of fraud but not corruption based on available evidence.

“I sent an email at 11:44 on the 25th of August to Advocate Johnson, copied PA Ms Sekhukhune, and Mr Matthew Sesoko, with subject status Khumalo and Others, and then I put in an attachment... There is an attachment to that email. Trial Preparation Document 3. I said to the ID that: “Khumalo and Others matter refs. Attached, please find a copy of my trial preparation note 3 addressed to the team. My view is that the enrolment was rushed. However, there is a prima facie case of fraud (not corruption) at least not on the available evidence.””

ADV Serunye did not receive a response from Advocate Johnson or Mr Sesoko to the email containing the trial preparation document but is certain the email was received.

“I did not get any response to this email... No, I had not... I sent it to her email, and this time copied her PA. I am sure she got it... She did not respond. I do not have proof of that, but I sent it to her.”

Ms Johnson testified she was unaware that the bail condition was not requested by the State and would have sought to address it with the court if she had been informed.

“Ms Johnson testified ... she was not made aware that that bail condition was not requested by the State... she would have , as any prosecutor should , as a responsibility to the court and your ethical responsibility, is you go back to the Magistrate and you say you have to undo this”

Despite knowledge that the bail condition was not requested by the State, the prosecutor opposed the bail appeal instead of seeking to have the condition rescinded.

“You knew that this bail condition was not asked for ... you did not do what Ms Johnson says any prosecutor would do ... you actually oppose the appeal on this condition , and you prepare the papers”

Ms Johnson would have acted differently had she been briefed about the bail condition controversy because she did not understand how a condition barring access to all offices in the country could be imposed when the accused were only based in Pretoria.

“Ms Johnson ... did not understand how you would have gotten a condition that they do not go to any office in the country , when in fact they are only based in Pretoria , and she did not understand , and that was wrong for it to be in the bail condition”

Adv Serunye finds it difficult to accept that Ms Johnson did not know about the bail condition because Mr Padayachee indicated it was to be requested.

“I find it difficult when Advocate Johnson says she did not know about the condition , because based on what I hear from Mr Padayachee , they were supposed to ask for that bail condition”

Advocate Johnson gave instructions approving an appeal based on Mr Padayachee’s affidavit and sent a WhatsApp message instructing Advocate Ramsamy to inform Advocates Serunye and Hlatshwayo, though Advocate Hlatshwayo did not ask for the bail condition in court.

“Advocate Johnson gave instructions approving the appeal based on Mr Padayachee's affidavit and she then sent a WhatsApp to Advocate Ramsamy, instructing her to then inform Advocate Serunye and Advocate Hlatshwayo... but Advocate Hlatshwayo did not ask for that condition in court.”

Mr Raphesu briefly browsed the affidavit for between 5 to 10 minutes and did not finish reading it before pushing it back to Ms Ramsamy as she was about to leave, because it was supposed to be handed over to Advocate Johnson's safe.

“the time might be maybe between 5 to 10 minutes ... then I pushed it back to her when she was about to leave ... she was supposed to have handed it over to be kept at the safe of Advocate Johnson”

Advocate Johnson was said in a briefing to be leading and supervising a certain matter.

“she will be leading thematter”

Mr. Raphesu explained the claims about improper procedure were discussed in a conversation between Advocate Johnson and Honourable Mr. Sauls in relation to affidavits filed by Colonel Phillips and Lieutenant General Jacobs.

“It was a conversation between Advocate Johnson and Honourable Mr Sauls, if I remember, but it was in relation to the affidavit that was filed by Colonel Phillips and Lieutenant General Jacobs.”

Mr Raphesu states that in a meeting with Mr Adams and Mr Perumal he did not see the original 27 affidavit concerning the PKTT and that he never saw such affidavit when meeting with Mr Adams.

“You have not seen the original 27 affidavit which speaks about the PKTT. You had not seen it. As far as Mr Perumal and Ms Johnson are concerned, you have never seen that affidavit when you meet with Mr Adams, right? Thank you, Commissioner, yes.”

Ms Johnson was present at the presentation of the document prepared by Chief Perumal.

“She was present.”

The presentation was prepared by Chief Perumal and was submitted to Ms Johnson on or about 16 January.

“…the presentation was prepared by Chief Perumal ... the cover email says the presentation is to be submitted to her … the email of 16 January.”

Advocate Ramsamy instructed Mr Raphesu to draft a section 28 subpoena regarding General Lushaba's bank records, but Mr Raphesu refused to do so as there was no docket reference and he feared he could not explain his actions later.

“… Advocate Ramsamy came to my office with a piece of paper indicating that the head of the office, Advocate Johnson, wanted me to draft a section 28 subpoena. So I had a conversation with Advocate Ramsamy to say, but this we cannot do because we do not have anything in the docket ... if we do this, I am not going to be able to explain why I subpoenaed these documents.”

Ms Ramsamy did not take kind of me questioning her; she instructed Mr. Raphesu to draft section 28 documents regarding information about the 50 million slush funds.

“she indicated that the ID did not take kind of me questioning her. So we were summoned now to Advocate Johnson's office, where now, she now instructed me to draft this section 28”

The summons to banks were signed by Advocate Johnson as per procedure, although the correct section reference should have been 28(13) not section 1(a).

“When you look at the background, you indicate... at the time what was authorised would have been a section 28(13)... I noticed that and I accept that it is an error on my part.”

The process for issuing section 28 subpoenas is supposed to go through the project manager to escalate and control, but in this case, it went straight to Advocate Johnson's office without going through the project manager, and there was no project manager involved in this project.

“the process is supposed to move from myself to the project manager, then from the project manager to her office. But it did not move in that way. It went straight to her office this time... No, there was not.”

Mr. Raphesu did not get a chance to speak in the meeting with Advocate Johnson; he assumed Ms Ramsamy conveyed his issues and the meeting was to give instructions, not a consultation.

“I did not even get a chance to speak. So I assume that when Advocate Ramsamy went to her, she said enough... No, it was just there to give the instructions.”

An email trail shows that the email was sent to Advocate Johnson by Mr O'Sullivan on 5 January 2025.

“When I was looking at the emails... this email was sent already to Advocate Johnson... By Mr O'Sullivan... it should be 5th of January.”

Contrary to Ms Johnson's testimony that she never dealt with Mr O'Sullivan on the Mokwele matter, email records show she received an email from him on 5 January 2025.

“When Ms Johnson said to us... that she has never had any dealings with Mr O'Sullivan... that would not be correct, because she would have received an email from him.”

Advocate Johnson accused Mr Raphesu of sharing information about an investigation with the suspect or person of interest in that investigation.

“Advocate Johnson accused you of sharing information about an investigation with the suspect or a person of interest in that investigation”

Advocate Johnson started receiving calls from Mr Nkabinde on the 9th, but only got an opportunity to speak with him on the 30th.

“Advocate Johnson records that she started receiving the calls on the 9th... And that it is only on the 30th when she got an opportunity to speak with that person.”

A conversation on the 30th revealed a discussion about authorization for an investigation related to Mr Nkabinde, with instructions not to discuss certain matters with Mansay and mention of something terrible having happened.

“After noon, Advocate Johnson. Please advise authorisation for the Nkab stand-alone... Something terrible has happened. Whatever you do, do not discuss anything with Nkab with Mansay. When you hear what I have to say, your heart will break...”

Advocate Johnson is implicated quite seriously in the statement received by the Commission.

“the statement implicates Advocate Johnson quite seriously”

Ms Ramsamy was aware of the serious allegations she was making but did not want them put to Advocate Johnson until she could give her full version under protected disclosure protection.

“She was aware of the allegations that she was making, that they were serious, but had not wanted them to be put to Advocate Johnson until she had been given an opportunity to give her full version, because her intention was in any event to only make this disclosure under protected disclosure protection after Advocate Johnson gave her evidence”

The intention is to serve a Rule 3 notice on Advocate Johnson to address the allegations made against her.

“The intention is to serve a Rule 3 notice on Advocate Johnson to address these allegations”

Advocate Johnson gave evidence on 22 July implicating Ms Ramsamy in events related to the Mokwele investigation, which led to Ms Segels-Ncube receiving information about Ms Ramsamy's disclosures during that evidence.

“on the 22nd of July, when Advocate Johnson gave evidence regarding certain events that occurred in the Mokwele investigation, she mentioned the name of Ms Ramsamy... I received a message from a DPCI officer who had indicated to me that Ms Ramsamy had made certain disclosures...”

Advocate Johnson initiated emails with the subject line referring to Tembisa, which were later used to cover Project Diversion and Medicare 24 related investigations.

“Who initiated the emails referring to Tembisa? Advocate Johnson... It later then, Advocate Johnson would title projects, like the Crime Intelligence became known as Project Diversion...”

Advocate Johnson made untruthful statements about Ms Ramasamy's involvement in the Mokwele case and did not disclose that Ms Ramasamy raised concerns repeatedly from the onset.

“Advocate Johnson told many untruths about me and my involvement in what is now known as the Mokwele case. She did not disclose that I raised concerns from the onset and repeatedly thereafter...”

Advocate Johnson decided after section 28(13) authorization of the Crime Intelligence matters that all other Crime Intelligence matters would be brought into a project named Project Diversion.

“Advocate Johnson decided shortly after the section 28(13) authorisation of the Crime Intelligence matters, that all other Crime Intelligence matters would be ring-fenced into a project which she named Project Diversion.”

Ms Ramasamy believes that Advocate Johnson handpicked her for Project Diversion because of her successful investigation of a high-profile individual in another section 27 referral matter and because she thought Ms Ramasamy would not question or ask questions.

“It is my belief that Advocate Johnson hand-picked me to be part of this project because I had successfully, or rather we had successfully, investigated another section 27 referral matter involving a high-profile individual. I also believe that Advocate Johnson picked me because she thought that I would not question or ask questions because I am a state advocate.”

Ms Ramasamy prepared documents on Advocate Johnson's instructions that were not in accordance with IDAC standard operating procedures, although IDAC SOPs do exist.

“I confirmed that I prepared documents on Advocate Johnson's instructions that we: not in accordance with IDAC standard operating procedures, which Advocate Johnson indicated to this Commission did not exist.”

Advocate Johnson did not respond to a memo requesting withdrawal of a matter based on evidence involving the 'A team' and IDAC not following rules.

“I still have not received a reply from Advocate Johnson... the matter needs to be withdrawn... Advocate Johnson calls Perumal's team the A team, and then there is IDAC. So, the A team, they do not follow the rules and that is why we did not... I still have not seen the physical docket.”

There is a non-disclosure rule in IDAC concerning the Rule 27 affidavit, which Advocate Johnson asserts does not get disclosed and a legal opinion has been sought but not yet received.

“Advocate Johnson's instructions is a 27 referral does not get disclosed. However, I am aware that a legal opinion on this has been sought. We have not received it yet.”

The operational manual of IDAC sets out procedures for investigations, referrals, team constitutions, reporting, presentations and briefings according to sections 7, 27, 28 and 29 of the NPA Act, but Advocate Johnson frequently deviated from it and did things her own way causing constant deviation and intimidation.

“The operational manual is supposed to, ... And when I use the word supposedly, if I may, Advocate Segels, continue? Advocate Johnson would deviate constantly. It was a situation where we had this, but she would also have her own way of doing things with different groups, different investigations, different structures. So there was a constant deviation from what was in black and white and it was always from her office that the deviation was done. And when the deviation was done, it always came with intimidation.”

Advocate Johnson gave instructions that had to be followed, and deviation or contradiction would lead to internal investigation, unlawful treatment, and counseling due to the stress caused among IDAC employees.

“If you do not follow the instructions, you receive emails of a nature that – when I was consulting with the DPCI officer, when I intended on making protected disclosure in June last year, I likened it to being treated worse than a scullery maid. You would be internally investigated, unlawfully so. You would be made redundant for an entire period in 2023 because I objected to Mr Perumalan and Advocate Johnson. And it happened again this year because I objected.”

Advocate Johnson was a very active legal mind and the level of legal engagement was high when Mr Perumalan was not present or influencing decisions.

“When Mr Perumalan was not present, or was not involved in the communication, or was not influencing the decisions, Advocate Johnson was a very active legal mind. You would be able to engage, and she would speak about different things that she had done, and how we can incorporate it in sections of Acts.”

Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumalan extended instructions that overrode legal rationality and changed investigative outcomes based on Mr Perumalan's desires.

“...the flip-flop would happen. So, no matter how you explained it to her, or how the decision was made in a rational manner, it would then change according to what Mr Perumalan wanted.”

When one defied Advocate Johnson's instruction, there was a regime of wrath leading to emotional stress and counseling among IDAC staff, with many employees affected.

“If you defy an instruction of Advocate Johnson, or you contradict her, the regime or the wrath, if you have to – may I speak about – if you have to go and check the records at the wellness programme that NPA provides for its employees with regards to just work stress, home stress, you know, counselling, you will be shocked at the amount of prosecutors and employees, admin staff from IDAC that are receiving counselling.”

Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumalan instructed to proceed with a section 28(13) investigation authorization that was drafted and approved within a short timeframe in December 2024.

“Advocate Johnson had stated they had made a decision that the matter was to proceed in terms of section 28(13) and that I was to draft the authorisation and email it to her on the same day that the referral was handed to me because she wanted to approve it by Friday, the 5th of December 2024.”

On 9 October 2025, MS Ramsamy was contacted by Innocent Sekokane, personal assistant to Advocate Johnson, about Mr Perumal calling regarding whereabouts of the original section 27 referral affidavit, and said MS Ramsamy was asked to keep it safe but could not trace the affidavit.

“On the 9th of October 2025, I was contacted by Ms Innocent Sekokane, personal assistant to Advocate Johnson. She informed me that she was told that Mr Perumal had called me that same day regarding the whereabouts of the original section 27 referral affidavit. She said that I had to told Mr Perumal that I was tasked with the safekeeping of the section 7 referral affidavit and that I could not trace the section 27 referral affidavit.”

In September or early October 2025, accused persons in the Mokwele matter made numerous requests for the section 27 referral affidavit. Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal were struggling to find it and possibly thought MS Ramsamy had it, but MS Ramsamy suspects they did not want to disclose the affidavit to the accused and needed a reason why it could not be produced.

“If I recall correctly, in September 2025 or early October 2025, the accused persons in the Mokwele matter had made numerous requests for the section 27 referral. I want to say that Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal were struggling to find the section 27 referral affidavit and perhaps thought I had the affidavit, but I cannot say that because what I suspect is that Advocate Johnson and/or Mr Perumal did not want to disclose the section 27 referral affidavit to the accused persons in the Mokwele matter and needed a reason as to why it could not be produced.”

The flighted section 27 referral affidavit makes no reference to the PKTT, whereas the December 2024 version does, and no record exists of the December 2024 version other than the original returned to Advocate Johnson on 6 December 2024, which was not produced.

“I do not think it is a coincidence that the flighted section 27 referral affidavit makes no reference to the PKTT, whereas the version I saw in December 2024, does. And now there is no record of that version, other than the original that I returned to Advocate Johnson on the 6th of December 2024, which was not produced, and in respect of which Mr Perumal tried to create the narrative that I had misplaced the original.”

MS Ramsamy was concerned about being blamed unfairly for something she had no knowledge of and addressed an email to Advocate Johnson about events on 5 December 2024 and thereafter, regarding the section 27 referral affidavit.

“I was concerned that I was being blamed for something I had no knowledge of. I addressed an email to Advocate Johnson to set out the events that transpired on the 5th of December 2024 and thereafter, regarding the section 27 referral affidavit. I have provided the email to the Commission.”

On 9 October 2025, MS Ramsamy sent an email to Advocate Johnson, Mr Perumal, Mr Sesoko, and Mr Tlale saying that she was contacted by Enoch, that Mr Perumal had directed her to keep the section 27 referral affidavit safe but she could not trace it, and that Mr Perumal did not contact her that day but Mr Tlale did.

“Good day, Advocate Johnson. I was contacted by Enoch, in respect of: That I was contacted by Mr Perumal today regarding the above referral, and that I indicated you told me to keep it safe, and that I cannot trace it. Mr Perumal did not contact me today. Mr Tlale contacted me today. He contacted me this morning, and I explained to him as follows: On the morning of the 5th of December 2025 ...”

Advocate Johnson responded to MS Ramsamy's email later the same day via WhatsApp, accepting she may have been mistaken about the section 27 referral affidavit and said she would check her office the next day.

“Later the same day, at 3 or 4 p.m., Advocate Johnson responded to my email via WhatsApp. In the message, she accepted that she may have been mistaken about the section 27 referral affidavit. She said she would look in her office the following day.”

Advocate Johnson gave Ramsamy a handwritten pink-purple page with the names of suspects for the section 28(13) authorization list.

“she gave me a list of suspects' names on the pink-purple notepad page”

The names in the section 28(13) authorization were sourced from Advocate Johnson and a section 27 referral affidavit.

“I got the names from Advocate Johnson, together with the section 27 referral affidavit”

Advocate Johnson made a startling remark that they must find a way for Ramsamy not to testify before the Commission.

“Advocate Johnson made a startling remark, that we have got to figure out how you do not go.”

Advocate Johnson says Dylan cannot remember many things and Ramsamy has no power abuse in authorizing names of others in the section 28(13).

“He cannot remember half the things”

Ramsamy sent an email explaining what she received and what she returned to Advocate Johnson concerning the suspect list.

“after you phoned me last night, I went and found that email where I explained what I received from you and what I returned to you.”

Advocate Johnson signed the section 28(13) authorization but indicated Ramsamy did not prepare an application for it as normally done, instead a short summary with facts is usually given to authorize Drew.

“Yes, but did you put an application together for the authorisation? ... usually we just put a thing with a short summary of facts.”

Ramsamy was told not to do a mandate memo and that facts were covered in the email sent.

“you told me not to do the mandate memo. It was just the ... I am just opening my laptop for you now ... the facts and all of that was covered in the email I sent.”

Ms Ramsamy sent Advocate Johnson a WhatsApp message on 10 December 2024 with a summary and preliminary instructions for the team but was not instructed to prepare the report.

“On the morning of the 10th of December 024, three business days after the preparatory investigation was authorized, I sent Advocate Johnson a WhatsApp message informing her that I had prepared a summary and a preliminary instruction for the team. I was not instructed to prepare this report.”

Advocate Johnson instructed Ms Ramsamy to speak to Mr Perumal urgently to issue subpoenas on Major General Lushaba's bank accounts before money could be moved, which confused Ms Ramsamy.

“Advocate Johnson told me to speak to Mr Perumal because she needed us to do our urgent subpoena s on Major General Lushaba's bank accounts before they move money. She said it should be from the time he was acting as the Divisional Commissioner to date. This instruction confused me.”

Ms Ramsamy instructed that no section 28 subpoenas should be issued without her perusal and signature, but Advocate Johnson overruled this instruction and dictated Project Diversion with Mr Perumal.

“She was instructing me to issue section 8 summonses notwithstanding my instructions to the investigators not to do so without my perusal. In effect, she overturned my instructions and this illustrates how Project Diversion was dictated by her and Mr Perumal.”

Advocate Johnson had received information alleging that R50 million was being moved from the Secret Service account, prompting urgent summonses for Major General Lushaba's bank account.

“He said that Advocate Johnson had received information that funds in the amount of 50 million from the Secret Service account was being moved. As stated above, the movement of funds being the reason for urgent summons for bank statements simply did not make sense to me.”

Ms Ramsamy forwarded Advocate Johnson's message to a Signal group chat including Perumal, Padayachee, and Raphesu before calling Mr Perumal as instructed.

“Before I called Mr Perumal, I forwarded Advocate Johnson's message to a Signal group chat with Perumal, Padayachee and Raphesu in the group. Thereafter, I called Mr Perumal as instructed.”

ADV Johnson was Respected and called 'Mama' by MS Ramsamy due to her kindness and support, despite issues with work ethic.

“When I started with ID , before it became IDAC , Advocate Johnson was the Head of Office . We had a choice between calling her ID or Mama J . And I respectfully call her that because she is not a bad person . She is not . You know , when I got sick , she was there . She is kind . It is just the work ethic that I have a problem with . And so I respectfully call her Mama .”

ADV Johnson and Mr Perumal launched an orchestrated attack on General Masemola and General Khumalo using IDAC's investigation tools.

“Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal launched an orchestrated attack on General Masemola and General Khumalo, using IDAC 's powerful investigation tools . And this wil l become evident in my statement and testimony.”

MS Ramsamy expressed unease with being instructed to include names of suspects in the section 28(13) application since it did not reconcile with the content of the section 27 referral affidavit.

“paragraph 49: Mr Raphesu briefly perused the affidavit before I had to return it to Advocate Johnson, shortly before the staff meeting. I went to Advocate Johnson 's office and returned the section 27 referral affidavit, and she gave me the signed 28(13) authorisation. There was a meeting scheduled for 11 a.m. with the team assigned to the Adams referral, which took place in Advocate Johnson's office.”

In November 2025, Ms Ramsamy reported to DPCI that Advocate Johnson lied to the Ad Hoc Committee and provided proof.

“In November 2025, after Advocate Johnson testified at the Ad Hoc Committee, I contacted the same officer at the DPCI. I informed him that Advocate Johnson had lied to the Ad Hoc Committee and that I had proof of this.”

Advocate Johnson was the favored prosecutor of Advocate Shamila Batohi and could do no wrong, and grievances about IDAC from staff were suppressed to the extent that people resigned or applied for other posts.

“Advocate Johnson was the blue-eyed girl of Advocate Batohi. She could do no wrong. ... If you look at any grievance that was sent about IDAC from the staff members, it was quashed to an extent where people started just resigning. People were applying for posts.”

There was corridor talk about sharing a docket by Advocate Johnson with General Khan before it was publicly known.

“You refer to the sharing of documents. Are you talking about what Mr Roelofse, Mr McClean and Witness O said about the sharing of a docket by Advocate Johnson with General Khan? ... Correct, but at that time, before the testimony, it was just corridor gossip.”

A Deputy Director of Public Prosecution said to Ms Ramsamy after she showed him concerning documentation that these things will never see the light of day, which Ms Ramsamy understood as an intent to suppress and destroy evidence.

“The DDPP, and he said these things will never see the light of day. ... That no one will ever know that these things were done by Advocate Johnson or at IDAC.”

Ms Ramsamy is concerned that by coming forward with information against Advocate Johnson she is being made a scapegoat and fears retaliation.

“I mention this because I do not want the narrative to be that I am retaliating against Advocate Johnson for making me the scapegoat or that I am coming forward with this information now that my name has been dragged through the mud.”

Ms Ramsamy provided documents showing the standard operating procedure and case selection criteria directives issued and signed by Advocate Johnson and Mr Matthew Sesoko, Head of Investigation, in October 2024 and August 2022 respectively.

“I will deal with the section 27 referrals based on my personal experience and understanding of the SOP, case selection, criteria directive issued and signed by Advocate Johnson and Mr Sesoko in October 2024 and in August 2022 respectively.”

There is a standard operating procedure manual called the IDAC Operation Manual issued and signed by Advocate Johnson and Mr Matthew Sesoko on 16 October 2024.

“There was, and still is, a standard operating procedure referred to as the IDAC Operation Manual issued and signed by Advocate Johnson and Mr Matthew Sesoko, the Head of Investigation, on 16 October 2024, which I have also provided to the Commission.”

Advocate Johnson was personally supervising and dictating key decisions throughout the investigation related to the section 28 authorization for Fadiel Adam's arrest.

“Advocate Johnson was not merely supervising. She was dictating key decisions throughout the investigation.”

There was secrecy around the section 27 referral affidavit, which before Mr Perumal's comments, had only been seen by Advocate Johnson, Mr Perumal and Mr Raphesu.

“As far as I was aware, before Mr Perumal's comments at the airport, the only people who had seen the section 27 affidavit Advocate Johnson, Mr Perumal, and Mr Raphesu, because I had shown it to them.”

Mr Ramsamy cannot confirm the date of the section 27 affidavit seen but has recollections of conversations and WhatsApp messages from November 2024 relating to the 27 referral email debacle.

“I cannot confirm that. I have a recollection of a different date. I also have a recollection of a conversation between Perumal and myself, when this whole debacle of where is the 27 referral as per my email was happening, where Perumal says to me, no, the ID must check, the ID must check, referring to Advocate Johnson, because I have WhatsApps from the 13th of November where Fadiel is asking for things.”

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.”

Advocate Johnson supervised certain special projects not following ordinary SOPs and titled them as Matter X, Project Golden, and Section 41(6) investigation into internal people within IDAC.

“Projects that ran out of Advocate Johnson's office that were not within the ordinary SOP's, the ones that Advocate Johnson supervised herself, she gave titles to, Matter X, Project Golden, there is even a project, Section 41(6), which she is investigating internal people within IDAC.”

Following day, Mr. Raphesu sent a WhatsApp message raising concerns about stalling summonses until consultation with complainant due to affidavits not constituting a case.

“The following day, 11 December 2024, Mr Raphesu sent me a WhatsApp message to raise the same concerns I had. If forwarded this message to Advocate Johnson. Essentially, Mr Raphesu suggested that we stall or park the summonses until we had consulted with the complainant because his affidavits simply did not set out a case.”

Advocate Johnson instructed to change the letter request from Major General Khumalo to Lieutenant General Jacobs and to shred the initial letter as it was never sent to Khumalo.

“I had to change the letter request from Major General Khumalo to Lieutenant General Jacobs. I sent Advocate Johnson a WhatsApp message... Her response was that I must shred the letter because it was not going to Lieutenant General Jacobs. She said she had written to Divisional Commissioner Detective Services, Lieutenant General Sentumule.”

Advocate Johnson refused to send the letter to Lieutenant General Jacobs and instead told to shred the letter, claiming it had been redirected to Divisional Commissioner Sentumule.

“Not going to Jacobs. She said shred the letter. I wrote to Div Com on Friday. She will revert today.”

Advocate Johnson provided instructions that the dockets must be photocopied immediately and originals handed to her personal assistant.

“She also gave me an instruction that the dockets must be copied immediately and the originals must be handed to her personal assistant.”

The request for dockets via letter to Major General Khumalo was never sent because Khumalo indicated the dockets were not with him or under his control, and the letter was subsequently addressed to Lieutenant General Sentumule instead.

“Advocate Johnson testified that we sent the letter requesting the dockets to Major General Khumalo and that he had indicated that the dockets were not with him or were not his. As stated above, the letter was never sent to Major General Khumalo and Advocate Johnson knew that because she told me to shred the letter. Advocate Johnson told me that the letter had been changed and addressed to General Sentumule.”

The process of requesting and collecting dockets was complicated by internal office commotion and changes in official letter addressees, resulting in Advocate Johnson instructing shredding and changing letters instead of sending original requests to Major General Khumalo or Lieutenant General Jacobs.

“There was a lot of commotion on that day... I had to change the letter request from Major General Khumalo to Lieutenant General Jacobs... Her response was that I must shred the letter because it was not going to Lieutenant General Jacobs. She said she had written to Divisional Commissioner Detective Services, Lieutenant General Sentumule... Advocate Johnson told me to ask Mr Raphesu to call Colonel Phillips and ask if Lieutenant General Sentumule had asked Colonel Phillips to hand the dockets over.”

IDAC operates on the principle of prosecution-led investigations, but this method is left open to manipulation of suspects, evidence, and witnesses, and has been manipulated by Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal.

“IDAC operates on the principle of prosecution-led investigations... And it has been manipulated by and used by Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal.”

Within the office, gossip about concerns with Advocate Ncube is not effectively addressed, and the head constantly interferes and deviates from the structural basis set out in the SOPs.

“...if I had a problem with Advocate Ncube, I could go and gossip... But I could go and gossip about Advocate Ncube and say Advocate Ncube does not know what she is doing... and then the next meeting Advocate Johnson is at the meeting, and what I said is golden, but the correct way Advocate Ncube is asking for is out the door... the Head constantly would interfere and deviate from that.”

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.”

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.”

Advocate Johnson received a section 27 referral in July 2023 and held a consultation with the deponent and the deponent's legal representative, instructing the team to handle the matter secretly due to sensitivity and implicated persons.

“In July 2023, I received a meeting invite from Advocate Johnson...Advocate Johnson stated that she had received a section 27 referral and that had held a consultation with the deponent and the deponent's legal representative...Advocate Johnson...instructed the team that no one was to know that we were handling the matter, owing to the sensitivity of the information and of the implicated person or persons.”

The process for handling the referral involved copying statements, interrogating affidavits to decide if they fell within ID mandate, drafting certificate of mandate, applying for section 28(13) investigation authorization, and drafting an investigation plan with investigators.

“We were to make copies of the statement, the prosecutor and myself, that she had handed to us and return the original to her office...The prosecutors were to interrogate the affidavit and decide whether it fell within the mandate of ID...Once the certificate of mandate was signed, the prosecutors were to attend to drafting the application of authorisation of a section 28(13) investigation...and once authorisation was signed, we were to consult with the investigators and draft an investigation plan.”

Documents including a recommendation and a summary are submitted for approval through Mr Sesoko and Advocate Johnson, who must approve the recommendation for the process of mandate and investigation application to proceed.

“This is our recommendation having regard to what had been provided to us, and then you include your summary, the 19-pager.”

The decision to approve the section 28(13) application is made after Advocate Johnson confirms it falls within the mandate, followed by submission of documents and consultation via emails and WhatsApp before drafting the application.

“After Advocate Johnson confirms that she approves that it falls within the mandate...after you submit this document, the consideration memo of mandate and the summary, and then she would ask who makes the decision that there must be an application for 28(13). After the report and the certificate, we would then receive an email or a WhatsApp from the PA indicating that, please come and collect your certificate. And at that point, we would be informed to proceed with drafting a 28(13).”

Investigator sent an email to Advocate Johnson on 4 December 2024 to inform her that including Ms Ramsamy, staff would be in court on another matter on 6 December 2024 and could not attend a scheduled staff meeting.

“On the morning of 4 December 2024, an investigator working on another case...sent an email to Advocate Johnson...informing her that we, including me, would be in court on another matter that Friday. In other words, he was informing Advocate Johnson that we would not be able to attend the staff meeting.”

General Lushaba banks with Bank A and the information for subpoenaing his bank statements came from a pink note with handwriting on another piece of paper provided by Advocate Johnson.

“How do the two of you know that General Lushaba banks with bank A and that it is bank A that you must subpoena for his bank statements? Where does all that information come from... It was another pink note on another piece of paper... with handwriting ... It came from Advocate Johnson...”

The pink note with handwriting was given by Advocate Johnson at the meeting.

“The pink note with the handwriting, the pencil handwriting. It came from Advocate Johnson? Correct. And right, it was her writing? Yes. Which was given in that meeting.”

The confidential Crime Intelligence documents show a list of bank details of General Lushaba, suggesting information about the R50 million movement from Crime Intelligence account would have come from someone in Crime Intelligence involving either Advocate Johnson or Chief Perumal who were closely dealing with this.

“...the two of them would have or must have received information ... about the R50 million ... from Crime Intelligence ... funds being moved from a Crime Intelligence account ... That kind of information ... would have had to have come from someone at Crime Intelligence ... Advocate Johnson or Chief Perumal because they are the two people ... intimately dealing with this...”

Advocate Johnson instructed that a product needed to be compiled for her office to be submitted on Friday.

“Advocate Johnson specifically instructing, telling you that she needs you for tomorrow ... a product I need you to compile for my office to be submitted on Friday.”

On 5 December 2024, Ms Ramsamy went to Advocate Johnson's office per her instructions where she was given a grey document bag containing a highly sensitive section 27 referral affidavit and a pinkish-purple note with names of suspects handwritten by Advocate Johnson.

“The next morning, the 5th of December 024, at 8 a.m., I went to Advocate Johnson's office per her instructions ... she had a grey document bag with a zip, and she told me that it contained a highly sensitive section 27 referral affidavit ... It also contained a pinkish-purple page from a notepad with the names of people in Advocate Johnson's handwriting. She told me that these are the suspects Chief and I discussed are to be included in the section 28 (13). By Chief, she meant Mr Perumal. Advocate Johnson handed me the bag and gave me the following instructions ... I must take the content of the bag and prepare an application for authorisation of a section 28 (13) investigation ...”

Advocate Johnson said she needed a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP) on the matter for authorisation purposes but would supervise the matter herself.

“Advocate Johnson said that she needed a DDPP on the matter for the purposes of authorisation, but that she would supervise the matter.”

Advocate Johnson instructed Ms Ramsamy not to make copies of the section 27 referral affidavit due to the sensitivity of the matter, but she was allowed to make notes.

“I must not make copies of the 27 referral affidavit. I am allowed to make notes regarding the section 27 referral affidavit. I must not show the section 27 referral affidavit to anyone due to the sensitivity of the matter.”

Ms Ramsamy testified that the pinkish-purple page with the suspects' names was Advocate Johnson's handwriting and that she clearly stated the names Chief and she decided, with Chief referring to Mr Perumal.

“... The page was her handwriting. Her handwriting is very distinctive ... And she had clearly stated to me, these are the names Chief and I decided. But it was her handwriting.”

Ms Ramsamy confirmed she was called by Advocate Johnson during her testimony and that she was asked about the list of suspects.

“When she called you now, as she was testifying here, when she called you, if she did call you, did she call you out to ask about the list? Yes, correct.”

Ms Ramsamy testified that Advocate Johnson urgently needed the application for authorisation of the section 28(13) investigation approved by Friday, 6 December 2024, because she wanted to approve it herself.

“Advocate Johnson told me that she needed the application urgently because she wants to approve the section 28 (13) investigation by Friday, 6 December 2024.”

Ms Ramsamy complied with Advocate Johnson's direct instruction to prepare and submit the section 28(13) investigation application despite her concerns.

“Since the instruction came directly from Advocate Johnson and she had already told me that the decision had been made and that she wanted to approve the section 28(13) then next day, I complied with her instructions.”

Advocate Johnson was the supervisor and dictator of the matter, controlling all moves in the process; no actions were taken without her knowledge between the time period involved until September 2025.

“Advocate Johnson said she was going to be the supervisor of this matter. She was the dictator of this matter. There was not a single move for the period that I was involved, right until 2025, September, there was not a single action that was done in the Medicare or the Crime Intelligence that Advocate Johnson did not know about.”

Between Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal, they coordinated and updated each other about everything related to the matter, and Advocate Johnson shifted her position according to Mr Perumal's wishes.

“between Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal, they would talk to each other and update each other about everything and that is why ... she has completely changed her mind and we are now on the beat of what Mr Perumal wants.”

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.”

Advocate Johnson instructed the whole team to hand investigations to Financial Investigator Mr Wynand once received, who was designated on the matter.

“Advocate Johnson had given instructions to the whole team that once it is received, it must be given to the Financial Investigator, Mr Wynand that was designated on the matter.”

Mr Sesoko was removed from the process of signing or approving authorizations, with former requirements changing to Advocate Johnson signing instead.

“Mr Sesoko has been made redundant with regards to signing or approving documents. He does not even see that... Later on, it was changed to, it has to be signed by the DD or Deputy Director... and then, or recommended by the Deputy Director and authorized, and then Mr Sesoko was removed. Later on, it just became Advocate Johnson that signed.”

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”

The request to Major General Mbuso Khumalo for case dockets was based solely on the Section 27 affidavit given to the witness on 5 December 2024.

“I refer the Commission to a written request for case dockets that Advocate Johnson instructed me to prepare and address to Major General Mbuso Khumalo... The request was based on dockets referred to in the section 27 affidavit.”

The witness had no knowledge of emails between Chief of Staff Cedric Nkabinde or Police Minister Senzo Mchunu and Advocate Johnson and relied only on the Section 27 affidavit for information to prepare the request for case dockets to Major General Mbuso Khumalo.

“At this time, I had no knowledge of any emails that had taken place between Chief of Staff Cedric Nkabinde and Advocate Johnson, or any emails between Police Minister Senzo Mchunu and Advocate Johnson. So what I worked off for this request from Lieutenant General Mbuso could only have come from the 27 referral.”

The names in the Crime Intelligence documents did not entirely correlate with the list of names given by Advocate Johnson on 10 December 2024.

“The names in the documents did not correlate with the list of names that Advocate Johnson gave me on the 10th December 2024.”

Advocate Johnson denied any ill intent or scheme in charging General Masemola, stating that prosecutors evaluated the case in its totality and firmly believed in the PFMA charges, though acknowledging the connection/link between charges was not drawn.

“at no stage was there an intention to make a spectacle of anything. The prosecutors looked at the case in its totality. And as I explained this morning, it relates to, I accept, the only part that I do accept is they did not draw the link between the two. That in itself does not make the conduct malicious and there was no intent to put him on show.”

Advocate Johnson acknowledged that the charge sheet against General Masemola may have been clumsily or incompetently drafted, but reiterated that this does not constitute ill intent.

“Incompetently put, but that does not make for ill intent at all.”

The Chairperson and Advocate Sello SC asserted that General Masemola could not legally be joined with co-accused charged with fraud and corruption under Section 155(1) or Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Advocate Johnson conceded the point.

“Surely in charging General Masemola together with people charged with fraud and corruption, you did not rely on section 155(1). I must be correct in that view.”

Adv Johnson accepts that General Masemola will suffer legal prejudice from being tried jointly with accused persons who are facing fraud and corruption charges.

“I accept that.”

Adv Johnson denies there was any intention to embarrass General Masemola by joining him to the case, stating prosecutors joined him to lead evidence together regarding PFMA statutory offences and complex fraud.

“I gave the contention that I did, that the prosecutors put him in one matter because there is this serious complex fraud corruption and it would be one matter when they lead the evidence with the PFMA... but at no stage, Chair, was there an intention to embarrass.”

Adv Johnson confirms that prosecutors made the decision to add General Masemola as a co-accused, and that he participated in the briefing discussion regarding whether Masemola would be charged jointly or separately.

“Yes, the prosecutors take the decision. When we were briefed, we agreed that he is charged only for the PFMA.”

Advocate Johnson signed off on a Section 28 summons following a complaint by Mr Adams that requested irrelevant documents, including lists of Divisional Crime Intelligence heads, performance assessments of Major Generals, advertisements, audio recordings, interview records, and documents General Jacobs refused to return.

“you signed off on a summons that asked for a litany of documents that had no bearing on the complaint, including a list of all Provincial Heads and Section Heads who were stationed in Division Crime Intelligence, the performance assessment of all Major Generals for that year, the advertisements for that position, audio recordings and interviews. Then you want documentary records that General Jacobs refused to return.”

Advocate Johnson requested documentary files and applications for promotions regarding commanders and members of the PKTT via Section 28 summons beyond the scope of Mr Adams' original complaint.

“you ask in the same summons for documentary files and applications for promotions and Commanders and members of the Political Task Teams through deviation. According to you, the PKTTT did not feature anywhere. So once again, that is way beyond the scope of the original complaint by Mr Adams.”

Advocate Johnson contends that the section 27 referral was accompanied by a preliminary report setting out a factual basis and offences linking the individuals.

“that 27 was read, as I understood it this morning, with the preliminary report which sets out a more factual basis that links the different people and perhaps sets out the offences.”

Adv Sello SC asserted that IDAC's investigations targeting Generals and the PKTT fell wholly outside IDAC's mandate under section 7(1)(A) and flouted legislative prescriptions, risking the destabilisation of law enforcement institutions.

“all that we have discussed about these investigations and aiming at the Generals and the PKTT is wholly outside the mandate of IDAC as we understand it, as contemplated in terms of section 7(1)(A). That is my assessment. And if you strongly deny that there is a hand in this, I would like you to explain to the Commissioners on what basis, because this entire effort and exercise cannot have been to the benefit of IDAC. It is not to the benefit of the country to flout legislative prescriptions in the manner that it would appear have been flouted by IDAC consistently and deliberately, and then to offer an explanation for why IDAC would conduct itself in such a manner, which conduct has the risk to destabilise the law enforcement environment and institutions.”

Adv Johnson stated that conflicting sets of four A1 affidavits were taken separately by Mr Perumal and Mr Mansa on a date when they were supposed to be executing one function together with the prosecutor.

“having a set of four A1s taken by a person, Mr Perumal, then you have four A1s taken by Mr Mansa, on a date when they are all supposed to have been together, executing one function together with the prosecutor.”

Adv Johnson testified that a Public Service Commission report dated 2023 was only shown to him for the first time during the inquiry, despite the fact that it made findings that should have halted the IDAC investigation once received.

“we have the Public Service Commission report dated 2023, Commissioner Khumalo, which I see for the first time. I only allude just to these two because they are very pointed and they are very factual in the nature of what is before us. I have had to ponder why we find ourselves in this position as IDAC, and why, while I accept, and I do not think that there is meanness when questions are posed by the Commission about, but why you did not know you should have read. I think the Commission understands I cannot read everything and will not know everything, and I do have to trust and rely on my people. And I am, I sat with a conundrum last night of, why were these things not brought to my attention? And if, especially with the Public Service Commission report, which is somewhat quite different, it should have stopped the day the report came in, because it should have been brought to the attention of the ID to say, ID, look, we thought we have a right to investigate this, but here it is. It has been done. Findings have been made. That would have set that matter aside. That was not done.”

Adv Johnson conceded that undisclosed external actors or internal staff may have operated with motives to cast narratives or exert influence on IDAC's investigations beyond his knowledge.

“A lot of the times, and history had shown that, you find that staff get overzealous in wanting to present their case, but more often than not, you find that they engage with persons outside the purview of the work we are supposed to do, and you are not privy to that engagement. And so the mind you expect them to bring to bear on the mandate and on the cases is what you are engaging them on. It has been a past experience. In the way things happened this past week, it seems that there are other actors that might have been engaged with for us to be where we are.”

The Chairperson stated that Adv Johnson acted wrongfully as Head of IDAC by authorizing an investigation based on a section 7 referral affidavit containing nothing except factual conclusions.

“On a document or on an affidavit that had nothing except for factual conclusions, you acted. It had to be your decision, you as the Head of IDAC. It had to be your decision, and indeed it was, for any investigation to have gone on in the first place. To cut a long story short, I do not understand why you would want to blame others. As it should have, the buck stopped with you, and indeed from where I am sitting, it did.”

Adv Johnson accepted full responsibility for the decisions and actions taken by IDAC regarding the Adams matter and section 7 referral.

“I sit here today knowing that I have to take responsibility for all the actions that we do, intentionally or unintentionally, and I will be judged for those actions.”

Adv Johnson asserts that the selection panel tampered with panel documents by removing pages and inserting new ones to misrepresent who was on the panel, as supported by an expert document report.

“the selection panel tampered with the panel documents. The panel was not who they initially purported the panel to be, and when the investigation started, they had removed pages and inserted new pages, and that is what I recollect is in the docket, and there was an expert who does indicate that there was a tampering with that process”

A document was fabricated by one of the accused to give false credibility to the selection panel and make it appear as though the process had been approved without the knowledge of the alleged author.

“there was a document created, allegedly by one of the accused, to give the impression that the process had been approved, but the person who should have authored that document was unaware that this document had been created and authored.”

Accused 7 (Mrs Mokwele) made fraudulent averments in her CV, submitting false and misleading information that was deliberately ignored during the selection process.

“there was fraud, a fraudulent averment in the CV, which was deliberately not picked up so that a candidate could go through”

Advocate Johnson stated that IDAC attached the draft charge sheet to the prosecution memorandum so that the DPP could review both documents, raise questions, and identify any deficiencies in the charge sheet summary.

“The charge sheet, sorry, the memorandum is a summary. But the charge sheet is also attached so that the DPP is able to apply her mind to both the prosecution memo and the charge sheet. So where one may have missed something in the summary, she is fully within her right, as is always the case, to go through the charge sheet and to also raise questions about the charge sheet and/or any deficiencies in the charge sheet.”

Advocate Johnson testified that submitting charge sheets to the DPP provides checks and balances and requires DPP agreement on reasonable cause before enrolling criminal cases.

“I said in the original affidavit: “ … was the first is the DPP is a measure for checks and balances. The second is so that the relevant DPP may grant permission for and/or agree to the enrolment of the matter unless satisfied on the information given to him or her that there is reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, the DPP will not place a matter on the role for criminal cases. ” So it does give them latitude. They are not a rubber stamp.”

Advocate Johnson conceded that the DPP could not have properly exercised their mind in approving the specific vetting count against Brigadier Mokwele when the details were present in the charge sheet but entirely absent from the prosecution memorandum.

“I accept that.”

Advocate Khumalo SC asserted that in file 62438, the DPP rubber-stamped the decision to prosecute within a single day without conducting any engagement or requesting clarification regarding missing details in the prosecution memo and charge sheet.

“And Commissioner Baloyi 's point that the DPP in file 62438 , all he or she then says is that having considered your memo and the charge sheet, they are satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused and they concur with your decision to charge them. So it means they only considered the two documents that Advocate Sello and Commissioner Baloyi are referring you to.”

Advocate Johnson testified that IDAC submits situational reports summarizing charges to SAPS following arrests of police personnel, leaving subsequent employment and disciplinary decisions to police management.

“What IDAC does is we write up, I think the police call it a situational report, after we have an arrest of any SAPS personnel across the board. We just give them a summary of the charges, who was charged, when they appear, and that then goes to the police. It is for the police to decide what steps they are going to take, but we have to put everybody in that was charged, not just one particular person, and then we escalate it to them for further action.”

Adv Johnson previously stated at the Ad Hoc Committee that there was no flight risk regarding the accused individuals and that Colonel Padayachee accepted they could have presented themselves to court without needing an arrest warrant.

“y o u s a i d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o r i s k o f t h e m f l e e i n g a n d n o t p r e s e n t i n g t h e m s e l v e s t o C o u r t . . . C o l o n e l P a d a y a c h e e a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d h a v e p r e s e n t e d , y o u k n e w w h e r e t h e y w o r k e d , y o u k n e w t h e i r a d d r e s s e s”

Advocate Johnson acknowledged that less intrusive means than arrest should have been used to secure the attendance of suspects at court.

“I accept your argument that it was not, there are these less intrusive means that should have been used.”

Advocate Johnson accepted Advocate Baloyi SC's assertion that executing arrests instead of using less intrusive means was an abuse of process.

“I accept that.”

Advocate Johnson conceded that an arrest was not necessary to bring suspects to court and that summoning them would not have harmed the State's case.

“I accept.”

Advocate Johnson accepted the assertion that investigators went to the airport specifically to arrest Lieutenant General Khumalo, leaving him with no option but to go directly to Brooklyn Police Station.

“I am accepting your point.”

Adv Johnson confirmed there was no connection between the aborted arrest/warrant application and Mr Fadiel Adams' arrest by the PKTT.

“No.”

Adv Johnson confirmed she had communication, including a letter, with DPP Advocate Harrison from KZN regarding Mr Adams' arrest to clarify his status as an IDAC witness and how NPA should manage him.

“I did. I also think I wrote her a letter. The gist of the conversation was just to indicate, I am not sure if you are aware that Mr Adams is a witness, and in an IDAC matter, and I just wanted to know whether or not he is going to be arrested, just so that we know how to handle him, because we are one NPA.”

Adv Johnson explained that her letter to DPP Harrison clearly stated IDAC was not suggesting Mr Adams should avoid arrest if he committed a crime, but requested a heads up because he was an IDAC witness.

“I said I do not want her at any stage to think that IDAC is indicating that he should not be arrested if he committed a crime. I just thought that because it was open knowledge that he was a witness to IDAC, just give us a heads up, because witnesses become difficult, and they become difficult to manage.”

Adv Johnson stated that internal NPA engagement protocols involve writing to the relevant DPP when seeking information about matters in another jurisdiction.

“The DPP would then be able to, when we write, we engage in that way. I write to the DPP if she wanted to know something that was happening in Pretoria, she would write to the DPP in Pretoria, and the DPP goes ahead and finds out if there is such a matter, and who is dealing with the matter, and what the matter is about”

Adv Johnson denied that she engaged DPP Harrison to inquire about who authorized J50 arrest warrants.

“No.”

Adv Sello SC and Adv Johnson discussed a preliminary internal audit report (marked CJC399 starting at 3818) submitted in Exhibit File 9A, received alongside General Matlou's section 27 statement.

“you indicated that there was a preliminary internal audit report that had been availed. I confirm a document has been availed to the Commission.”

Adv Johnson asserts that had he known the bail condition restricting movement to head office was not requested by the State, he would not have opposed the bail appeal or the recusal of the Magistrate, but rather returned to the court of first instance to amend the conditions.

“The prosecutors would have had to go back to the same Magistrate at the Lower Court and indicate that there is an imposition of a condition not either in line with what we asked or not what we asked at all, and we hereby request that that bail condition be amended.”

Advocate Johnson signed and sent a letter dated 30 June 2025 to the National Commissioner stating that Generals Lushaba, Khumalo, Madondo, Lekalakala, Gabela, Ncube, and Brigadier Mokwele were prohibited by court order from entering any Crime Intelligence premises or contacting its personnel.

“On the 30th of June 2025, you penned, signed, and addressed a letter to the National Commissioner informing him that General Lushaba, General Khumalo, General Madondo, it is going to be projected here, General Lekalakala, and General Gabela, as well as Ncube, I apologise, I do not remember her rank, and Brigadier Mokwele. You state in this document... “Kindly note that none of the above named officers are allowed to enter any premises or office which forms part of the Division Crime Intelligence, or have any contact with its personnel as ordered by the Court.””

Advocate Johnson signed the letter regarding bail restrictions based on a summary prepared by Chief Investigator Perumal without verifying the actual court order or bail conditions.

“It was prepared for me by Chief Perumal because I was not linked to the conditions and I do see that problem of allowed any premises.”

Ms James informed Adv Johnson at the Ad Hoc Committee that Suneel Bellochun was appointed to IDAC despite pending cases against him registered in 2024 and red flags dating back to 2014.

“Ms James says: “There is currently a case, you said there are no rogue elements within this organisation. Here you have a member that you have appointed. There was red flags from 2014, again in 2024. You said there is no rogue elements. Whether he has been found guilty or not, there is a pending case against him registered in 024.””

Suneel Bellochun ran his own fingerprints through the Local Criminal Record Centre and reported back that he had no outstanding matters or criminal records, forming the basis of IDAC's report to Adv Batohi.

“Mr Bellochun had gone ahead and on his own, through the Local Criminal Record Centre, put through the fingerprints to see if there were any matters outstanding... He gave a report back that there were no matters that were outstanding on the LCRC. And it is on that basis that prior to Advocate Batohi leaving office, we had compiled a report, Chair, which said that there was no one in IDAC... that had outstanding cases, previous convictions, or pending misconduct.”

An active J50 warrant of arrest for Suneel Bellochun exists in connection with a 2021 assault case opened against him.

“We fast forward to now, and we are faced with this issue again. And I was faced with it about two Sundays ago in preparation for the Commission, because I see it then in the bundle of documents that are sent to me is a J50. And in our legal language, it is a live.”

In her statement of 10 July 2026, Advocate Johnson downplayed her relationship with General Khan, describing it as solely professional and limited to stakeholder and SAPS meetings.

“A d v o c a t e J o h n s o n , i n y o u r s t a t e m e n t , y o u r t h i r d s t a t e m e n t , t h e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e 1 0 t h o f J u l y 2 0 2 6 ... y o u r r e s p o n s e w a s a f a i r l y t e r s e o n e , s t a t i n g t h a t y o u k n o w t h a t h e i s a G e n e r a l b a s e d a t C r i m e I n t e l l i g e n c e ... S o a c c o r d i n g t o y o u r s t a t e m e n t , y o u s i g n i f i c a n t l y p l a y e d d o w n t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p .”

Advocate Johnson attended General Khan's 50th birthday party and shares a personal, close friendship with him beyond a purely professional working relationship.

“y o u a t t e n d e d G e n e r a l K h a n ' s 5 0 t h b i r t h d a y ... b e s i d e s t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , y o u h a v e t h i s p e r s o n a l o n e .”

Advocate Johnson confirms that she considers General Khan a very good friend, but denies ever visiting his home or having him visit her home.

“I c o n s i d e r h i m a v e r y g o o d f r i e n d .”

Advocate Johnson and General Feroz Khan maintained a close personal relationship, addressing each other affectionately and arranging private meetings.

“It is really two people who are friends and this relates to a favour to him. It has nothing to do with IDAC's work.”

General Feroz Khan entered the IDAC office via a VIP/side entrance without signing in at reception to conduct a personal visit with Advocate Johnson.

“you arrange for him not to sign in in the normal course but to come in via the VIP entrance and come directly to your office without going via reception.”

Advocate Johnson routinely grants high-ranking police officials access to the IDAC office via a side entrance.

“usually when we do invite high-ranking police officers to the office, we usually let them use the side entrance.”

Advocate Johnson advised General Feroz Khan on workplace trust and potential plotting regarding workplace suspicions.

“For now, be smart about who you trust at work. Please do not say anything to anyone about you heard someone is out to get you because you could be talking to the culprit.”

Advocate Johnson and General Feroz Khan both maintain a close personal relationship with General Senthumule.

“one picks up from the chats that both of you have a very close relationship with General Senthumule.”

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.”

Advocate Johnson was unable to retrieve Gmail records or communications with Witness O from around 2018 due to the age of the emails.

“Your explanation for failure to provide that information was that this goes back to 2018, or eight years ago, seven, eight years ago, and that your emails do not go that far.”

Adv Johnson shared documents with General Khan regarding Brigadier Phetlhe's complaint docket, which was refreshed and confirmed upon reviewing witness statements and records.

“I had a recollection, as I explained in our consultation, that I had shared documents with her. It is when you showed it to me that I realised what it was that was shared. I just wanted to correct. I did not dispute what was shared.”

Adv Sello SC asserts that Adv Johnson shares a very close and personal relationship with General Khan, contradicting Adv Johnson's claims of a non-personal relationship.

“We have established that this is a very, very close and personal relationship. So I say you must know why and under what circumstances you shared that docket with General Khan.”

Adv Johnson submitted a supplementary affidavit invoking the right against self-incrimination regarding allegations of criminal conduct made by Colonel Kobus Roelofse, Captain McLean, and Witness O.

“The notice requires me to deal with allegations against me testified to by Colonel Kobus Roelofse, Captain McClean, and Witness O. The allegations, as summarised, implicate me in alleged criminal conduct.”

A docket implicating Adv Johnson in alleged criminal conduct was confirmed by the NPA on 10 July 2026 to be before the NPA for a prosecution decision.

“The allegations are contained in a docket, which is now with the NPA for a decision on whether I should or should not be prosecuted and further handling. That this is so, Chair, was confirmed by the NPA on the 10th of July 2026, as well as by the Witness McLean when he testified on that day.”

Witnesses gave strong evidence indicating that Adv Johnson shared an investigation docket implicating General Khan in an assault with General Khan.

“w i t n e s s e s h a v e g i v e n w h a t , o n t h e f a c e o f i t , a p p e a r s t o b e v e r y s t r o n g e v i d e n c e t h a t y o u d i d s h a r e t h e d o c k e t w i t h G e n e r a l K h a n .”

Mr Matling, Mr Roelofse, and Witness O testified that Adv Johnson shared a docket implicating General Khan in an assault with General Khan, after which General Khan prepared his own statement to the police.

“M r M a t l i n g [ ? ] t e s t i f i e d , s o d i d M r R o e l o f s e a n d W i t n e s s O , a n d a l l o f t h e m t e s t i f i e d o n m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o y o u r s h a r i n g o f t h e d o c k e t i m p l i c a t i n g G e n e r a l K h a n i n a n a s s a u l t w i t h G e n e r a l K h a n , p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h G e n e r a l K h a n t h e n p r e p a r e d h i s o w n s t a t e m e n t t o t h e p o l i c e .”

Adv Johnson elected not to answer questions regarding the docket-sharing allegations in order to exercise her privilege against self-incrimination.

“I e l e c t n o t t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s , s o a s n o t t o i n c r i m i n a t e m y s e l f .”

Mr Bateman filed an affidavit and testified regarding interactions with Adv Johnson after becoming aware of the investigation, resulting in the docket coming to Adv Johnson.

“d o e s t h a t i n c l u d e t h e t e s t i m o n y a b o u t y o u r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h M r B a t e m a n , a n d t h e r e i s t w o p a r t s t o i t ? T h e r e i s t h e f i r s t , w h i c h r e s u l t s i n t h e d o c k e t c o m i n g t o y o u , a n d t h e n t h e r e i s t h e s e c o n d p a r t w h e r e h e s a y s y o u h a v e c a l l e d h i m , h e h a s f i l e d a n a ff i d a v i t , h e s p o k e t o y o u , I m e a n r a t h e r y o u s p o k e t o h i m a f t e r a l l o f t h i s h a d c o m e o u t , w h e n y o u b e c a m e a w a r e o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n .”

Mr Bateman was a journalist at the time of his communications with Adv Johnson and subsequently moved to AfriForum.

“H e i s a t A f r i F o r u m , y e s .”

General Kadwa and General Khan would activate the DPP Office regarding organized crime matters so that resources could be allocated.

“the reason this message would have come is at the time in 2021, we were dealing with organised crime matters. And very often, even General Kadwa, for example, would activate us to say at the DPP Office there is such a matter, so that we looked out for the matter and we were able to allocate resources to them, but this is the message I received.”

Advocate Johnson stated that he is no longer the head of IDAC and highlighted the need for more checks and balances within IDAC and the NPA.

“I am no longer the head of IDAC. ... what has become apparent is that there needs to be a few more checks and balances than there currently are. And I am hoping, Chair and Commissioners, that that would be at least a part of those recommendations so that we are able to take them on board, or IDAC and the NPA can take them on board.”

The PKTT task team is not part of the section 27 affidavit and there was no known investigation into PKTT affairs until recently when an allegation in a supplementary affidavit supporting a call for an investigation was found.

“complaints concerning the PKTT do not form part of the section 27 affidavit ... you advised that you were not aware of any investigation into the PKTT ... there is an allegation in the supplementary which supports a call for an investigation”

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”

Advocate Johnson accepts that the document capturing media coverage of the PKTT disbandment is accurate.

“I would have to accept that it is accurate.”

Advocate Johnson confirmed he followed media publications and had seen publications about the controversial disbandment of the PKTT.

“you said that you do follow media publications, so you must have seen publications around the disbandment of the PKTT ... And you would also have seen that it was a controversial subject, correct?”

Advocate Johnson admitted he should have asked questions about paragraph 6 of Annexure B related to the PKTT but did not.

“I do not dispute that I should have asked questions ... I signed it as I signed it ... I appreciate that I should have and that I did not ask deeper questions and I did sign it.”

At the time Advocate Johnson signed a summons, he was aware of the issue about the PKTT and that it was controversial.

“at that time you signed this summons, you were aware that there was any issue about the PKTT ... and also that the issue raised some controversy, correct?”

Advocate Johnson explained he signed the document either because he engaged with Mr Perumalan and was satisfied or because he was unaware of a PKTT investigation and should have asked deeper questions.

“either I engaged and was engaged with Mr Perumalan and was satisfied ... or I was unaware of a PKTT investigation and so I should have asked deeper questions.”

Advocate Johnson acknowledged that paragraph 6 of Annexure B refers to the promotions of PKTT commanders and members through deviation processes.

“paragraph 1 talks to the deviation of appointment of Lieutenant General Khumalo ... paragraph 6 ... original documentary files and applications for promotions ... commanders and members of the PKTT through deviation, they tied into the deviation process.”

Advocate Johnson accepted there was no sinister reason for not asking deeper questions about the PKTT issue and that he signed the document without asking more questions.

“I do not have a sinister reason for not having asked more ... I did not ask more ... I accept you that I should have asked more ... I can not get away from the fact that I did sign it.”

Advocate Johnson followed the sequence of appointments and deviations related to Lieutenant General Khumalo as a basis to sign the document regarding the PKTT, despite not addressing paragraph 6 entirely.

“I followed that sequence of appointments, deviations ... promotion of Lieutenant General Khumalo by deviation ... So it made sense in that regard.”

ADV JOHNSON accepted that the information about Lieutenant General Jacob refusing to return was obtained from unofficial sources rather than the affidavit evidence.

“I accept that.”

The summons referring to Lieutenant General Jacob regarding his refusal to return had no basis and was outside the mandate of the investigation, yet was signed by ADV JOHNSON who had read and been briefed on the documents.

“when you sign this summons that speaks to General Jacob when there is no basis whatsoever, that is one. Two, on a matter that on the face of it does not fall within your mandate, the issues about why he refused to return, I have to assume you have read these documents when you signed them. They are presented to you. You are briefed. I must assume you ask questions because you read them.”

ADV JOHNSON stated the briefing for signing the summons was to determine why Lieutenant General Jacob was not going back and whether he was precluded from returning, to legitimize the deviation appointment of a new head.

“My engagement with the investigator who brought the document for signature is the explanation that I did provide... that they wanted to determine why he was not going back, why he could not go back, and because that would then neither legitimate the deviation that you have someone in the post who has now been moved, refuses to come back, and then that deviation becomes legitimate.”

ADV JOHNSON could not say that Investigator Mlambo was the only person presenting the summons, but Mlambo was the one who briefed him on all the details.

“But I can't say that he was the only person, he came with the summons, and that he was the one who briefed me on all the details by himself.”

ADV Johnson states that he is not aware of any investigation within IDAC into the arrest of Mr Adams, nor the reasons and costs associated with the travel and arrest.

“I am not aware of why this happened ... I cannot legitimate this because I do not know why this happened ... I have no idea why a team would have been deliberated on something like this and not brought it to the attention of the Head ... I am not aware that there is such an inquiry or there is such an investigation that IDAC is looking into ...”

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”

ADV Johnson signed off a summons on 3 April 2025 enquiring into promotions of commanders and members of the PKTT through deviation.

“on the 3rd of April 2025, you signed off a summons enquiring into promotions of commanders and members of the PKTT through deviation”

ADV Johnson stated he had been made aware of the PKTT investigation in the briefing for the summons but first saw details in the affidavit during the Commission.

“I have been made aware. In the briefing for the summons, I would have been made aware”

ADV Johnson clarified he had no prior knowledge of PKTT being a subject of inquiry by IDAC before seeing the affidavit on 6 January 2025, a discrepancy from being aware in the summons briefing.

“in the affidavit, yes. I had not seen that in the affidavit ... I had not seen that ...”

ADV Johnson authorised a section 28 summons dated 3 April 2025 requesting all documents related to promotions of commanders and members of the PKTT despite his claim of first learning about PKTT investigations only in January 2025.

“as of the 3rd of April 2025, as per the section 28 summons ... you authorised that documentation be sought and obtained regarding promotions of the commanders and members of the Political Task Team, Political Killings Task Team”

ADV Johnson stated he could not recall asking about the PKTT as the PKTT but asked questions around applications and promotions related to commanders and members.

“I can honestly not recall asking them about the PKTT as the PKTT. I would have asked questions around the applications”

ADV Johnson denies the truth of the allegation but acknowledges there are criminal matters in IDAC's scope and there was no sufficient evidence to arrest the generals mentioned.

“I have heard the allegation. There is no truth to the allegation. ... We did not do that because there was not sufficient evidence in the matters we have.”

When ADV Johnson took office in March 2022, there were IPID investigators at ID who had transferred their matters, mostly corruption in SAPS supply chain management, PFM, to IDAC.

“When I took office in March 2022, there were already some IPID investigators at the then ID and they had come over with their matters... the matters they came over with ... were ... corruption matters in the South African Police Services ... Supply Chain Management issues, corruption, PFMA and all of those things.”