Investigators questioned the validity of Ms Mokwele's CV and were urged by Mr Perumal to urgently authorise and conclude section 28 by 26 December.
“The answer to your question 6, where you say she also made misrepresentations in her CV, fraud in brackets, the investigators should follow up upon the validity. And then the answer from Mr Perumal is section 28 to be authorised urgently and be concluded on 26 December.”
Advocate Serunye did not insist on obtaining a copy of the section 27 referral affidavit for Advocate Hlatshwayo or prosecution because he thought the affidavit contained nothing substantial and had been instructed to back off.
“I did not think of making a copy because when I read the statement, there was nothing substantial for me... We had a very good relationship with Mr Perumal... I was told to back off from demanding this section 27”
ADV Serunye saw the document referred to as 'the 27', was satisfied it existed, but did not demand a copy because he knew he did not have to deal with it as he was recused from the case by 16 September.
“I have seen the 27. I am satisfied that it exists ... I did not even demand a copy because I knew I do not have to deal with this document, but at least I have seen it ... I have since been recused in 16 September.”
ADV Serunye says the affidavit shown to him is not the section 27 affidavit that started the whole thing and that he was misled by Mr Perumal who showed him that document as section 27 referral.
“If Mr Perumal showed you this document and said to you it is a section 27 referral, he misled you ... this is a statement marked A1 by him.”
ADV Serunye was still asking about the existence of the section 27 referral affidavit at the end of October 2025 and was shown the document by Mr Perumal after that date.
“during that period of October 2025, I was also looking for it ... as I have shown through the email I have sent to Mr Sesokoon on the 31st of October, I was still asking questions about the existence of this document ... So when Perumal showed me the document, it must be after 31 October”
An affidavit dated 6 January 2025 was commissioned by Mr Perumal in Cape Town and included his stamp according to records.
“if you go to page 3484 , you will see there that it is dated 6 January 2025 , and it says it was signed in Cape Town , then it was commissioned by Mr Perumal , and it includes his stamp .”
Full and proper disclosure requires that both Perumal's affidavits and Mr. Raphesu's supplementary affidavits be disclosed as part of the docket.
“Even if there were a statement that was supposed to be obtained by Mr Perumal that day, it was supposed to be marked as supplementary also...for proper and full disclosure both his affidavits and your supplementary affidavits have to be disclosed. They are all part of the docket.”
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.”
During a meeting with a complainant and Mr Perumal, the witness volunteered information and Mr Perumal attempted to interject but was pushed back, so the witness continued without interruption.
“The witness just volunteered the information. And from what I was gathering, when Mr Perumal was trying to interject or maybe says something, he was just pushing him. It looked like... maybe they fought about something because he did not even want to entertain him. So the witness just volunteered this information and we put it exactly as he was saying.”
Mr Raphesu understood from the interaction that Mr Perumal is building on the Section 27 statement and referring to various topics including the PKTT and the forklift issue.
“So when you take his supplementary, you understood, you understood from that interaction that he is building, he knows he is building on the section 27. That he spoke about the various topics.”
Mr Raphesu had a small conversation with Mr Perumal about the mention of a person named Dlamini and informed him that he knew Dlamini, but they left it at that.
“So just to indicate further, the same name of Dlamini also came up. And I also informed him that I know Dlamini. So we had a small conversation about it, but we left it at that.”
Mr. Raphesu refused to work on the Mokwele matter because Mr. Perumal and Mr. Padayachee were meeting witnesses in secret locations and arranging for affidavits he was not aware of; he was later removed from that investigation.
“I refuse to work on that matter... I became aware that Mr Perumal and Mr Padayachee were meeting some of the witnesses... so, I took issue with that... I was removed from the investigation of that case only.”
Mr Raphesu denied leaking information to Mr Nkabinde and stated that it was actually Mr Perumal who phoned Mr Nkabinde and instructed or spoke to him to make allegations.
“I responded to the allegation indicating and denying that I leaked information to Mr Nkabinde... the person who actually phoned Nkabinde, it was Mr Perumal, Chief Perumal ... instructed or maybe spoke to Nkabinde to phone the ID and make those allegations”
Mr Perumal did not commission any statements during the time they were in Cape Town; there was no opportunity for Mr Perumal to have taken a statement and commissioned it without the others' knowledge because they were together except for a 1.5 hour nap.
“did he commission a statement ... we were together except for my 1½ hour to 2 hour nap ... we were together ... there was no opportunity”
It would not have been proper for Mr Perumal to consult with Mr Adams separately and take a statement and commission it in the absence of MS Ramsamy and Mr Mantsha.
“would it have been proper ... for Mr Perumal to consult with Mr Adams separately and take a statement and commission it in your absence ... No, it would not be. It would be irregular.”
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.”
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 ...”
MS Ramsamy's last communication with Mr Perumal was on 18 September 2025 via WhatsApp text, so she could not have told him she was asked to keep the affidavit safe and that she misplaced it.
“I did not have any communication with Mr Perumal today. Our last communication was on the 18th of September 2025, via WhatsApp text. Thus, I could not have told him that I was asked to keep it safe, and I misplaced it.”
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.”
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 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.”
Mr Perumal wanted the docket to be collected immediately on the day it was instructed, overriding the letter process, to take it home to Eastern Cape.
“Mr Perumal instructed Mr Raphesu to collect the dockets immediately, he should not wait for the letter, because he, Mr Perumal, wanted to take the dockets home with him to Eastern Cape.”
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 Perumal and Mr Padayachee were in Cape Town in November 2024 and stayed at a Formula One hotel due to a shortage of hotels, which embarrassed them because they met with a Member of Parliament there.
“Mr Perumal complained to me that when him and Mr Padayachee were in Cape Town in November 2024, there was a shortage of hotels and they were forced to stay at the Formula One hotel. He expressed how embarrassing it was for him and Mr Padayachee to meet with a Member of Parliament at the Formula One.”
Mr Padayachee was likely to have seen the original section 27 affidavit during the November Cape Town trip with Mr Perumal and Mr Raphesu due to their presence and the timing of the statement.
“The one that I am speaking about, the one that contains the PKT and the vehicles and the lodges, it would have been improbable that he, impossible, that he would not have seen the original.”
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.”
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.”
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 ...”
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.”
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.”
There was a memorandum of understanding, or referral, involving Mr Adams referred to as the section 7 referral affidavit to dockets, and Mr Perumal said one cannot have the dockets before section 8(13) is authorized.
“Mr Adams is referring in his section 7 referral affidavit to dockets and what Mr Perumal is saying is that you cannot have the dockets before the 8(13) is authorized, then you have authority to go and get the dockets.”
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.”
Perumal denied knowledge of an investigation's progress; Mr Wynand found three suspicious transactions but no conclusive proof and not for 50 million but 0,000.
“Perumal denies the knowledge of the 8’s being done... Wynand indicated that he found three suspicious transactions, but he was still investigating them. There was no conclusive proof, and they were 0,000, not 50 million.”
General Matlou is Head of Risk at SAPS, has personal ties to Perumal and is a witness in many IDAC matters.
“General Matlou is a witness on many matters within the IDAC... She has a very close personal relationship with Mr Perumal... He is also former SAPS...”
Information about Lieutenant/Major General Khumalo was obtained by contacting Charity via Perumal; MS Ramsamy had no interaction with Charity in December 2024.
“On the 6th when I asked Perumal where do I get the details for Lieutenant General Khumalo... he said to me, no, hold on, I will speak to Charity... Major General... I get confused, sorry... He contacted her, and that is how I got the details... During December 2024, no, I had no [interaction with her].”
On 19 December 2024, the team was scheduled to meet Mr Adams but Mr Perumal stated that there was a miscommunication and Mr Adams was at Sun City Resort; arrangements were then made for 6 January 2025 in Cape Town.
“On the 19th of December 2024, the team was scheduled to meet with Mr Adams. However, Mr Perumal stated that there was a miscommunication and Mr Adams was at Sun City Resort... arrangements were then made to meet in Cape Town on the 6th of January 2025.”
The witness had no discussion with Chief Perumal about Orlando case numbers and did not get the numbers from him, instead communication with Perumal was about getting details to address Lt General Mbuso Khumalo.
“The communication I had with Mr Perumal on that day was I needed the details of Lieutenant General, I did not even know his name was Mbuso. No discussion with him about the Orlando case numbers.”
Mr Perumal could not have given the witness the Orlando case numbers as he was rushing to the airport and only helped get email address information via General Charity Matloko.
“He could not have given. And everybody was rushing, because after the meeting he was leaving to the airport to go back home, which I deal with later on... Mr Perumal went outside the office, said let me call Charity, that being General Charity Matloko, to get details.”
Mr Adams retained copies of Crime Intelligence documents and gave original documents to Mr Perumal, who is also implicated in handling those documents.
“He said that he had retained copies and given the documents to Mr Perumal.”
According to Mr Adams, the documents were slipped under his door at the office in Parliament; he claimed there were no cameras in the corridor and the register of sign-ins was futile due to many people signing in and out.
“He said to me that it was slotted under his door in an envelope. ... Mr Adams' reply was, there is no camera on that, in his corridors where his office is. ... Mr Perumal told me it would be futile because of how many people signed in and out.”
Mr Perumal typed the supplementary affidavit for Mr Adams, assisted by a DPP prosecutor in Cape Town who printed them.
“If I recall correctly, Mr Perumal typed the supplementary affidavit, and I was assisted by a prosecutor to print the affidavits, the prosecutor being part of DPP, Cape Town.”
Mr Perumal did not commission any affidavits in the presence of Ms Ramsamy, but affidavits were commissioned on 6 January 2025 bearing his commissioner of oaths stamp.
“Mr Perumal did not commission any affidavits in my presence. ... affidavits commissioned on the 6th January 2025 bear his statement, and he is the commissioner, stamp.”
Investigators generally do not carry their commissioner of oaths stamps, and Mr Perumal had no stamp with him on 6 January 2025, thus he commissioned no statements then.
“No, none of the investigator generally carry. Also, the Pretoria stamp will be futile in Cape Town. But on that day, Mr Perumal had no stamp, and he commissioned no statements.”
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.”
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.””
ADV SELLO SCDay 150 · 29 Jul 2026Refers to: 2025-06-30Location: Division Crime IntelligenceEvidence: letter dated 30 June 2025
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.”
ADV JOHNSONDay 150 · 29 Jul 2026Refers to: 2025-06-30Evidence: letter dated 30 June 2025
ADV JOHNSON suggested that either Mr Perumal or Mr Padayachee would have briefed him jointly with Investigator Mlambo regarding the summons and details.
“I would expect that that detail I got either from Mr Perumal or from Mr Padayachee, who were the leading investigators.”
The summons or investigation documentation issued on behalf of IDAC relating to the PKTT was prepared by Mr. Perumal and approved without clear justification, raising questions about a probable "hidden hand" or undisclosed motives.
“this subpoena was prepared by Mr Perumal ... may be acting on the instruction of a hidden hand”
Advocate Johnson thought that talking to Mr. Perumal might have triggered his memory about the issue under discussion but was unsure if it would have led to a better answer.
“I did think that by talking to Mr Perumal, it might have triggered my mind. I am not saying I would have come with a better answer”
Advocate Johnson signed a summons including paragraph 6, despite the briefing referring to IDAC not investigating PKTT being irrelevant, and he cannot explain why paragraph 6 was authorised.
“You have absolutely no recollection why it is you authorised investigations into the PKTT and how its members are appointed ... I do not have an explanation for you, Chair... I had no investigation against PKTT ... I have no explanation ...”
Advocate Johnson says he relies on briefing by Perumal regarding the authorisation of paragraph 6 of the summons and cannot give a reasonable explanation from his reading of it alone.
“I rely on a briefing ... I need to engage Perumal ... I have no reasonable explanation ...”
Adv Johnson acknowledges that investigators such as Mr Perumal might have knowledge of information related to the summons or investigation that he does not have.
“your investigators, starting with Mr Perumal, could potentially be involved in that, or have knowledge of that underhand. ... And have knowledge of things that we did not have knowledge of.”
In the Mokwele matter, affidavits were taken from General Khan based on documents found in his name, involving Mr Padayachee and Mr Perumal.
“They then found a document purporting to be in his name... Mr Padayachee and Mr Perumal engaged him ... to take an affidavit. And an affidavit was taken for that matter.”
ADV Johnson identifies members of his investigation team responsible for briefings, including Advocate Ramsamy, Advocate Manilall, Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee, Mr Mlambo, Mr Charles Eals, and Mr Tlale (project manager).
“It would have been Advocate Ramsamy ... Advocate Manilall ... Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee, Mr Mlambo, Mr Charles Eals, and Mr Tlale ... as the project manager, from time to time being in those briefings.”
The affidavit that initiated the investigation and culminates in prosecution related to General Madondo's security clearance was commissioned by Mr Perumal and may contain questionable signatures possibly not belonging to Mr Adams.
“...the affidavit that initiates the investigation and culminates in the prosecution, correct? ... both the preamble statement and the affidavit, in respect of which it was suggested to Colonel Padayachee that there seems to be something wrong with the signatures there and that it looks like the signature that purports to be of Mr Adams may not be his. The affidavit is commissioned by Mr Perumal.”
A certain statement referred to in Mr Perumal's affidavit is part of the Langlaagte docket, but Advocates have not yet applied their mind to it so they cannot comment on it.
“The statement , the attachment that is referred to Mr Perumal 's affidavit , we are told it is part of the Langlaagte docket . But because we have yet to apply our mind to it as well , I am not in a position to point out as to where exactly is it , nor am I able to say , well , there is a deficiency here and there because I have not seen it at all .”
Advocate Johnson undertook to try to speak to Mr Perumal regarding his ability to attend the Commission and to get feedback from his medical practitioner.
“I did also undertake at lunch to try to speak to Mr Perumal to find out about his ability and / or when to come back . He indicated that he will engage with his medical practitioner and then he will give proper feedback .”
The summons authorizing the ID to investigate certain Crime Intelligence officers is prepared by specific individuals (Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee, Mr Mantha, or Mr Mlambo).
The summons documents were drafted by investigators including Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee and possibly Mr Mantsha, with Investigator Mlambo also assigned inquiries.
“These would have been drafted by an investigator. It could have been Mr Perumal or Mr Padayachee. ... And or perhaps Mr Mantsha. ... At the bottom of 936, it does say at the bottom there was also one of the investigators assigned was Investigator Mlambo.”
Statements commissioned by Mr. Perumal dated 6 January 2025 relate to the issue under discussion, with signature and location discrepancies noted between Pretoria and Cape Town offices.
“And this is a statement that was commissioned by Mr Perumal on the 6th of January 2025... ...the practice of being signed both at Pretoria and Cape Town.”
The procedure for obtaining complainant statements involves ensuring that the statement commissioned is genuinely from the witness and not drafted by the investigator.
“The check and balance that we have sought ... is to ensure that it is not one investigator going down to take a statement... It has to be read back to the witness, and when the witness agrees, the statement is signed and commissioned.”
Mr Perumal commissioned an affidavit on 6 January 2025 related to the Far 1 annexure, but he is currently unavailable due to hospitalization.
“This affidavit was commissioned by Mr Perumal on the 6th of January 2025... I have been informed that he is not well. He was hospitalized during the course of the past weekend...”
Statements commissioned by Mr Perumal concerning investigations in Cape Town on 6 January 2025 are considered post-fact fabrications, disavowed by both witnesses and attributed solely to Mansà Robert Rapetsu.
“The statements commissioned by Mr Perumal are a post-fact fabrication. Both witnesses disavow the validity of all these statements... they were all commissioned by Mr Rapetsu.”
Statement 3485 was commissioned by Rapetsu and provided by the witness, not post-factum and distinct from those commissioned by Mr Perumal.
“485 was commissioned by Rapetsu, so should it not be part of CJC 394... 3485 was provided by the witness ... No. It is only those commissioned by Mr Perumal”
Advocates Ramsamy and Investigator Rapetsu took two different statements on the same day, which witnesses say is unlikely as they were together, challenging the legitimacy of the date and signature on some affidavits.
“why would two investigating officers sitting in the same boardroom have taken two different statements on the same day? ... The A1 was not taken in my presence and it could not have been taken on the 6th of January ... Someone was trying to jigga it... it looks like someone was trying to jigga it”
Witnesses testifying to CJC394 deny knowledge of statements commissioned by Mr Perumal and state Mr Perumal took statements from Mr Adams, not on 6 January 2025 but at other times when Mr Adams and Rapetsu were together.
“they deny any knowledge of those statements as commissioned by Mr Perumal ... it definitely is not on the 6th of January 2025, because they were together at all times”
Only four statements were taken on the 6th of January 2025 despite claims of an A1 statement taken that day; the A1 statement was not taken in the presence of Advocate Ramsamy and could not have been taken that day as corroborated by travel and meal observations.
“I can confirm that in my presence, there was only four statements taken ... The A1 was not taken in my presence, and it could not have been taken on the 6th January ... we all travelled together and all meals were done together ... When exactly would Perumal have taken the statements on the 6th if we were together?”
There was further engagement in January between Advocate Johnson, Investigator Rapetsu, Advocate Ramsami and Mr Adams to supplement the statements in the dockets.
“what did happen later on in January is that Mr Rapetsu , Advocate Ramsami and Mr Perumal , after having gone through those dockets together with the section 27 , then had further engagements with Mr Adams in order to amplify or supplement the statements that were in the docket”
After initial appraisal, Mr Rapetsu, Advocate Ramsami, and Mr Perumal engaged with Mr Adams to supplement statements that were not up to standard or sufficient.
“Mr Rapetsu , Advocate Ramsami and Mr Perumal , after having gone through those dockets together with the section 27 , then had further engagements with Mr Adams in order to amplify or supplement the statements that were in the docket , which I guess by interpretation means they were not up to standard or sufficient .”
Advocate Ramsami obtained the list of names from Mr Perumal after engaging with Mr Adams regarding the section 27 affidavit and application.
“Advocate Ramsami indicated last night that she had got the list of names from my office, wherein I had indicated that this list had been provided by Mr Perumal after his having engaged with Mr Adams”
Mr Perumal contacted Mr Adams to obtain further information to begin his investigation, indicating he started the investigation without formal authorization.
“He would have spoken to Mr Adams, had him provide the section 27 ... technically, he has begun the investigation unless he was informed by you”
The conduct of Mr Perumal initiating an investigation by contacting the complainant without authorization shows a lack of standard operating procedures or protocols within IDAC.
“You do not have standard operating procedures ... you have these unwritten rules of how we do things ... there is no prescribed process that he can be held to”
The head of IDAC does not consider Mr Perumal's conduct unlawful but suggests it must be escalated to the IDAC Judge for independent legal consideration.
“I have to consider the conduct ... it must then be dealt with through the IDAC Judge”
The list of names of potential offenders in the Fadiel Adams complaint was expanded from about 3-4 persons in the section 27 affidavit to 12 persons in later documentation, raising questions about the factual basis for expanding the list to 12.
“if all Mr Adams gives Mr Perumal is a list of names and it is now 12 people ... what is the factual basis for you coming to a conclusion ... that you have reason to believe that the persons in the annexure have committed the offences”
Advocate Johnson stated that he received the list from Mr Perumal but Mr Perumal conveyed to him he has no recollection of giving the list or any list.
“that he gave me the list . And I said to him , I conveyed the message of the prosecutor , and he conveyed to me he has no recollection of having given us , or given me a list .”
There was confusion about whether the Minister or Mr Adams approached IDAC regarding the matter; Advocate Johnson initially said the Minister sent a letter that was unhelpful and then instructions were given to Mr Perumal to get an affidavit from Mr Adams.
“the Minister 's letter was unhelpful and you instructed Perumal to get an affidavit from Adams .”
Advocate Johnson clarified that Mr Adams wanted IDAC to deal with his matter and that the office first received a letter from the Minister, but without attachments.
“it is the position of having first received a letter from the Minister . I did indicate that there were no attachments , I therefore asked Mr Perumal to please engage Mr Adams as Mr Adams wanted IDAC to deal with his matter .”
Advocate Johnson admits it is incorrect that Mr Adams' referral landed on his desk in mid-December 2024; he had authorization from the prosecutor by 6 December 2024 and had already engaged on the matter.
By 6 December 2024, Advocate Johnson had already authorized a Section 8(13) application to investigate 12 people mentioned earlier, showing the referral and investigation started before mid-December.
“By the 6th of December, you had had engagement not just with Perumal, but also with the prosecutor... you would have by the 6th of December already looked at the application from the prosecutor and formed a view that you are going to authorize investigation into those 12 people...”
Chairperson suggests the Minister's letter was unlikely to state that nothing could be done absent a section 27 referral, and this conflicts with instructions from the Minister to Mr Perumal to follow up with Mr Adams.
“That letter ... is not likely to have said what I am suggesting you ought to have done ... because that would have been at odds with you instructing Mr Perumal to follow up with Mr Adams.”
Advocate Johnson admitted that it is not appropriate for IDAC to solicit complaints from the public without a formal referral; therefore, upon receiving a letter from the Minister, he instructed Mr Perumal to engage Mr Adams and obtain a section 27 affidavit to cure the absence of an official referral.
“No, we are not supposed to solicit. And that is why I am saying the engage – I tell Mr Perumal to engage Mr Adams. I do not know if this was a prepared affidavit already. It was to say to him, we received a letter from the Minister, we are engaging you.”
Because the Minister's letter was not a section 27 referral, IDAC required a proper section 27 affidavit from Mr Adams to cure this defect before proceeding with investigation.
“So because you read the Minister's letter and you saw the difficulty that it would not trigger your power to investigate, you contact Mr Adams through Mr Perumal to cure that problem and to provide a section 27 affidavit.”
ADV Johnson admits he did not previously say that his instruction to Mr Perumal was to find out if there was a section 27 referral and states there is no such referral.
“There is no section 27 . Mr Perumal, to contact Mr Adams to find out if there is a 27 or to get a 27. No, Chair, I did not say that before.”
ADV Johnson states his instruction to Mr Perumal was to follow up and find out if there was a section 27 referral.
“That is all because there is a reference to a section 27. There is no section 27. Mr Perumal, to contact Mr Adams to find out if there is a 27 or to get a 27.”
Mr Perumal was instructed to obtain a Section 27 affidavit from Mr Adams after receipt of the Minister's Office communication, regardless of annexures.
“you then instructed Mr Perumal to obtain a Section 27 affidavit from Mr Adams”
Lieutenant-General Khumalo's arrest and co-accused preceded a death threat received directly on the cell phone of an NPA prosecutor involved in the investigations.
“I received a death threat directly on my cell phone. I read: “Mrs IDAC, you and your guy Chabalala, Perumal, Padayachee, and Belochana have went too far. You are going to wish you did not … with us, get body bags ready.” In my long career as a prosecutor, this is the first time that I received a death threat.”
Advocate Johnson received a death threat message on his cellphone following the arrest of Lieutenant-General Khumalo and co-accused, which stated that individuals including members of IDAC had 'went too far' and were going to 'wish you did not ...' with a threat to have body bags ready. This was the first death threat he had received in his long career as a prosecutor.
“I received a death threat directly on my cell phone. I read: “Mrs IDAC, you and your guy Chabalala, Perumal, Padayachee, and Belochan have went too far. You are going to wish you did not … with us, get body bags ready.” ... In my long career as a prosecutor, this is the first time that I received a death threat.”
In the investigative team, Colonel Padayachee serves as a docket carrier responsible for administration, while the lead investigator role is shared among several individuals, including Chief Criminal Investigator Perumal.
“In the investigating team, the word lead investigator is utilised. I am not the lead investigator. I am a docket carrier ... there are other investigators that assist with that ... Perumal is our chief investigator in that investigation team ... the chief criminal investigator, Perumal is our chief investigator”
Colonel Padayachee states that in the Mokwele investigation, he acted as both the lead investigator and the docket carrier, reporting to the chief criminal investigator Mr Perumal.
“the lead investigator or the docket carrier is myself . But I report to all my work and everything that is done has to pass through the criminal investigator, chief criminal investigator.”
At Isipingo SAPS there was a shortage of forensic exhibit bags to properly store the drugs, leading to a request for exhibit bags from the charge office, which also did not have them.
“Warrant Officer Mpangase requested for the exhibit bag from Warrant Officer Perumal. However, Perumal indicated that he did not have any forensic bags. Warrant Officer Mpangase requested that I must go and request for the bags at the charge office. I went to request for the bags at the charge office. Members indicated that they do not have forensic bags.”
Warrant Officer Perumal expressed to Lieutenant Colonel Jacob that there was no space to store the drugs at the station when seeing the number of bags.
“Initially, when he came and saw the number of bags, he said, so much? I do not have space.”
Lieutenant Colonel Sibiya asserts Warrant Officer Perumal clearly stated he did not have space for the drugs and denies that Colonel Jacob asked about storage space.
“I also did not say that Colonel Jacob asked Perumal about the space. I said Warrant Officer Perumal said he did not have space.”
Warrant Officer Perumal stated in his statement that Colonel Jacob did not tell him about wanting to store the exhibits at SAPS 13 storeroom; rather they have a safe place to store them and there was enough space at the station.
“Colonel Jacob did not tell me that he wanted to store the exhibit in the station SAPS 13 storeroom. Rather, he said they have a safe place where they will store them. There was enough space at the station to accommodate the said exhibit. I did not implicitly indicate to Colonel Jacob that there was no space to store large amounts of drugs.”
Lieutenant Colonel Sibiya denies Warrant Officer Perumal's statement about there being space at the station and questions why Perumal allowed exhibits to be booked in without forensic bags if bags were available.
“I think this paragraph is not speaking the truth. And I can tie this paragraph also with the issue of the bags. As a very experienced SAP 13 clerk, if he had bags, why did he allow the exhibit to be booked in without bags? Because once you are a custodian of the SAP 13, regardless of rank or what, you are in charge of the SAP 13, then you accept exhibits that are not put in the forensic bags.”
Lieutenant Colonel Sibiya claims Warrant Officer Perumal must be lying because it would have been illogical for him to call Colonel Jacob to inform commanders about lacking space at the police station if they actually had space.
“I would say the man is a liar. Why would we call Colonel Jacob to contact our Commanders informing them that we do not have space whereas we are at the police station?”
Warrant Officer Perumal was approached by Colonel Jacob from DPCI who informed him about the recovery of a huge quantity of drugs from CHC containers in Prospecton, and the intention was to book it into the SAP 13 register, sign for it, and take it away without intending to store it at Isipingo.
“On the 22nd of June 2021, I was approached by Colonel Jacob from DPCI who informed me that they recovered a huge quantity of drugs from CHC containers in Prospecton, and they want to book it into our SAP 13 register and sign for it and take it away.”
Lt-Col Sibiya overheard Warrant Officer Perumal talking to Colonel Jacob on 22 June 2021 at SAPS Isipingo stating that they do not have space to store the drugs and discussing that a team would arrive to escort the drugs.
“On 2021-06-22, the day of the seizure, while at the SAPS Isipingo, I overheard the SAP 13 Clerk Warrant Officer Perumal talking to Colonel Jacob, stating that they do not have space to store the drugs. Thereafter, I overheard speaking over the phone, indicating that we require a place to store drugs. After deliberation, Colonel Jacob informed us that the Brigadier had indicated that a team would arrive to escort the drugs.”
Warrant Officer Perumal, the SAP 13 clerk, was not agreeing with the statement that there was no space at the police station, which prompted the need for clarification.
“He indicated to me that Warrant Officer Perumal is not agreeing with what we are saying, that there was no space at the police station. So we needed to clarify more.”
There was a denial by Warrant Officer Perumal regarding the request for storage space at the police station, causing the investigating officer to seek additional clarification.
“I think, Chair, it was because maybe Perumal was denying the issue that the storage was requested. That is why he wanted me to clarify more.”
Up to a certain point, Perumal, Jacob, and LT-COLSIBIYA were not disagreeing about the storage of exhibits, but a disagreement arose later when LT-COLSIBIYA made a subsequent statement.
“Up to that point, Perumal, Jacob, and yourselves were not disagreeing because all your three statements up to that point where we book these things in, we took them out.”
There was a sudden change in the statements regarding the issue of disagreement over storage space between Perumal and Colonel Jacob, despite prior consistency.
“You and Colonel Jacob have suddenly flipped or changed. All of a sudden, when with the two of you as well there was never an issue around this..”
Warrant Officer Mpangase entered exhibits into the SAP 13 register and the member in charge was Warrant Officer Perumal, who acknowledged and immediately booked out the exhibits.
“Warrant Officer Mpangase entered the exhibits into the SAP 13. The member in charge of the SAP 13 was Warrant Officer Perumal. The exhibits were acknowledged by him and immediately booked out by Warrant Officer Mpangase.”
The exhibits could not be accommodated at the station and arrangements were made for them to be stored at a secure location in Port Shepstone, but it is not stated that Warrant Officer Perumal was the source of this statement or he refused to accommodate exhibits.
“The exhibits could not be accommodated at the station and arrangements were made for it to be stored at a secure location in Port Shepstone. It does not say that Warrant Officer Perumal said that he could not accommodate them. It does not suggest that that came from Warrant Officer Perumal.”
There was a discussion about exhibit bags between Warrant Officer Perumal and Warrant Officer Mpangase, leading to the request to the Charge Office for more bags because the bags in the car were insufficient.
“Warrant Officer Mpangase requested for the exhibit bags from Warrant Officer Perumal. However, he, that is Warrant Officer Perumal, indicated that he did not have any forensic bags. There was a discussion, hence I had to go to the Charge Office to request because I was the only one who knew, I think, less than five bags that I had in the car.”
Warrant Officer Perumal said he does not have evidence bags, but LT-Colsibiya thought he spoke only for himself and not on behalf of the station.
“Perumal said he does not have evidence bags. I thought he was speaking for himself and I was also requested by Mpangase to go and check the bags at the CSC. That is why I went.”
Warrant Officer Perumal allowed exhibits to be booked without forensic evidence bags, contrary to National Instructions, indicating something is not right.
“I think that Perumal, knowing the National Instruction, and as a custodian of the SAP13, allowing exhibits to be booked without forensic bags, then there is something that is not right there. It is proof that the exhibit bags were not there. That is why he is accepting drugs without forensic bags.”
Colonel Jacob disputes claims that he did not have conversations with Warrant Officer Perumal about storage space and only wanted to make an entry in the SAP 13 book.
Colonel Jacob questioned Warrant Officer Perumal's integrity because Perumal did not mention the prior incident concerning Mandrax storage when approached by the investigation team.
“But the fact that he remained silent on that and no aversion has been portrayed to the Commission... I take issue with that.”
Warrant Officer Sander's affidavit confirms that Perumal said he did not have enough members to guard the exhibits.
“Even Warrant Officer Sander confirms in his affidavit... he does make mention that Warrant Officer Perumal indicated to him that he did not have enough members to guard these exhibits.”
Colonel Jacob acknowledges that Warrant Officer Perumal refused storage space at Isipingo due to lack of space, but this reason is irrelevant to why the consignment was not stored there.
“But that is not the reason why your consignment was not stored in Isipingo... he simply refused to take them because he said, I do not have space.”
Upon arrival at Isipingo SAP, the exhibit bags were offloaded and the SAP 13 clerk, Warrant Officer Perumal, was called but did not have the required size exhibit bags available.
“Upon arrival at the station, I called Brigadier Nyuswa to inform him of the seizure. The members started to offload the bags and I went to call the SAP 13 clerk, Warrant Officer Perumal. He came to the parking area and viewed proceedings. When asked for exhibit bags, he indicated that they did not have any of the required size.”
Colonel Jacob submitted statements to General Flynn’s team addressing storage issues at Isipingo SAP relating to exhibits seized on 22 June 2021, and specifically involving Warrant Officer Perumal.
“I have submitted further statements to General Flynn's team over the years. I had expressly stated that we had an issue with storage at Isipingo SAP, more especially Warrant Officer Perumal. A statement was obtained by General Flynn's team from Warrant Officer Perumal in respect of availability of storage space and exhibit bags (on 22 June 2021).”
Colonel Jacob states that Warrant Officer Perumal did not accept exhibits or have exhibit bags on 22 June 2021, and that Perumal was unwilling to keep those exhibits.
“All I know ... was that he was not accepting those exhibits, neither did he have exhibit bags. ... my colleagues on the scene have since sternly reprimanded me by saying, Colonel, Warrant Officer Perumal did not want to keep those exhibits.”
Colonel Jacob states he cannot recall explicitly asking Warrant Officer Perumal for permission to store the exhibits but knew they were not being stored and was corrected by colleagues.
“I cannot recall offhand that I did ask him ... but I know they were not storing it. My colleagues reminded me that I was wrong.”
Warrant Officer Perumal commented that they did not have members to guard the seized drugs, indicating issues beyond just storage space including manpower problems and risk associated with the drugs.
“Warrant Officer Perumal had made a comment that they do not have members to guard these drugs”
Warrant Officer Perumal reported a member getting sick due to the drugs stored at Isipingo SAP, supporting the credibility of his concerns about the drugs and storage conditions.
“Entry 387 is made by the very same Warrant Officer Perumal, and it pertains to a member getting sick due to the drugs stored there . Surely this speaks to the credibility of Warrant Officer Perumal”
Warrant Officer Perumal denied the existence of a storage place and exhibit bags for the stolen drugs in a statement obtained during the investigation.
“I believe it goes along the lines where he denies that there is no storage place. He denies that there were no exhibit bags.”
The investigation team failed to properly question Warrant Officer Perumal about the storage of stolen drugs and related issues such as Mandrax entries in official books.
“The fact that the investigation team remained silent on that issue, and did not even engage Warrant Officer Perumal to ask him, what is your comment on this?”
In the operation to seize Mandrax exhibits, store clerk Warrant Officer Perumal initially refused to store the exhibits but eventually agreed to store them in the armoury with the help of Captain Beavon and Constable Ronnie.
“H e e v e n t u a l l y a g r e e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e u s b y s t o r i n g t h e e x h i b i t s i n t h e a r m o u r y i n t h e c h a r g e o f f i c e . C a p t a i n B e a v o n a n d C o n s t a b l e R o n n i e a s s i s t e d m e t o m o v e t h e f i r e a r m s a r o u n d t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e s e e x h i b i t s .”
Warrant Officer Sander booked exhibits into SAP 13 register via Isipingo SAP and noted members were making sick due to the exhibits.
“He made it clear that these exhibits were to be booked out the following day. He indicated that they did not have members to guard these exhibits. I booked these exhibits into SAP 13 register via Isipingo SAP 13163/2020. On the following day, the date as I mentioned is incorrect, it is 02-06. Someone from my office called me to inform me that Isipingo SAP called, indicating that the exhibits were making the members sick. I proceeded to Isipingo SAP with a team. I noticed the charge office members were outside the building. I did then book out the exhibits for analysis with Warrant Officer Perumal countersigning the SAP 13 register to acknowledge the same.”
WARRANT OFFICER SANDERDay 110 · 01 Jun 2026Refers to: 2020-06-02Location: Isipingo SAP
The property seized in Port Shepstone should be locked in a temporary storage facility at CSC and then handed over to the Station Commander or exhibit official, who was Warrant Officer Perumal at the relevant time.
“a l l p r o p e r t y e n t e r e d i n t h e S A P 1 3 m u s t b e l o c k e d i n a t e m p o r a r y s t o r a g e f a c i l i t y a t C S C , w h e r e t h e y m u s t b e k e p t s a f e l y u n t i l h a n d e d o v e r t o t h e S t a t i o n C o m m a n d e r o r e x h i b i t o f f i c i a l . I n t h e c a s e o f t h e P o r t S h e p s t o n e s e i z u r e a n d t h e S A P e n t r y a t I s i p i n g o , w h o w o u l d h a v e a t t h e t i m e b e e n t h e e x h i b i t o f f i c i a l ? W a r r a n t O f f i c e r P e r u m a l”
Warrant Officer Mpangase entered the exhibits of seized cocaine into the SAP 13 register at Isipingo Police Station, with Warrant Officer Perumal acknowledging the entries.
“At the police station, Warrant Officer Mpangase entered the exhibits into the Isipingo SAP 13. Warrant Officer Perumal of the Isipingo Police Station responsible for the SAP 13 register acknowledged that the exhibits were entered into the SAP 13.”
Isipingo Police Station was not considered suitable for storing the exhibits because it is a smaller station in a high-risk area; Warrant Officer Perumal was never asked to store exhibits there.
“According to Colonel Jacob, Isipingo was not considered because it is well known that Isipingo is a smaller police station and is in a high-risk area . And Warrant Officer Perumal was never asked if there was capacity to store the exhibits at Isipingo .”
The exhibits included 541 bricks of cocaine weighing approximately 1 kilogram each, which were entered into Isipingo with a reference number. Warrant Officer Perumal indicated there was no space to store such volume of narcotics at Isipingo, and a provincial office was notified of the lack of storage at the station and Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
“The exhibits were counted by the members, and it was established that there were 541 bricks of cocaine, weighing approximately 1 kilogram each... Warrent Officer Perumal of Isipingo SAPS indicated that they did not have space to store such volume of narcotics. A provincial office was notified of the lack of storage facility at the station and at FSL.”
Warrant Officer Perumal did not keep exhibits in his safe custody but immediately booked them out due to lack of storage space at Isipingo SAPS.
“So , it means that Warrant Officer Perumal did not keep the exhibits in his safe custody . It was booked out immediately . ... According to the officers , there was not sufficient space at the Isipingo SAPS to store the exhibits . According to Warrant Officer Perumal no enquiry was made with him regarding capacity to store the exhibits in the armoury at Isipingo SAPS .”
Colonel Jacob stated he never engaged Warrant Officer Perumal about storage capacity at Isipingo and considered Isipingo a small police station in a high-risk area lacking capacity for exhibits storage.
“Colonel Jacob says that he was, Warrant Officer Perumal was never asked if there was capacity to store the exhibits at Isipingo... Isipingo was not considered, because it is well known that Isipingo is a smaller police station and is in a high-risk area. So, on Colonel Jacob's own version, he never engaged with Warrant Officer Perumal about whether there was capacity or not.”
