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.”
[p20 #1 UNATTRIBUTED]Day 150 · 29 Jul 2026Evidence: Sections 155 and 156 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Advocate Sello SC asserted that under section 38(1)(a)(iii) of the PFMA, General Masemola's legal obligation as Accounting Officer is to ensure SAPS maintains an appropriate, fair, and competitive procurement system under section 217 of the Constitution.
“Section 38 of the PFMA prescribes that: “The Accounting Officer for a department, trading entity or constitutional institution - (a) must ensure that the department, trading entity or constitutional institution has and maintains …” And I will go to (iii): “… an appropriate procurement and provisioning system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.” On a reading of that you would agree with me that that is the responsibility that General Masemola bears.”
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.”
Advocates Sello and Khumalo asserted that paragraph 20 of the IDAC prosecution memorandum only invokes section 9 of SAPS National Instruction 11 of 2017 regarding nepotism and favouritism, while making no reference to PRECCA or gratification.
“because your memorandum does not even invoke PRECCA at all. It speaks of no gratification. It speaks of nepotism and favouritism. That is a point I sought to make earlier. That if your memorandum is intended to inform and advise the DPP, the only instrument you invoke at your paragraph 20 is section 9 of the National Instruction 11 of 2017, which you quote verbatim. And that speaks to nepotism and favouritism.”
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.
Advocates Baloyi SC and Sello SC assert that the condition preventing the accused from visiting head office was not originally requested by the prosecution in open court, yet prosecutor Hlatshwayo failed to correct the magistrate's order or notify her superiors appropriately.
“Does it mean that the prosecutor and the investigator did not disclose to you that they got the bonus of a condition that was not asked for?”
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.””
[p139 #4 A D V S E L L O S C]Day 150 · 29 Jul 2026Refers to: 2024Evidence: Ad Hoc Committee transcript page 626
Popcru reported that IDAC appointed Suneel Bellochun as a senior investigating officer despite an active warrant of arrest against him for alleged fraud linked to Pretoria West CAS 97/05/2021.
“First paragraph states that: “It was a startling revelation that IDAC appointed Suneel Bellochun as a senior investigating officer, despite him having a warrant of arrest for alleged fraud.””
[p140 #3 A D V S E L L O S C]Day 150 · 29 Jul 2026Location: Pretoria WestEvidence: CJC 376 / page 678 (Exhibit File 1, page 136)
Witness N testified that IDAC investigator Suneel Bellochun extorted money from members of the Pakistani community in East London and treated them harshly.
“Witness N once again testified on complaints by, and I use the term liberally, the Pakistani community living, is it East London or PE, that which is said, East London, I think. It is alleged that investigator Bellochun is extorting monies from, and otherwise dealing with them harshly”
[p141 #3 A D V S E L L O S C]Day 150 · 29 Jul 2026Location: East LondonEvidence: Witness N testimony before the Commission
Sergeant Nkosi reported that Suneel Bellochun led a team of nine IDAC investigators on 13 July 2026 to meet him without his attorney to solicit testimony implicating Generals Khumalo and Masemola.
“The third we dealt with in this hearing, which is by Sergeant Nkosi, of Mr Bellochun leading a team of nine, let me say people, investigators and maybe others, from IDAC of the 13th of July 2026, to meet with him in the absence of his attorney and to solicit, again, it is my own summary, testimony from him that would implicate Generals Khumalo and Masemola.”
[p141 #3 A D V S E L L O S C]Day 150 · 29 Jul 2026Refers to: 2026-07-13Evidence: Sergeant Nkosi complaint / Exhibit file
Adv Sello SC noted that Mr Mogoetsi raised his entitlement not to incriminate himself on a question-by-question basis.
“which I think w a s f o r c e d o n u s b y c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h M r M o g o t s i . I t w a s q u e s t i o n b y q u e s t i o n a n d h e r a i s e d h i s e n t i t l e m e n t n o t t o i n c r i m i n a t e h i m s e l f”
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 .”
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”
An investigation was authorized under section 2(8) regarding members of Crime Intelligence and their top security clearances and failure to apply, specifically matters involving corruption and related offences.
“authorisation, it is common law offences of dishonesty, and then statutory offences including but not limited to contravention of corruption and gratification, and contravention of the provisions of, once again, PRECCA... application for investigation in terms of section 8(13)... authorisation to investigate members of the CI as regards their top security clearances and their failure to apply”
ADV Sello SC accuses ADV Johnson of being unfair to Ms Mokwele by attributing knowledge of conduct to her that she has no knowledge of and impugning her credibility unjustly by suggesting she would loot state funds.
“No , no , no . You are being grossly unfair to Ms Mokwele . Now you are attributing conduct of persons she has no knowledge of to her ... You are seriously impugning her credibility and we are trying to find the basis on which you says she was going to loot”
The appointment and installation of Ms Mokwele was alleged to be strategic to access funding without following proper processes, but the evidence for this allegation fell away due to lack of factual support.
“the appointment and installation of certain persons … by Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused persons, help them strategically to access funding without following proper processes… her token appointment would not stop them from their unlawful acts... falls away in terms of the appointment... short of there being documents to prove the rest of the paragraph, then that falls away.”
The documents docketed containing original section 27 and A1 statements were exactly what the legal adviser at SAPS said and matched what the Inspectorate had, providing the basis for the charges preferred.
“Those documents, the original section 27, the A1 in the respective dockets, which is what the legal adviser at SAPS said, that is all that was contained in the dockets and I assume that is precisely what you found. You could not have found any more than the Inspectorate had.”
Section 27 was incomplete, and it is necessary to have jurisdiction established before initiating investigations; investigations cannot be based on hope for damning facts to justify jurisdiction.
“You exercised your discretion, as you say you normally do, which is to request further substantiation from a referee... We first have to be in A before you investigate. Otherwise, the process is deeply concerning.”
No lawyer in the IDAC office advised that they lacked jurisdiction to investigate based on section 27, even after receiving the affidavit.
“It is simply unimaginable that in your office no one would have said to you, ID, we do not have the trigger, the triggering requirements. It is simply unimaginable that no lawyer in your office said, we do not have jurisdiction to investigate...”
Section 28(13) was not a carte blanche for full-blown investigations on flimsy or non-existent grounds, but allows hearing or obtaining evidence to determine if reasonable grounds exist to investigate.
“2 8 (1 3) allows you to hear evidence or obtain evidence to determine whether or not there are grounds for an investigation.”
The original affidavit received did not assist in starting the section 27 investigation, but now there are multiple affidavits including a flimsy A1 statement and a January 6th affidavit to consider.
“the original affidavit received does not assist you at all. You advised the Commissioner that you have the power to call for further information to consider the referral in its totality. Now you have got the flimsy A1 statements in the various dockets and you have this January 6th affidavit”
IDAC's entry point for investigations must be based on criteria of seriousness, high-profile status, or complexity related to corruption or financial crime, which is reflected in Subsection A of section 7(1).
IDAC exercised discretion to request further substantiation from a referee before initiating an investigation due to incompleteness of the initial Section 27 documents.
“you exercised your discretion... which is to request further substantiation from a referee. Now you have it.”
Section 28(13) does not give carte blanche to conduct a full investigation without reasonable grounds, it only permits hearing evidence to determine if such grounds exist.
“2 8 ( 1 3 ) allows you to hear evidence or obtain evidence to determine whether or not there are grounds for an investigation.”
As of 6 January, there were no grounds to conduct a preparatory investigation because the matter did not fall within IDAC's mandate.
“as of the 6 th of January, there are not even any grounds at all to conduct a preparatory investigation to determine whether to conduct a full blown investigation because the matter does not fall within IDAC mandate”
An investigation docket 542/6/2025 was registered in June 2025 after authorization on 30 May 2025, indicating case opening occurred post authorization, not earlier.
“the docket would have been registered June 2025 ... best case scenario is that it is the 1st of June 2025 when the docket is opened ... and your authorisation to investigate is the 30th of May.”
There is a contradiction between the witness's statement to the ad hoc committee and current statement about receiving a referral from Mr Adams and triggering an internal process.
“You did not receive the referral yourself when it was received by IDAC”
Advocate Johnson confirms that Mr Adams did not approach IDAC but rather IDAC approached Mr Adams, contrary to what was said before the ad hoc committee.
“You mention in your statement that when he approached IDAC, he had already gone to SAPS... Now we know that he did not go to, he did not approach IDAC. IDAC approached him. We know that now for a fact. Do you confirm?”
Mr Adams suspected General Khumalo and others due to finding an envelope pushed under his office door at Parliament containing Crime Intelligence procurement and vetting documents using secret funds.
“My suspicion about General Khumalo and others became more clearer when I found an envelope pushed under my office door at Parliament which contained some Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds and vetting documents.”
IDAC initiated investigations based on affidavits which largely did not advance grounds to support suspicions, but the particular affidavit dated November 24 was treated as an exception.
“IDAC initiated investigations based on numerous of such affidavits, which do not advance any grounds to support suspicions expressed therein ... why did you not bring to bear that particular need for compliance to this particular affidavit, which is dated less than two years ago, November 24 ? Why did you treat this affidavit as an exception to the rule ...”
A decision to authorize a preliminary investigation under section 28(13) was taken on 6 December 2024, the same day a request for dockets was made to Major General Khumalo.
“Major General Khumalo was requesting the dockets was on the 6th of December. ... That is the same day a decision was taken to authorise a preliminary investigation.”
Advocate Johnson treated one particular affidavit dated November 24 as an exception to the compliance requirement under section 27 despite it being recent.
“Why did you treat this affidavit as an exception to the rule that you say you had come to apply to all other section 27 affidavits?”
Advocate Ramsami did not make an application on 6 December; the authorization to initiate the section 28(13) preliminary investigation was given on that day.
“so it cannot be on the 6th of December that Advocate Ramsami made an application, because you are only making a decision on the 6th of September to initiate a 28(13) preliminary investigation.”
Advocate Johnson authorized a preliminary investigation after receiving the section 28(13) application from Advocate Ramsami on 6 December.
“You then subsequently received, I take it the section 28 (13) application from Advocate Ramsami and then you authorised the preliminary investigation.”
The Minister's office communicated to Advocate Sello SC on 11 November terms of annexure MK16 about allegations implicating very senior members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) in a serious light, including case dockets registered with specific CAS numbers.
“That is what was communicated to you by the Minister's office on the 11th of November in terms of annexure MK16.”
After receiving the section 28(13) application from Advocate Ramsami, a preliminary investigation was authorized.
“And you then subsequently received, I take it the section 28(13) application from Advocate Ramsami and then you authorised the preliminary investigation.”
The Constitutional Court in the case Secretary Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture v Zuma 2021 determined that the rights in sections 3(4) and 6 include the right not to self-incriminate.
“The Constitutional Court matter, Secretary Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture v Zuma 2021 ... determined that the rights in section 3(4) and 6 include the right not to self-incriminate”
The Constitutional Court held that section 3(4) and section 6 of the Act include the right not to self-incriminate, overturning previous belief to the contrary.
“that the rights in section 3(4) and 6 include the right not to self-incriminate. The Constitutional Court considered, and it was argued before it by some or other amicus curiae... that it does not include the right against self-incrimination, but the Constitutional Court determined that it does. They have a right not to self-incriminate.”
Rights afforded in terms of section 5(3) of the Constitution do not apply to a person who is not an accused person, meaning such a person cannot invoke section 35 of the Constitution but may invoke section 3(4).
“the rights afforded in terms of section 5(3) of the Constitution do not apply to a person who is not an accused person. So she can invoke section 35 of the Constitution, but she may invoke 3(4).”
The right not to self-incriminate under the Commission Act is more stringent than the right invoked by persons interrogated by the Investigating Directorate.
“why it is the NPA Act seems to be so stringent when it comes to the invocation of that right ?”
The rights a witness claims under the Commission Act may appear greater than those afforded to persons interviewed by the Investigating Directorate, raising questions about consistency.
“the rights the witness seems to assert would appear on my reading to be greater than the rights afforded persons that are interviewed by the Investigating Directorate and wonder whether my interpretation is correct”
Colonel Padayachee testified he has never been furnished with copies of section 27 referral affidavits; only oral briefings by senior investigators or prosecutors have been provided, which he finds strange and suspicious.
“Colonel Padayachee said that he has never been furnished with copies of affidavits that supports section 27 referrals. He testified that all that he has ever been given, as I understood it, throughout his stay at IDAC, are oral briefings given to him by senior investigators or prosecutors. I am not sure which one it is now. ... Did he tell us the truth with regard to this or not? Is that the practice followed at IDAC? If it is, which I would find very strange, why would there be such a practice?”
Advocate Sello SC says he has not instructed or influenced any investigator or prosecutor other than in accordance with evidence, law, and policy.
“y o u s a y y o u h a v e n o t i n s t r u c t e d o r o t h e r w i s e i n f l u e n c e d a n y i n v e s t i g a t o r o r p r o s e c u t o r t o a c t o t h e r t h a n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e l a w, t h e a p p l i c a b l e p r o s e c u t o r i a l p o l i c y.”
Advocate Sello SC clarifies that the final decision on arrest or summons is not made by the Head of Institution but lies within the Investigating Directorate team.
“I t l i e s s o m e w h e r e e l s e w i t h i n I D A C .”
The Investigating Directorate team has the authority to make final decisions on arrests and summons, which cannot be overturned by the Head of Institution.
“S o w h e r e t h a t t e a m h a s m a d e t h a t d e c i s i o n , y o u h a v e n o p o w e r t o o v e r t u r n i t a s t h e I D .”
The witness omitted dealing with EXHIBIT CJC 368 in their third statement and clarifies that they invoke right against self-incrimination in response to specific questions, not a blanket ban.
“you omitted to deal with EXHIBIT CJC 368 ... you invoke your right against self-incrimination in response to specific questions, not that questions can be put to you ... there is no blanket, but it is on a question by question”
Section 28(8)(a) and (b) of the NPA Act protects privilege applicable to a witness summoned to give evidence in a criminal case in a Magistrate's Court, including protection against self-incrimination in response to questions.
“The law regarding privilege as applicable to a witness summoned to give evidence in a criminal case in a Magistrate's Court shall apply in relation to the questioning of a person in terms of subsection (6), provided that such persons shall not be entitled to refuse any answer, to answer any question upon the ground that the answer would tend to expose him or her to a criminal charge.”
Witnesses interviewed by the Investigating Directorate (ID) cannot refuse to answer questions on the basis that the answer would tend to expose them to a criminal charge, unlike witnesses summoned before a Magistrate's Court.
“that the witnesses that are interviewed ... by the Investigating Directorate cannot refuse to answer questions on the basis that they may incriminate themselves subsequently. They may not fail to answer any question put to them to the best of their ability.”
Measures have been implemented to ensure the Commission receives the documents requested through subpoenas related to Advocate Johnson's testimony.
“I can report back that the measures have been put in place to ensure that the Commission receives the documents requested in terms of all these subpoenas.”
The docket disclosed to the commission was incomplete, comprising only one of two parts, with the second part still being provided and not yet available during the hearing.
“the docket disclosed to us, which we have been working off from yesterday, is incomplete. So it transpires that there are some documents we did not get, and the explanation for that is that the actual docket is actually in two parts. We seem to have been furnished with the one part”
Colonel Padayachee refers to an affidavit dated 11 August 2025, described as an anchor affidavit providing background to the whole investigation.
“we have been furnished with the affidavit that Colonel Padayachee refers to ... it is a 13-paged document ... we call it an anchor affidavit, which gives you background into the whole investigation”
A report by Lieutenant General Jacobs, dated 30 July 2025, records the chronology of events known to the Inspectorate from the moment the docket issues arose in Cape Town.
“MK 15 is a report by Lieutenant General Jacobs ... This report you will see is dated the 30th of July 2025 ... this report records everything ... that transpired from the moment they ... became aware of the issues referenced in section 27, particularly the dockets opened in Cape Town.”
There was an administrative error resulting in Colonel Padayachee receiving only two pages of the MK15 annexure out of more than 20 pages.
“when this document was shared ... he only got two pages of the entire bundle ... he only got two pages of that ... the original Annexure MK 15 ... should be complete for our purposes ... he appears to have received only two pages ...”
Lieutenant-General Khumalo allegedly appointed friends and family members in the division without providing details of their identities, which hindered investigation into the allegations.
“No details are provided regarding the identity of the friends and family members of Lieutenant-General Khumalo, who was allegedly appointed in the division. (This would at least have enabled the investigation into the allegations.)”
Senior service members were allegedly instructed to ensure that the Villieria CAS 38/08/22 case was not investigated, but no statements about this are filed in the docket.
“Neither the particulars or statements of these senior members of the service who were allegedly instructed to ensure that Villieria CAS 38/08/22 is not investigated, nor the statement of the sex worker are filed in these dockets.”
Major-General Madondo allegedly failed a polygraph examination in July 2024, and Brigadier Ncube was tasked to ensure the matter would not be addressed or investigated.
“The complainant alleges that Major-General Madondo failed her polygraph examination in July 2024, whereafter the Head of Vetting, Brigadier Ncube, was asked to ensure that the matter would not be addressed or investigated.”
Summons dated 6 February 2025 referenced investigation into serious fraud and corruption committed within SAPS, invoking section 28(13) of the NPA Act.
“The information required from you relates to the conducting of an investigation into serious fraud and corruption committed within SAPS ... invoke section 28(13) of the NPA Act ...”
The charge sheet submitted to court did not reference that the panel had been approved by Head Office; this approval was omitted.
“Nowhere in this charge sheet do you speak of that panel being approved. That somehow is omitted in this charge sheet. Oversight, perhaps or whatever, I just want to establish as a fact that it is not there. The approval is not referenced herein the charge sheet at all.”
Adv Sello SC alleges that Colonel Padayachee was part of the creation or presentation of a document (an affidavit) used in court to support an application for warrants, and thus must accept responsibility for that affidavit.
“you were a part of its creation, alternatively, you approved it”
Colonel Padayachee refuses to take responsibility for the affidavit presented to court, stating only 'noted' because he has yet to appear with the same affidavit before a criminal court.
“I say noted, Commissioner, and Page 216 of 322 the reason why I say noted is that I still got to appear with the same affidavit before a criminal court, so I am saying noted”
ADV Sello SC and others question the relevance and implications of General Khan not being part of the panel, suggesting it implies exclusion and possible punting regarding him.
“Of what relevance is the fact that General Khan was not part of that panel ?”
General Khan was a member of the 2023 panel, and although he was not the one who nominated the interview panel, he failed to appoint a more competent and experienced senior officer from within Crime Intelligence.
“In the 2023 panel, General Khan was a member ... I believe that Khumalo did not nominate me ... I would have opted to appoint a more competent and experienced senior officer from within Crime Intelligence environment.”
It is improper and highly influencing the content of General Khan's witness statement to provide him the file to review for preparation in circumstances where criminal charges are intended against senior members within Crime Intelligence.
“You are influencing the content of his witness statement ... That witness is no longer talking the absolute truth ... That is improper ... Have you ever given any other witness this file to say these are the contents ... ?”
Mr Matlala's appearance was postponed to 15 July 2026 from an earlier subpoena date of 7 July 2026 following an engagement between his legal representatives and the Commission.
“Mr Matlala had been subpoenaed to appear on the 7th of July 2026 and on that date, Mr Matlala's legal representative and I presented ourselves before you and we had an engagement, the outcome of which was that Mr Matlala's appearance was postponed to the 15th of July, today”
The reserved right to supplement a filing after a deadline was a procedural accommodation to deal with tight timelines and missed deadlines.
“that proviso was discussed amongst ourselves because of the tight timeline they then had to file by, having missed previous deadlines. The only way to cure any potential prejudice to Mr Matlala was to agree and place on record that he reserves the right to supplement.”
The Commission is concerned that the approach by Mr Matlala's representatives is unappreciative of the operational challenges the Commission faces, particularly the impact on scheduling and limited time remaining.
“I am concerned about the approach being adopted by Mr Matlala's representatives and I do not think it is particularly appreciative of the challenges that the Commission faces. ... This Commission has got a limited time spent left to it.”
Adv Sello SC accepts the offer to file a statement in two weeks if it is wholly unconditional by a specified date.
“If it is wholly unconditional by a specified date, then I am happy, because my concern was that if they do not get the required information from IDAC, or IDAC just outright refuses, then they would be entitled in law to approach a court to compel IDAC to provide such information if they have a basis in law to do so, and if that case is unfavorable to them, there are appeal proceedings. So the question would be, do we await that information and the challenge to, right to that information to run its course until the Constitutional Court before we get a statement? But I will accept what Commissioner Baloyi says, she says the filing in two weeks is unconditional. If that is the case, then we just need to set a date, and if the statement is not filed, we shall be back before you, Chair, and I suggest that the consequences will follow.”
There are no restrictions on what can be publicly extracted from the docket except as per the usual POPI Act, so documents can be dealt with publicly.
“There are no restrictions to what I can extract publicly from that docket ... There are no restrictions absolutely on this docket, except the usual POPI Act.”
The docket was agreed to be dealt with publicly during the hearing and there is no confidentiality attaching to it beyond normal privacy act provisions.
“...the hearings are public, anything that is ventilated in this room must be done so publicly... that is how I structured how I am dealing with the testimony of this witness... The witness seems to want to backpedal that and asserts some level of confidentiality without necessarily invoking Rule 10(4) in its entirety.”
Colonel Padayachee admitted there is evidence of illegal, dishonest, unauthorized, biased acts and abuse of position related to offering employment as gratification in the docket.
“Is there evidence of anyone acting personally or by influencing another person in a manner that amounts to the illegal, dishonest, unauthorised, biased acts that amounts to the abuse of position ?… Yes, Commissioner.”
If the section 27 affidavit is scanty and does not meet threshold, the investigator may refuse to investigate or send it back to the decision-maker with representations.
“What do you do as an investigator then? Do you refuse to investigate? Do you send it back to the decision maker with representations?”
There is a problem with the work process in investigations as the workflow is broken down into different investigations but the relevant team members may not have access to all the affidavits and information, leading to challenges in understanding and completing investigations.
“I still maintain that he would have shared this affidavit to give you insight into what the suspicions are and why you are having the investigations, otherwise, there is a team that is just flying blind.”
Mr Matlala was served with a subpoena to appear and give testimony on 7 July but an extension was requested and granted due to difficulties, postponing the testimony to 15 July.
“Mr Matlala was served with a subpoena to appear to give his testimony today on the 7th...an extension was requested, which was granted...The date we have in mind is the 15th of July”
The General has located the statement by Colonel Prinsloot that he references generally in his own statement, and it is being copied and made available to the Commission.
“Chair, we have located the statement by Colonel Prinsloot that the General references in his statement. It has been copied and he would like to make direct reference thereto.”
General Senona expressed in a report to General Mosikili awareness that there were failings in how the scene was managed, implying he is aware of the applicable prescripts and non-compliance.
“I depart from the premise that he is aware of the prescripts, applicable prescripts, as to how the scene should be managed, and that there were failings in that regard. ... He expressed himself in the manner that he did in his report to General Mosikili about the handling of the scene.”
ADV Sello suggests that Maj-Gen Senona ought to be acquainted with whether there are sufficient facilities at police stations for seized heroin and cocaine and that he is not aware of such facilities.
“I would have thought that is a matter that would interest you... based on S2 and the volume of Heroin and Cocaine you seize, that you would at least acquaint yourself with whether or not there are sufficient facilities... But from what you say, you know nothing about police stations and such storage facilities”
MAJ-GEN SENONA limited response on the SAP 13 register to the Isipingo SAP 13 and did not address storage facilities at Port Shepstone in that context, despite questions about it.
“your response to the Commission in 29 January ‘26 confined itself to the Isipingo SAP 13 ... I want to go beyond that ... because I want to confine my question to the Port Shepstone storage”
MAJ-GEN SENONA confirmed in evidence he confined himself to SAPS Isipingo when responding to a question but did not answer whether other suitable storage facilities were available for seized drugs, as required by Regulation 10(6).
“you confined the answer only to the Isipingo SAP 13 ... that question you do not answer ... about other suitable facilities ... in Regulation 10(6)”
All property and exhibits must be entered in the SAP13 property register at the relevant police station where the crime was committed or where the property was found, then transferred to the relevant unit and entered into their SAP13 register.
“All property and Exhibit Cs must be entered in the SAP13 property register of the relevant police station where the crime was committed or where the property was found and then transferred to the relevant unit and entered into the SAP13 of the relevant unit.”
There was a risk of pilfering of 541 kilograms of seized drugs each time the keys to the safe were handed over to somebody else and the witness was not present during the opening of the safe at the harbour.
“to the extent that it may be that 541 kilograms were seized at the harbour and it is unknown how many were stolen because of the risk . I am not saying it happened . The risk that in the absence of records there might have been pilfering of those drugs each time the keys were handed over to somebody else and you were not present during the opening of the safe”
The team from Durban had challenges correctly recording blocks of cocaine and sealing and marking the seals appropriately.
“He states the challenge that the team that came from Durban was having with correctly recording these blocks of Cocaine and sealing them and marking these seals appropriately, and that is where he assisted .”
An attempted break-in occurred in October 2021 at the Port Shepstone offices and the incident was initially believed to involve homeless individuals attempting to access food in the kitchen area, without being perceived as targeted criminal conduct.
“The incidents referred to were believed to involve homeless individuals attempting to access food through the kitchen area and were not initially perceived as sophisticated or targeted criminal conduct”
ADV SELLO SCDay 122 · 19 Jun 2026Refers to: October 2021Location: Port Shepstone offices
Advocate Sello confirmed the container was pulled up for demonstration purposes and that Colonel Jacob's comments about the container size do not relate to the particular seizure being discussed.
“Commissioner Khumalo, I confirm it was pulled up yesterday for demonstration purposes. To deal with the point Colonel Jacob was making about what he meant by the size of the container. That definitely I confirm does not relate to this particular seizure.”
Colonel Jacob's first statement was unsigned and unacknowledged initially, but he later accepted it as his first statement.
“This is Colonel Jacob's. My gosh, it is unsigned. He probably did not... He accepted it. He accepted it. I raise that issue when Advocate Sello took him through it. And he accepted that this is his first statement.”
The information note referred to by Colonel Jacob was not created in 2021, contrary to an impression given by the Chairperson, but at a later date for the purpose of developing a statement for the Commission.
“This information note you referenced, you prepared for purposes of developing a statement for the Commission, so it was not created in 021.”
Adv Sello SC suggests Colonel Jacob knew the container was placed in a non-designated area but allowed it for his convenience as he was unfamiliar with CHC Depot's layout, to which Colonel Jacob initially denies but later partly admits.
“So you knew it was not a designated area ... But you already know it is not a designated area ... I was not aware that this was not a designated examination area”
Adv Sello SC suggests the police operate in a manner where space for storing exhibits at police stations must be begged for, leading to reluctance in making requests to avoid rejection.
“like everybody owns a police station ,... you literally have to beg because somebody is going to reject your request ... you end up not even making the request”
Colonel Jacob incorrectly assumed that after a 32 kg seizure on 8 May 2020, subsequent large seizures like 999 kg on 30 July 2021 could not be accommodated at Maydon Wharf, which is disproved by storage records.
“your seizure actually occurred before the 30 July 2021 seizure ... your assumption was wholly wrong, because six weeks after your seizure, he could accommodate 999 kg ... I did not enquire ... I drew an assumption”
Adv Sello SC is trying to prove there was storage capacity in and around Durban for 541 kg of heroin, implying there was no need to move it to Port Shepstone.
“I am looking to prove that there was capacity in and around Durban for 541 kg Heroin. You did not have to go to Port Shepstone”
The Port of Santos in Brazil is identified as one of the key sources of seized drugs based on presentations and seizures from sea-going vessels.
“... presentation we dealt with by General Senona on seizures from these sea going vessels that the Port of Santos, Brazil, appears to be one of the key sources of these drugs.”
Increasing seizures from the Port of Santos and sharing fingerprints and DNA with Brazil empowers efforts to locate consistent perpetrators.
“The more of those fingerprints and DNA we uplift and share with Brazil, the more we empower them that tend to try and locate who may consistently be responsible for these shipments.”
Despite the value of photographs taken by LCRC for reports and legal cases, there is a tendency to disregard their importance if fingerprint results are not forthcoming.
“Somehow you choose to undermine such a key one simply because you, Colonel, Jacob, do not get back results from LCRC... And you appreciate it at the time, but because they do not give you fingerprints, once again you decide that you are not going to waste your time with them.”
ADV SELLO SC expressed concern about COLONEL JACOB's dismissive attitude towards the importance of secure drug storage and the risk that the drugs may end up on the streets or evidence could be lost.
“I am concerned about the dismissive attitude ... there is risk of losing the evidence ... they will end up upon the streets”
Colonel Jacob was aware of the Protocol's requirement to submit all illicit drugs (except cannabis) to FSL for forensic analysis, although there are challenges with the prescribed 7 day submission period.
Colonel Jacob instructed Warrant Officer Mpangase to take samples (shavings) from about 5 drug bricks to send to FSL, which did not comply with the Protocol which requires all illicit drugs to be submitted for forensic analysis.
“When you instructed Warrant Officer Mpangase to take samples or shavings from the bricks to send to FSL, it was not in compliance with what is required here”
The removal of drugs from Port Shepstone was due to the attempted break-in and genuine concern for safety.
“I understand that your approach to FSL on the 27th was to remove the drugs from Port Shepstone , because of the attempted break-in . Now you were truly worried for their safety .”
Adv Sello SC challenges Colonel Jacob's claim that he cannot contact other labs without going through Amanzimtoti, suggesting this limits operational effectiveness.
“Technically you say you are sitting ducks. Unless Amanzimtoti directs you, they do not have capacity, unless they direct you, you cannot move. Is that what you are suggesting?”
Adv Sello SC criticizes the system suggesting it leads to blame on Amanzimtoti FS lab for drugs being stolen after an attempted break-in due to their inability to store or move the drugs.
“Those drugs were stolen after an attempted break-in in October. They were stolen because Amanzimtoti failed to get them off Colonel Jacob's hands. And we are now going to blame FS Amanzimtoti for this, for the eventual theft...”
ADV SELLO SC states that the investigation diary is unreliable and manufactured post facto.
“This makes the point that this investigation diary is absolutely unreliable. I agree with Commissioner Baloyi. It is manufactured fact in all this diary post facto.”
ADV SELLO SC asserts that the seal number Colonel Jacob claims to have placed after taking the drugs is inconsistent and was never there on 1 July 2021.
“Today when you make a statement before this Commission, you cannot address the question of the seal that you put on that container on the 1st of July. And I am saying it is because it was never there in the first place. That is why you are having a challenge.”
ADV SELLO SC asserts that the warehouse manager was in fact asked about the incident to test the truth of her first statement as of October 2025.
“I am going to show to you that she was in fact asked ... So you can explain it ways ... but do not say that nobody went to ask her to test the truth, the correctness of her first statement”
ADV SELLO SC reads from a statement dated 6 October 2025 describing that members of Hawks and a Megafreight official visited on 1 July 2021 to verify the packing list of the container.
“Members of Hawks arrived. An official from Megafreight was present. They indicated they wanted to verify the packing list. When the members had finished, the container was locked and another was placed on the container. ... I really cannot remember the Hawks members' names who came to our company on the 1st of July 2021 to verify that the packing list corresponded with the contents of the container.”
Colonel Jacob stated that she was never asked about details of the Hawks people and Mega Freight regarding a specific visit on 1 July 2021, and cannot recall details despite a handwritten statement from 1 October 2025 requesting further clarity.
“Colonel Jacob was suggesting that she was never asked about the detail of the Hawks people and the Mega freight... I have a handwritten statement dated 1 October 2025, paragraph 2... Her response is, I cannot recall as it.”
The statement indicates that Hawks members did come to the company on 1 July 2021 but the witness cannot remember their names.
“I really cannot remember the Hawks members' names who came to our company on the 1st of July 2021 to verify that the packing list corresponded with the contents of the container.”
Colonel Jacob's diary says the containers were resealed on 1 July 2021, but there is no official record to confirm the visitors or seals, indicating poor record-keeping.
“No body seems to have an official record, notwithstanding the fact that Colonel Jacob's own diary say were sealed... No body seems to have it... That is the criticism of what went down that day and what was recorded. It is very poor, and it is what creates these difficulties.”
ADV SELLO SC stated that the Mega Freight agent was approached and provided a statement earlier in the investigation, but Colonel Jacob says that the agent was not asked about the 1 July visit and that his statement does not mention it.
“For the record, the agent was approached and he provided a statement. We dealt with it earlier... But he was not asked... Was he asked about the 1st of July? His statement tells me nothing about the 1st of July.”
General Senona was subpoenaed to appear on Monday, 1 June, and stood down to Friday, 5 June, but his counsel is indisposed and cannot attend on 5 June; a postponement of his testimony to the week of 8 June is requested.
“General Senona had been subpoenaed to appear... The Chair stood down his testimony to Friday, the 5th... The counsel is indisposed and would not be able to attend tomorrow... request... to consider whether it could stand down Major General Senona's testimony... to a later date in the week of the 8th of June...”
General Senona's statement was filed by 2 June 2026 as required, but his physical appearance to testify on 5 June is postponed due to counsel's indisposition.
“General Senona had been required to file his statement by 2nd of June 026, and it was done... what was outstanding was for him to appear tomorrow... The hearing of the evidence of General Senona is postponed to a date to be determined during the week of the 8th of June 2026.”
The drug container was profiled based on intelligence from Captain Duma and was one of 10 containers brought on the vessel Ludo.
“this particular container, through the intelligence of Captain Duma, was quote-unquote profiled. It was one of 10 containers being brought on that vessel, the Ludo.”
Colonel Jacob agrees with Advocate Sello's proposition that the operation starts when a decision is made to follow up on the information received, not when they arrive at the depot.
General Senona's testimony was initially subpoenaed for 18 May 2026 but was postponed to 1 June 2026 due to reasons partly accepted from his lawyer's correspondence.
“you will recall that we had issued a subpoena for General Senona to appear on the 18th of May 2026 ... we accepted some of the reasons advanced ... the Chair then stood General Senona's testimony down to the 1st of June”
ADV SELLO SC corrected that Major General Senona's testimony was not postponed to 1 June but stood down to that date and is now expected to testify on 5 June 2026, supported by correspondence between the Commission attorneys and General Senona's attorneys.
“Ms Tulk inadvertently perhaps communicated the wrong position ... Here is the correct position and that is supported by correspondence between the attorneys of the Commission and General Senona's correspondence ... I made the mistake of saying that General Senona's testimony was postponed to the 1st of”
General Senona's statement was due on 1 June, but Advocates Tulks and Sello indicate it will not be provided by the end of the day on 1 June, proposing an extension to 2 or 3 June.
“that subpoena requires his statement ... to be provided by the 1st of June ... Advocate Tulk says they are not in a position to provide it by today ... we would request that these be provided on the 2nd, tomorrow, 2nd of June ... and I have proposed by close of business on the 3rd of June.”
It was required that Port Shepstone Police Station take control of the exhibits before entering them into the SAP 13 register at the police station in Port Shepstone, but there was no known transfer of control from the Organized Crime Unit to the police station.
“If Port Shepstone Police Station was intended as the receiving station, was it not required, therefore, to have taken control of the exhibits before they are entered into the SAP 13 at the police station in Port Shepstone? ... I am not aware of such”
ADV SELLO SC, MAJ-GEN FLYNNDay 102 · 06 May 2026Location: Port Shepstone Police Station
The SAP 13 at Isipingo Police Station reflects the book-in and book-out process of the exhibits seized in the investigation.
“it is a copy of the SAP 13 at Isipingo Police Station ... this seizure was registered, was booked in and subsequently booked out at Isipingo Police Station ... That is correct”
Ms Sello alleges that Mr Mkhanazi lied to the Commission by falsely claiming that a deceased woman was his mother to obtain a postponement to avoid appearing before the Commission.
“I put to Mr Mkhanazi that he lied to the Commission to avoid appearing before the Commission, and this is the basis on which I draw that conclusion.”
Mr Mkhwanazi prepared annexures that could run into about 20 pages each, and splitting these documents into multiple annexure numbers causes difficulties in referencing them consistently.
“When Mr Mkhwanazi prepared the annexures, a single annexure could potentially run into about 20 pages, and it is a multiplicity of documents. And now he wants to split up the documents and give them a different annexure number.”
The supplementary statement to be signed during the tea break reverts to the numbering of the first statement, causing confusion in annexure numbering and identification.
“This supplementary statement that we are signing now at tea has reverted to the numbering of the first. That is why he starts with JD16(i). The last one was JD15. So where all that lands us, I do not know, but I am in your hands.”
Mr Mkhwanazi's documents have been split up into more attachments than contained in the original documents, causing an increase in number of attachments without difference in content.
“My understanding ... is that the documents are not different, but that you have split up some, the result or rather the upshot of which is that you have more attachments than we have in the original documents and the additional documents to your six-page statement.”
Advocate Sello accused Commissioner Mkhwanazi of lying to the Commission by relying on false facts to obtain a postponement for his appearance.
“The point I seek to make is you know the correct, truthful position, and that position is as reflected in the documents, and therefore you lied to the Commission. ... You deny you lied. You say you are learning these facts for the first time ... My submissions to the Commission is that you must be held in contempt for lying, deliberately lying to the Commission, when you knew that the facts you were relying upon to obtain your postponement were false.”
Advocate Sello accuses Commissioner Mkhwanazi of misleading the Commission, suggesting a contempt of court issue, which Commissioner Mkhwanazi denies and stands by her explanations.
“My closing remark was that the Commissioners should hold you in contempt for having misled, and I invited you to give your comment to that, and you indicate that your response was you stand by your explanation and you should not be held in contempt, correct?”
The Chairperson read from the previous day's transcript showing Lt-Gen Shibiri had referred to 'perpetrators, family and friends' and challenged him on the identity of the perpetrators mentioned.
“The transcript of yesterday... it does say it is the perpetrators, family and friends.”