Perumalan

The IDAC team consists of seniors as senior state advocates, juniors as junior state advocates, and investigators including two chief investigators named Perumalan and Nico Booi, with investigators reporting monthly to the chief investigators.

“beneath the DDPP’s are the senior state advocates and then the junior state advocates and on the investigative side we then IDAC drew both on investigators seconded from the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation and on contracted civilians who were hired as financial investigators ... including a chief investigator ... currently have two. It is Chief Investigator Perumalan and Chief Investigator Booi, Nico Booi ... all the investigators are reporting directly to the two chief investigators on a monthly basis.”

The two chief investigators are spread across all four IDAC groups, with monthly reports via a structure chaired by the Head of Investigation Operations Mr Sesoko.

“they are spread within all four groups ... deputies, chief investigators and project managers report on each matter through a structure chaired by the Head of Investigation Operations, Mr Sesoko”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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