DPP

The DPP did not participate in discussions about winding down the case because the matter was already in the Office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP).

“The DPP did not participate in that discussion because ... the matter was now already in the Office of the NDPP.”

The DPP's role ended after consultation with the Independent Directorate (ID) about prosecution space, after which the DPP agreed to proceed but did not participate in the decision to provisionally withdraw the case.

“The DPP's role would have ended when they were doing consultation with the ID ... and the DPP would have agreed ... but the role of the DPP ended there.”

After the Independent Directorate made the decision to prosecute or prefer charges, they sent the charge sheet to the DPP, who responded by concurring with it, but did not get involved in the decision to remove the matter from court thereafter.

“Once the ID has made the decision to prosecute or to prefer the charges, that charge sheet was sent to the DPP, and the DPP wrote back and said yes, I concur ... We did not involve the DPP because the matter was already in the office of the NDPP ...”

Project team members including the DPP, prosecutors, sometimes financial investigators and data capturers are designated and announced in meetings after management decisions.

“you will be called to a meeting where you will be told there is this project, then names of people that will be working on that project will be put on the designation where everybody will know who is going to be working on that group ... you will get who is going to be the DPP on that project. You will also get the name of the prosecutors allocated. Sometimes it will be financial investigators allocated to assist. There will be also data capturers that will be part of that team”

Ordinarily the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or if non available, the chief and lead prosecutor attend and allocate the matter at inception, not the Investigating Director Advocate Johnson.

“Ordinarily the DPP's are the ones that take over those duties. And if may be there is no Deputy Director, then it will be the chief and the lead prosecutor.”

The DPP concurs with Advocate Johnson's decision to charge as set out in the chargesheet.

“And I concur with your decision to charge them on the offences set out in the charge sheet. Yes, so what the DPP is concurring with is your decision to charge them.”

ADV Johnson confirms he conveys to the DPP office that he has made a decision to prosecute a case and that it is his decision conveyed.

“From you , do you convey to the D P P that you have made a decision to prosecute , that this case should be prosecuted ? ... Yes . ... Is that the decision you make ? ... Yes . ... That is what you communicate ? ... That is what is communicated .”

ADV Johnson confirms that the DPP is concurring with his decision to charge, as stated in the prosecution memo.

“And I concur with your decision to charge them on the offences set out in the charge sheet . ... Yes, so what the DPP is concurring with is your decision to charge them . ... As communicated in the prosecution memo .”

There can be documents that are not part of the docket or not shared with the team for finalising the note to the DPP, which represents a limitation on what the team may receive.

“it is not part of the docket or it is not part of the documents that are given to you for the purposes of finalising the note to the DPP.”

There exists a process for accused persons to make representations to prosecutors and the National Director of Public Prosecutions regarding prosecutions, and the current case against Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo is undergoing that process.

“... accused persons can make representations based on what is disclosed to them in terms of the docket plus the charge sheet... those representations are first made through the prosecutors for the consideration either by DPP... if their representations are unsuccessful, they then have the further recourse to make representations to the Office of the National Director.”

The investigations concerning Warrant Officer Sander, including serious allegations, are ongoing and have not come to a conclusion.

“I do not have a proper recollection of that ... it is not easy to close that type of investigation at a very short space of time the way it was dealt with, because also the DPP was involved guiding that investigation”

Colonel Jacob explains that the DPP's office did not raise concerns about the integrity and contamination of the crime scene.

“the DPP did not raise any concerns about the integrity and the contamination of the crime scene”

Some witnesses, in particular Jolene Wentzel, became hostile causing the matter to be removed from court and referred to the DPP for decision.

“Some of the witnesses are becoming hostile, particularly Jolene Wentzel... matter removed from Court and referred to DPP.”

In 2024, after an IPID investigation into the matter, the IPID case was dismissed by the DPP with no charges against members including Colonel Steyn, but a departmental investigation into DPCI members was requested and conducted by Major General Gerber, which concluded members acted correctly and no departmental steps were taken.

“During the course of 2024, after an IPID investigation ... the IPID case was dismissed by the DPP ... But the IPID requested a departmental investigation ... Major General Gerber was appointed ... After his investigations ... no departmental steps will be taken”

The charges against Colonel Steyn that the DPP dismissed were corruption and defeating the ends of justice.

“If my memory serves me well, it was corruption and defeating the ends of justice”

Lack of follow-up on alibis allowed the defence to obtain statements and make representations to the DPP.

“Lack of follow-up upon alibis, thus allowing the defence to obtain statements and providing such in their representations to DPP.”