Minister's Office

A document requested from the Minister's Office was inadvertently excluded from a communication listing documents agreed to be provided.

“In our communication to Advocate Johnson , enlisting the documents agreed to be provided , somehow that one fell through the cracks . So we did not bring it to your attention in our communication .”

Advocate Johnson's laptop containing the typed response to the Minister's Office letter was stolen at Windhoek airport in January 2025, causing loss of relevant documents including some called "007".

“My laptop , on which that would have been , was stolen at an airport in Windhoek in January of 2025 . Commissioner s , I lost everything . I had stuff from 007 , everything .”

Mr Nkabinde from the Minister's Office referenced four cases in his letter, three Orlando cases and one Langlaagte case, with the Orlando cases mirroring the Cape Town cases, making Langlaagte a stand-alone docket.

“Mr Nkabinde from the Minister's Office addressed a letter to your office, he referenced four cases, three Orlando cases and Langlaagte. And we know that the three Orlando cases mirror the Cape Town cases. So Langlaagte is a stand-alone.”

Mr. Adams sent an email to the Minister's office complaining about interception of cases reported, alleging a deliberate attempt to get rid of those cases and protect those accused.

“After I opened these cases ... I was informed that the cases were taken from the Cape Town police station to the office of the Provincial Commissioner Western Cape. I do not trust the Provincial Commissioner General Patekile, and believe that a deliberate attempt is taking place to get rid of the cases I had reported and to protect those against whom I made the cases.”

The Minister's Office picks IDAC to investigate a matter referred under section 27 of the NPA Act, not Mr Adams who did not choose IDAC.

“It is not Mr Adams who says I choose IDAC. It is the Minister’s Office, based on what we see in this letter... The Minister’s Office then picks one and they say we pick IDAC and we will do a referral to IDAC in terms of section 27 of the NPA Act.”

The complaint by Mr Adams to the Minister's Office is treated as quite sensitive and contains allegations of criminal misconduct.

“the allegations in the correspondence by Mr Adams, they regard them as quite sensitive... They contain allegations of criminal misconduct”

The Minister's Office requests Advocate Johnson to investigate the matter concerning Mr Adams' complaint.

“this office, that is the Minister’s Office, this office requests Advocate Johnson to consider investigating the matter”

The request to investigate by the Minister’s Office to IDAC concerns alleged interception of dockets, not the content of the dockets themselves.

“what the Minister’s Officer requested IDAC to investigate is the alleged interception of the dockets. That is it. Not the allegations set out in the respective dockets”

The Minister's office, on 11 November, communicated that the allegations implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service and reviewed them seriously in relation to case dockets registered under certain CAS numbers.

“The Minister says: “The allegations contained therein implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service and viewed in a serious light, and case dockets were registered as per the following CAS ... ””

Mr Adams writes to the Minister's Office expressing unhappiness about four dockets and asks the Minister's Office to intervene; the Minister's Office then chooses which investigative body to assign the complaint to.

“So Mr Adams writes to the Minister's Office. He is unhappy about the four dockets and he asks the Minister's Office to intervene... The Minister's Office has at least three choices...”

The Minister's Office decides to refer the matter to IDAC for investigation in terms of section 27 of the NPAAct; this choice is made by the Minister's Office, not Mr Adams.

“The Minister’s Office then picks one and they say we pick IDAC, and we will do a referral to IDAC in terms of section 27”

The Minister’s Office finds the allegations from Mr Adams’ correspondence to be quite sensitive and containing allegations of criminal misconduct, and requests Advocate Johnson to consider investigating the matter.

“The Minister’s Office... regard them as quite sensitive... and they contain allegations of criminal misconduct... this office requests Advocate Johnson to consider investigating the matter”

The request to investigate sent to IDAC by the Minister's Office was limited only to the alleged interception of the dockets, not the content or other allegations in the dockets.

“What the Minister’s Office requested IDAC to investigate is the alleged interception of the dockets... not the allegations set out in the respective dockets”

As of 11 November, the only complainant was the Minister's Office complaining about interception of dockets, which did not concern the contents but only the act of interception.

“The only complainant as of 11 November was the office of the Minister, and that complaint concerned interception of dockets... not the contents of the dockets. It is only the act of interception”

Allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams are quite sensitive and contain allegations of criminal misconduct, prompting the Minister's office to request the Investigating Director to consider the matter.

“Due to the nature of the allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive, and which contains allegations of criminal misconduct, this officer requests the Investigating Director to consider the same.”

The Minister's office must have seen the dockets to express the view that the allegations are reviewed in a serious light and are quite sensitive.

“the Minister's office must have seen these dockets, for your reading to be correct, it must be so.”

Referral to IDAC was made only by the Minister's Office and IDAC decided to engage Mr Adams to obtain a section 27 affidavit after recognizing the Minister's letter alone was insufficient to trigger IDAC's investigative mandate.

“So the upshot of all of this is that the referral to IDAC was by the Minister’s Office. And following that referral, IDAC then made a decision to engage with Mr Adams to obtain an affidavit from him.”

The concerns of the Minister's Office complaint is limited to the act of interception of dockets and not their contents.

“that complaint itself does not concern itself with the contents of the dockets. It is only the act of interception”

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”

The Minister's Office is the sole complainant as of 11 November regarding interception of dockets, which does not concern the contents but only the act of interception.

“The only complainant as of 11 November was the office of the Minister, and that complaint concerned interception of dockets”

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.”

The allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams are quite sensitive and contain allegations of criminal misconduct, prompting the Minister's office to request the Investigating Director to consider the matter.

“Due to the nature of the allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive, and which contains allegations of criminal misconduct, this officer requests the Investigating Director to consider the same.”

If the Minister's letter is read as stating that the allegations are reviewed in a serious light and are quite sensitive, the Minister's office must have seen the dockets to make such an expression of view.

“But if your reading of this letter is correct, then the Minister's office must have seen the dockets. Otherwise, they are not in a position to express a view that the allegations are viewed in a serious light, and that they are quite sensitive, what is contained therein, if it ...”

Mr O'Sullivan did not refer the specific case to IDAC; the first referral looked at by the speaker was the affidavit by Mr Adam dated 21 November, followed by a letter from the Minister's office dated 11 November.

“I am unaware of any referral with regards this matter from Mr O'Sullivan... I do confirm that the Minister's office did write a letter to us... and then there is the referral by Mr Adams dated the 21st of November... I am unaware... of any referral made by Mr O'Sullivan”

The Minister's Office received the report on 5th November 2024, a day after the 4th November deadline was missed.

“the Minister 's Office appears to get this report on the 5th . And we see that from the date stamp on page 285 . ... So they missed that 4 November deadline by a day ? ... Indeed .”

The report leads to a domino effect drawing in General Khan, General Khumalo, General Mkhwanazi, Brown Mogotsi, and the Minister's Office, through processes involving interference and influence, ultimately contributing to the Commission itself.

“The recommendations in your report are what leads to General Khan being charged...General Khumalo getting involved...General Mkhwanazi getting involved...Brown Mogotsi interfering...Minister's Office getting involved...part of the dots that lead to this Commission.”