WITNESS O

There was corridor talk about sharing a docket by Advocate Johnson with General Khan before it was publicly known.

“You refer to the sharing of documents. Are you talking about what Mr Roelofse, Mr McClean and Witness O said about the sharing of a docket by Advocate Johnson with General Khan? ... Correct, but at that time, before the testimony, it was just corridor gossip.”

Advocate Johnson was unable to retrieve Gmail records or communications with Witness O from around 2018 due to the age of the emails.

“Your explanation for failure to provide that information was that this goes back to 2018, or eight years ago, seven, eight years ago, and that your emails do not go that far.”

Adv Johnson shared documents with General Khan regarding Brigadier Phetlhe's complaint docket, which was refreshed and confirmed upon reviewing witness statements and records.

“I had a recollection, as I explained in our consultation, that I had shared documents with her. It is when you showed it to me that I realised what it was that was shared. I just wanted to correct. I did not dispute what was shared.”

Adv Johnson submitted a supplementary affidavit invoking the right against self-incrimination regarding allegations of criminal conduct made by Colonel Kobus Roelofse, Captain McLean, and Witness O.

“The notice requires me to deal with allegations against me testified to by Colonel Kobus Roelofse, Captain McClean, and Witness O. The allegations, as summarised, implicate me in alleged criminal conduct.”

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 .”

Advocate Johnson invoked the privilege against self-incrimination in respect of allegations made by Colonel Kobus Roelofse, Captain McClean, and Witness O related to alleged criminal conduct, and confirmed that the matter is now before the National Prosecuting Authority for a decision on prosecution.

“she invoked the privilege in relation to MPMncwango's question”

The allegations against ADV Johnson summarized implicate her in alleged criminal conduct as testified by Colonel Kobus Roelofse, Captain McClean, and Witness O.

“The notice requires me to deal with the allegations against me testified to by Colonel Kobus Roelofse , Captain McClean , and Witness O . The allegations , as summarised , implicate me in alleged criminal conduct .”

The allegations against the speaker involve alleged criminal conduct testified to by Colonel Kobus Roelofse, Captain McClean and Witness O, and are currently with the NPA for a decision on prosecution and further handling.

“The allegations are contained in a docket, which is now with the NPA for a decision on whether I should or not be prosecuted and further handling. This was so confirmed by the NPA on the 10th of July 2026, as well as by the witness McClean when he testified.”

All allegations against Advocate Johnson were made by Colonel Kobus Roelofse, Captain McClean, and Witness O, implicating him in alleged criminal conduct, and the matter is now with the NPA for decision on prosecution.

“The allegations, as summarised, implicate me in alleged criminal conduct. The allegations are contained in a docket which is now with the NPA for a decision on whether I should or not be prosecuted”

On 4 July 2018, Major General Khan asked Witness O to provide their personal email address to a female caller named Andrea on his phone, and then requested the content of an email to be given to General Khan and then deleted.

“On 4 July 2018, I was working in my office when Major General Khan ... handed me his cell phone and requested me to give my personal email address to the person he was speaking to on the cell phone. He said the person’s name is Andrea. ... The female caller asked for my private email address and told me that once I have given the contents of the email to General Khan, I must delete the email.”

Witness O obliged the request by giving their personal email address to the caller and printed out the email received from Andrea Johnson and gave it to General Khan in a white envelope.

“I gave her my email address. She told me that once I have given the contents of the email to General Khan, I must delete the email. I thought it was a strange request, but I obliged. ... I printed the email and gave it to him. I placed it in a white envelope.”

Witness O did not delete the email despite the female caller's instruction to do so, as the request to delete seemed strange to them.

“No, I did not delete the email. ... Well, I thought the request was strange. Why would you email something and then request to delete it? So I was thinking, I was cautious and I kept it.”

Witness O realized the person they spoke to on the phone was Advocate Andrea Johnson, a senior prosecutor and current Head of IDAC, from the email itself, including the email address and name.

“I realize that the person I had spoken to was Advocate Andrea Johnson, who was a senior prosecutor at the time and is currently Head of the Independent Directorate of the National Prosecuting Authority, also known as IDAC. ... Her email, or her name appeared on the email.”

The attachments to the email were photographs of an A1 statement and an audio file related to a complaint against General Khan by Brigadier Phetlhe for assault and intimidation on 26 June 2018.

“The email file contained photos of the A1 statement of Brigadier Phetlhe, a female Crime Intelligence Officer who had made a criminal complaint against General Khan for an incident on 26 June 2018 at the Crime Intelligence office. She had accused General Khan of assault and intimidation. ... The audio file contained a recording of parts of the incident between General Khan and Brigadier Phetlhe.”

Witness O assisted General Khan with drafting his statement in the alleged assault and intimidation matter and knows this because General Khan came to commission the statement to him, which he did.

“My colleague assisted General Khan with a draft of his statement in the alleged assault and intimidation matter. I know this because General Khan later came to me to commission the statement, which I did.”

Witness O handed General Khan the contents of Advocates Johnson's email and continued drafting the statement after that.

“I know that they continued drafting the statement after I handed General Khan the white envelope.”

Witness O commissioned the affidavits sometime after handing General Khan the white envelope, contradicting the statement that it was commissioned at 12:30.

“I also know that I commissioned the affidavits sometime after I handed General Khan the white envelope. I am aware that it is stated on General Khan's statement that it was commissioned at 12:30, but this is not correct.”

The document was modified at 13:33, indicating the statement was commissioned later than 12:30.

“I have looked at the properties information of the typed statement and I noticed that the document was modified at 13:33.”

Witness O confirmed the statement prepared by General Khan on 4 July 2018, but not with the strikeout at the bottom which appeared later.

“I confirm it is, but not with this strike out at the bottom here. I made a copy of this affidavit when I signed it, or when I commissioned it for myself.”

Witness O confirmed the statement contains his signature and commission of oath signed in Pretoria on 4 July 2018 at 12:30 is an incorrect time.

“You confirm that where it says: "I certify that the deponent is acknowledged, that he knows and understands the contents of the statement which was sworn to be before me, and he placed his signature in my presence in Pretoria on 2018-07-04 at 12:30" ... that is an incorrect time.”

The date and time on the document were pre-typed when General Khan gave the statement to Witness O.

“The time and date was already pre-typed when General Khan gave me the statement.”

Advocate Johnson's email was received after 12:30 and the statement was commissioned after receiving it.

“It was also after that, after 12:30 ... Yes. I commissioned the statement after receiving the email.”

Witness O kept the envelope containing Advocate Johnson's email and did not delete the email because the request seemed suspicious and could be relevant if an investigation into the assault matter was conducted.

“I kept the envelope, and as stated above, I did not delete Advocate Johnson's email. I do not have one specific reason for keeping the envelope and not deleting the email. The request just seemed suspicious... I thought that if there was ever an investigation into the assault matter, that perhaps this would be relevant.”

Witness O was very fearful to volunteer information given the environment at Crime Intelligence at the time and was aware that Advocate Johnson's husband, Colonel Junaid Johnson, worked at Crime Intelligence and had worked closely with General Khan.

“I was very fearful to volunteer information, especially given the environment at Crime Intelligence at the time. I was also aware that Advocate Johnson's husband, Colonel Junaid Johnson, worked at Crime Intelligence, and him and General Khan had worked closely together.”

Witness O started thinking about the assault incident again and was troubled after Advocate Johnson was appointed Head of IDAC in early 2022, knowing that Hawks were placed at IDAC to investigate matters at Crime Intelligence.

“When Advocate Johnson was appointed the Head of IDAC in early 022, I started thinking about this incident again, and it troubled me all over again. At the time, members of the Hawks were placed at IDAC to investigate matters at Crime Intelligence.”

Witness O approached the Hawks on the condition that his identity would be protected to inform them of the incident and prepared a statement of his recollection in August 2022, but nothing came of the investigation conducted by the DPCI officers.

“I approached them on the condition that my identity would be protected. I informed them of the incident and that I would prepare a statement setting out my recollection of the incident. I did so in August 2022. As far as I am aware, the DPCI officers investigated the matter, but nothing has come of it.”