No picture yet. Upload one or paste an image URL.
ADV Baloyi informed that the affidavit signed in Cape Town and deposed in Pretoria is an A1 statement and not the document referred to as the section 27 referral.
“The one you are referring to, which is signed in Cape Town and deposed in Pretoria, that is an A1 statement. It is not a 27.”
Investigators abused section 28(13) preliminary investigation to conduct a full investigation before authorization and obtained documents from SAPS to prepare an A1 statement in January.
“I will say the investigators in this case abused the section 28(13) preliminary investigation to conduct a full-blown investigation before you so authorise them. They have gone so far as to obtain documents from SAPS to prepare an A1 statement in January.”
Colonel Padayachee expressed concern that the A1 statement, which contains complainants' names, is publicly available in the media and social media while the case is before court, and cautioned about sub judice issues and public domain disclosure.
“the A1 statement is all over social media ... it contains the name of the complainants ... I have my concerns ... there are further documents ... also going to be flighted out there in the public domain when the case currently is before Court ... sub judice issue ... that particular docket is still under investigation”
The A1 statement was flagged and posted all over social media, raising concerns about prejudice and confidentiality.
“My concern is that the A1 statement was flagged and it was posted all over social media. So we have dealt with the A1 yesterday and the questions that were asked there, which I responded to uncomfortably.”
The complaint of fraud, corruption, and irregular appointment arises from a statement (A1) and was not directly made by a complainant to IDAC; rather IDAC inferred it from the referral documents.
“The complainant did not say, I believe that there is a case of fraud and corruption ... IDAC's thinking and how it got to where it arrived ... coming from the A1 statement ... so IDAC made an inference ... it did not come from a complainant.”