Advocate Serunye states that in their experience, the Investigating Director (ID) has never instructed them to draft applications under sections 28(1) or (13), but the ID makes recommendations and notes on such applications.
“No, it has never happened to me in that sense, but there are instances where, let us say, my memo would ask her to authorize the matter in terms of 28(1A), but after going through what would have been presented before him, she, I know of one matter where she would have said, no ... she then makes notes on the memo. She sort of recommends or does not recommend. When she recommends, she makes notes, or if she does not recommend, she also makes notes saying why.”
Advocate Serunye confirms that any application to the ID is made by them first, and the ID then makes a recommendation; the ID has never approached them to initiate an application independently.
“Indeed, Commissioner, I would have made an application and she then makes a recommendation. She has never approached me to say I ...”
Mr Sesoko does not advise on legal issues such as charges or prosecutions but focuses on operational management.
“No, it is not Commissioner. He does not question issues up to that level where he can say why these charges, why not those charges or why. No, it is more to report to him about the progress and where we are having challenges. It is not about him advising on - I know Mr Sesoko used to be a prosecutor many years ago but the function here for him is not to advise on legal issues or anything, he is more of a CEO in charge of our daily operations, yes.”
Advocate Serunye and others found that Advocate Hlatshwayo was conducting bail proceedings without proper support from a senior state advocate or DDPP, which concerned them given the case's magnitude involving senior police members.
“I was concerned that in matters of this magnitude involving the arrest of senior members of the police was being handled without such support and without a DDPP overseeing it... We then decided, the three of us, we then decided to approach the Head of the unit, the Investigating Director, Advocate Johnson, to request permission to attend court to assist Advocate Hlatshwayo”
Advocate Hlatshwayo conducted bail proceedings on behalf of the State, indicating that bail was not opposed, but at times struggled with court questions and consulted with Advocate Serunye and Mr. Padayachee.
“Advocate Hlatshwayo conducted the bail proceedings on behalf of the State, indicating that the State was not opposing bail...At various points Advocate Hlatshwayo experienced difficulty answering questions from the court and conferred with me and with Mr Padayachee”
A bail statement contains reasons why the State is not opposing bail and avoids the need for the investigating officer to testify viva voce in court.
“Schedule 5 ... The accused to be released on bail has to bring an application and satisfy the court... the state, to avoid the investigating officer to testify viva voce in court, he then compiles an affidavit setting out... the reasons why we are not opposing”
Advocate Serunye confirms that she was not formally designated to the team handling the case under section 28 provisions and could not get involved beyond assisting at court due to non-disclosure forms.
“...I am not designated to the team, formally in terms of the relevant provisions of section 28...I cannot go beyond trying to find out even about the facts and getting myself involved that much... My request on the day to the ID was to be allowed to go and help in court, and that was granted.”
Advocate Serunye expresses concern about the small size and composition of the team handling the matter and the absence of ID knowledge or involvement.
Adv Serunye deliberately limited her involvement after bail application because she was not formally part of the team and did not want to question decisions of the ID.
After the bail application, Adv Serunye was not supposed to be part of the team and ended her involvement there; her involvement resumed only when formally included by the ID on 8 August 2025.
Adv Serunye did not ask why she was involved and Mr. Louw was not, but speculates it may be because she helped on the first day at court and left a message with the ID's PA.
Advocate Serunye felt set up by the way a case was handled and doubted the merits of the case until recent evidence led to a change in opinion.
“I sort of feel a little bit angry, if I think about it, that it feels like I was set up, not only me, but Hlatshwayo as well... I think, junior as she was, I do not think she was supposed to have been involved in this case, and looking at it now, it appears to me she was, she was set up.”
On 8 August 2025, Investigating Director included Advocate Serunye formally into the matter to oversee two cases and attend to a bail amendment application, with Advocate Drushantha Ramsamy and Advocate Hlatshwayo as lead prosecutors of different matters.
“On 8th of August, 2025, the Investigating Director convened a short meeting and informed me that she had decided to include me in the matter... She asked me to oversee the two matters, the Lushaba matter and the Khumalo, and others (Mokwele matter) with Advocate Drushantha Ramsamy as remaining the lead prosecutor in the Lushaba matter, and Advocate Hlatshwayo remaining the lead in the Mokwele matter. She further asked me to attend to an anticipated bail amendment application under section 63 of the Criminal Procedure Act...”
Advocate Serunye was appointed as supervising DPP for the Lushaba and Khumalo/Mokwele matters, coming in after no DPP was previously appointed to oversee those cases.
“I was coming in as a supervisor... there is no DDPP appointed into the matter, so I am coming in after the fact as a DDPP to oversee the two cases.”
In the Mokwele case, there were arrests made which would have implied investigations had already taken place within IDAC, but Advocate Serunye was not aware of such investigations because the case was not in their group.
“Once an IDAC matter reaches the stage of an arrest, there would surely have been some investigations already ... That is what has to happen ... You cannot arrest without doing investigations ... I was not aware because this case was not in my group.”
Advocate Talita Louw retired at the end of April 2026 and took over her group.
“Advocate Louw retired at the end of April this year, 2026. It is now Advocate, her surname is also Louw. I am trying to remember, but I cannot remember her name now, Advocate, her surname is also Louw. Ja, Talita Louw, I think, yes.”
The group overseen by Advocate Serunye dealt with high-level corruption in the public and private sectors by identifying potential cases from recommendations of Commissions of Inquiry such as the Zondo and Mpati Commissions.
“I was overseeing a group that was dealing with high-level corruption in the public and private sectors. We identified potential cases from the recommendations and evidence of Commissions of Inquiry that I have earlier listed, the Zondo, Mpati, and Nugent Commission.”
The application process includes indicating the names of individuals forming part of the team, usually designated by Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions who head such groups.
“In the application, I include a list of names of people. Always, in each of these cases, there must be a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions who is the project owner, who is heading the group.”
Team composition includes a balance of lead criminal investigators, lead financial investigators, junior investigators, prosecutors, data analysts, and may include multiple senior and junior prosecutors based on case complexity.
“And I must then have a balance of officials, a lead criminal investigator, a lead financial investigator, and maybe a junior criminal investigator, and a junior financial investigator, prosecutors. Depending on the complicity of the case, I may have two senior state advocates and a junior, and try and balance the team like that, including a data analyst, and so on.”
Advocate Serunye described the meeting with the Investigating Director as very short and more of an instruction than a consultation, being told what to do without raising concerns about a junior lead prosecutor.
“It was a very short meeting, being told what to do, and it was the end of the meeting... It was an instruction, more than anything.”
Advocate Serunye did not know that the bail condition imposed was not asked for by the prosecution at the time and was unaware whether Advocate Hlatshwayo reported back to Advocate Johnson after the bail application.
“Commissioner, I did not know at the time... I would have expected the prosecutor, Advocate Hlatshwayo, after the bail application to give a report to Advocate Johnson... Therefore, I did not know how much she knew of what happened in court on that day, and what she did not know.”
Advocate Serunye requested the section 27 referral document multiple times from Mr Brian Padayachee but was never given it, indicating that either he did not have it or it was lost or disappeared.
“It was never given to me, Commissioner Baloyi. I asked for it. I spoke with Mr Brian Padayachee on about three, four occasions. And every time when I was asking for that, he could not give it to me ... It appears either it was lost or disappeared.”
Advocate Serunye sought the section 27 referral document from August to 31 October 2025, including raising the issue on 31 October with Mr Sesoko, but did not receive it from anyone including prosecutors or Ms Hlatshwayo.
“So from August, I was looking for that document, but no one could give it to me ... I spoke to the prosecutors. I was getting... Hlatshwayo did not know about it at all, she said she has not seen it.”
Advocate Serunye emailed Mr Sesoko and others on 31 October 2025 indicating one of the accused is seeking further particulars and needs to see the section 27 referral.
Advocate Serunye started asking for the section 27 referral document immediately after being brought on board on 8 August 2025 and was still seeking it on 31 October 2025.
“From the moment I was brought in on 8 August, I started asking for these documents and the docket, and by 31 October, I am still looking for that section 27.”
An ID investigator met with Advocate Serunye and others to confront her about her persistent requests for the section 27 document, angrily telling her the ID had seen the document and questioning her trust in the investigators.
Advocate Serunye sent an email on 6 August 2025 to the team members with queries and later amended the charge sheet reducing counts to two including conspiracy under section 21 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 2004 (PRECCA).
Advocate Serunye recognized accused number 4 as a person from the same township with whom he had played soccer, leading to his recusal from the matter due to personal association.
“I recognised accused number 4 as a person known to me. We come from the same township and had played soccer together, a fact I had not previously appreciated. I consider that this personal association precluded my continued involvement in the matter, and I submitted a memorandum to the Investigating Director requesting to be recused from the matter.”
Advocate Serunye submitted a recusal memo dated 16 September 2025 to the Investigating Director and Mr Sesoko due to personal association with accused number 4, Josias Lekalakala.
“wrote the memo then on the 16th of September. I then emailed it to, as per page 1 of the batch, you will see I then emailed it to the admin personnel, Senyane Manshidi, with the subject: 'Recusal from the matter of state General Khumalo and others'. The memo is dated 16 September 2025 ... The memo is directed to Advocate Johnson, Investigating Director and to Mr Sesoko, Head of Operations and Investigations from Advocate P Serunye, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions ...”
Advocate Serunye formally recused himself from prosecution of any case involving Josias Lekalakala and his family or associates due to personal familiarity and to avoid perceptions of bias.
“I have formally decided to inform IDAC management and recuse myself from handling any case in which Mr Josias Lekalakala and his family members (and associates) are accused persons ... To avoid any negative perceptions and in the interest of justice, I am formally recusing myself from this matter ...”
Advocate Serunye was requested by the Investigating Director to complete a section 63 bail application before formally withdrawing from the case involving Josias Lekalakala.
“the Investigating Director informed me that she had considered my request and granted it, but asked that I first complete the section 63 bail application before withdrawing from the matter ...”
Advocate Serunye was replaced as Deputy Director by Advocate Santos Manilall after his recusal was accepted in the case involving Josias Lekalakala.
“Advocate Manilall, his name is Santos, Santos Manilall replaced me. It is him and a number of prosecutors, I think two or three other prosecutors ...”
Permission was obtained from the Investigating Director (ID) to oppose the Section 65 application and all affidavits including that of Mr Brian Padayachee were sent to the ID.
“and then she gave us permission to go ahead with the opposition on thesection 65 ... all the affidavits of the accused were sent to the ID ... ourresponding affidavit of Mr Brian Padayachee was sent to the ID”
The bail condition related to Crime Intelligence entry was imposed without reason and was set aside as irregular on appeal.
“While I contended that the Magistrate was in law entitled to impose the condition, I was constrained to concede that he had failed to give any reasons for imposing the Crime Intelligence entry condition. And it was on that basis, that is the failure to reasons, that the condition was set aside as irregular”
There was difficulty for junior colleagues to raise issues directly with Advocate Johnson due to power dynamics and seniority, leading them to raise complaints with ADV SERUNYE.
“The two colleagues are juniors and it is not easy for them to go straight to the ID to raise issues ... Not that it was easy for me as well to approach Advocate Johnson ... I respect her a lot ... management style as well ... she could be unpredictable at times ...”
ADV SERUNYE tried to mediate between Investigators especially Brian Padayachee and Advocate Ramsamy who were not on speaking terms.
“The relationship was not that good ... especially Brian Padayachee and Advocate Ramsamy. They were not in speaking terms when I came into the team. So I tried to put them together. In some of my emails, I am saying to them ... we are playing for the same team”
ADV SERUNYE raised multiple emails expressing concerns about the rushed investigation and questioning arrests and corruption charges in the Mokwele matter.
“I raised all my queries in an email ... there is a problem with this case. The way it was investigated, it was rushed. If anything, there might be a case of fraud there, but the way the cases were done were just not on with me”
Advocate Johnson was described both as a very good manager and as someone who did not take kindly to questioning and could be unpredictable.
“She is a very good manager ... But on the other, if you were raising concerns and questioning her decisions, she did not take kindly to that ... She could be unpredictable at times”
Advocate Johnson reprimanded ADV SERUNYE for raising the issue of section 27 referral in presence of junior colleagues and told them to stop questioning investigators.
“She was angry with me for raising the issue of section 27 ... She told me straight in front of the two juniors, why are we making an issue about this? Go and work ... Why do you keep on questioning a second guessing your investigators?”
ADV SERUNYE has known Advocate Johnson for many years and describes her as a good prosecutor and manager with a high level of management.
“I have known Advocate Johnson for many years ... she is a very good prosecutor, hard worker. When she came in as a manager at IDAC, the management was of a very high level”
Adv Serunye sent a 'Saturday homework' email to team members including Advocates Hlatshwayo, Ramsamy, Mr Brian Padayachee, Chief Investigator Daylan Perumal, Investigator Charles Eales, Investigator Patrick Mlambo, and project manager Mr Sipho Tlale to keep the team informed and attached queries for trial preparation.
“I sent it at 2.51 on the Saturday to the team members, Advocate Hlatshwayo, Advocate Ramsamy, Mr Brian Padayachee, Chief Investigator Daylan Perumal, Investigator Charles Eales, Investigator Patrick Mlambo. And I also copied the Project Manager, Mr Sipho Tlale... I sent them this email, and the email had an attachment containing queries”
Adv Serunye copied project manager Mr Sipho Tlale in emails to keep him informed about the team's work and outstanding investigations, attaching a document with queries related to trial preparation and corruption allegations.
“I am copying him because he must know what we are busy with... The project manager must know... I sent them this email, and the email had an attachment containing queries...”
Adv Serunye's attachment asked team members questions about the corruption charge in the docket, including who corrupted whom, evidence supporting corruption allegations, and compliance with the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA).
“I have just finished reading the first docket... I want to know the following... Why were the accused charged with corruption? Who corrupted who? Do we have evidence... to prove allegations of corruption?”
The memorandum contains basic questions that a prosecutor would ask before an arrest and charging, but no evidence of corruption was found in the docket's four volumes.
“I am looking for the evidence of corruption in the four volumes in the docket. I cannot find any evidence of corruption.”
There was no prima facie case of corruption at the time of arrest, and the arrest seemed premature given the lack of sufficient evidence and ongoing investigations.
“My view at the time, Commissioner Baloyi, was that no. They should have been asked right from the beginning, but then you arrest.”
The matter was rushed to court without being ready to be enrolled, and there was no known urgency for this hasty action.
“my impression after reading all these documents was that the matter was rushed to court , and it was done so when it was not ready to be enrolled . I do not know why it had to be done the way it was done .”
There was an unusual quickness in the case where authorization was in December 2024 and arrest in June (six to seven months), which is atypical and indicates the case was rushed when investigations were incomplete.
“authorisation was done in December of 2024 and the arrest is done in June , says six to seven months . This is one of I have never seen a case being done so quick , wherein December authorisation and in June ... This was done so hastily. If investigations were completed and it was ready, I would have said , well , the investigators did a very good job in this , but they rushed it to court, and clearly, it was not ready.”
Advocate Serunye expresses frustration that responses to questions about the allegation of gratification involving Ms Mokwele are evasive and not supported by evidence.
“Instead of providing me with answers, I am provided with a citation of PRECCA. I know what section 1, 2, 3, and 24 of PRECCA say. I do not want to sound critical, but reference to section 24 is misguided and misunderstood. ... Why are we saying it is a gratification? They do not provide me with the evidence.”
The arrest related to the case was premature and the preliminary investigation was not properly conducted, resulting in unanswered questions and uncertainty about the case's basis within IDAC's mandate.
“It demonstrated that the arrest had been premature... the preliminary investigation had not been properly conducted... I also raised the question as to the basis upon which the matter fell within IDAC's mandate.”
ADV Serunye questioned whether, discounting corruption, the remaining fraud allegations related to Ms Mokwele fall within IDAC's mandate, concluding it does not.
“If you remove corruption and you leave whatever that remains, would that fall within the mandate of IDAC? Definitely not, Commissioner Khumalo, because if I discount the corruption, then let us say what I am left with is fraud, and that would be the fraud against the civilian. Because in that case, then, the Generals would have been my witnesses... and it is clearly a Lower Court matter.”
ADV Serunye asserts that if the case is only about fraud, it does not belong in IDAC's jurisdiction and was questioned by the Magistrate on this point during the first appearance.
“If I ended up only with fraud, then clearly it does not belong in the IDAC space. It was not, even the Magistrate questioned it on the first appearance.”
ADV Serunye contends that the alleged fraud involved high-ranking officials in the Intelligence Unit who could have detected it, and if they ignored it, that would constitute collusion.
“If these high-ranking officials in the Intelligence Unit, could they not pick up if there was fraud?... And if I come to the conclusion that they closed their eyes to it, then that means they colluded with her.”
Adv Serunye questioned whether the matter fell within IDAC's mandate and considered that matters involving serious allegations against senior officers in the Intelligence environment could appropriately be handled within IDAC's scope if there was evidence of corruption.
“I questioned whether this fell within the IDAC mandate ... if they followed the queries of ... they did an investigation and they found evidence of corruption, then that is where it comes up to say ... it then falls within the mandate of the IDAC”
If there was evidence of prosecuting somebody with anything, the matter should be referred to the Lower Courts; absence of evidence hinders prosecution.
“if there is evidence of prosecuting somebody ... then let us refer this matter to the Lower Court ... but there was for me, there was no evidence backing up those allegations”
Adv Serunye said that if a case involves gratification against senior officials and meets criteria of corruption involving high-level persons, it would fall within IDAC's mandate.
“it would have been meeting this requirement of corruption involving high-level persons to appoint that it then falls within the mandate of the IDAC”
No one raised concerns about the strength, merits or IDAC mandate of a case involving Generals and Brigadiers being arrested and postponed in court, according to Ms Johnson; Adv Serunye disputed this saying he raised concerns and referred to multiple emails.
“Ms Johnson ... firmly said no, no one ever did, none of the lawyers ... with respect to Advocate Johnson, I did. I raised ... there is two, maybe even three others that I referred to her ... I did”
Adv Serunye asserts Ms Johnson was not truthful if she said no one raised concerns about the case in her office.
“She was not being truthful to us if she did say to us that no one in the office raised concerns ... She was not being truthful ... She was not being truthful”
Adv Serunye stated Ms Johnson received his emails and memos, including an instance where she responded regarding serving a 28 or her office writing to the National Commissioner.
“She received them ... she responds to me when I am asking her ... should we serve a 28 or is this office ... going to write a letter to the National Commissioner?”
The advert for the Section Head Technical Support Services position did not refer to a specific race, gender, or age, and was possibly trying to promote females.
“The advert was not referring to a specific race or gender or age ... I think, if anything, it was trying to promote”
Performance in interviews depends on how much a person prepares and the nature of the interview; a person can perform better or freeze on the day.
“It depends on the nature of interviews. It is how prepared a person is for the interview. How much did they prepare, and how you perform. A person can freeze on the day, and another one performs better.”
Emails were sent to the whole team on August 17th regarding issues to be followed up for court preparation, and responses came from Brian Padayachee and Pat Mlambo promising investigations.
“I think I did get responses from either Mr Brian Padayachee or one, I remember Mr Pat Mlambo who said thanks for the advice, we will do as you... promising that investigations are going to be done as I was raising issues.”
ADV SERUNYE submitted a recusal on September 16th and was no longer part of the case from that date onwards but raised questions about the docket and trial despite not being involved.
“From the 16th of September, I am no longer part of the case. I submitted a memo on 16th of September to recuse myself... I raised questions again on the second trial note and maybe on the third. I would not have proceeded with the trial ... when there is so much still outstanding.”
ADV SERUNYE asserts that proceeding with the trial would lead to an acquittal due to gaps in the case and that the Defence intended to challenge the chargesheet and possibly have it quashed.
“Otherwise, it is going to be an acquittal... The Defence was going to query the chargesheet right from the onset... as it was.”
There is an apparent contradiction in ADV SERUNYE's emails where she asserts there is no case but also suggests that further investigation could find evidence of corruption, which raises concern of a fishing expedition and abuse of prosecutorial powers.
“You say we do not have a case and then you say, but I am sure if we search, we will find something... That is not like a typical fishing process... It is an abuse of your investigative/prosecutorial powers.”
The speaker entered the matter after arrests had been made and questions why the suspects were arrested before proper investigations were completed.
“Commissioner, I came into the matter after arrests have been made ... why are these people arrested? ... Investigate, dig some ways, investigate ... We should investigate, finish our investigations. Once we satisfy that we have a good case, this is a prima facie case, then we go to court.”
The speaker asserts that there was no evidence of corruption, only the need to investigate claims to see if a quid pro quo exists.
“Digging for information is investigating. And if you find the quid pro quo, then that is your solution ... otherwise, there is no evidence of corruption here.”
The speaker confirms that as Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP), they had the power to stop or pause the prosecution process but chose to come in after processes had advanced.
“Yes, Commissioner, and that is why I was asking ... if I was still a prosecutor up to a point where the case ... I would not have prosecuted this case. At some stage, I was going to call it off.”
There was a meeting among prosecutors from different teams including Adv Serunye and Adv Manilall, after which it was decided the case could not be saved and should be provisionally withdrawn according to NDPP's decision.
“We got together, me and Manilall and Hlatshwayo and the two other prosecutors ... our decision was that ... there is no way that this case can be saved ... then asked for a meeting with one of the Deputy Directors ... then I heard that the NDPP has decided that the case must be provisionally withdrawn.”
There was a separate review conducted by Independent Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) distinct from the review by Advocate Mothibi's team, involving two teams who met and agreed the case was a dead horse.
“There was, by the old and the new team in IDAC ... My team and the team of Manilall ... agreed that it appears we are flogging a dead horse.”
Ideally, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should have been informed about the decision to prosecute in the matter in May 2025 and the subsequent decision taken.
“the D P P in 2025, May or June, we consulted you on this matter and we informed you we are prosecuting, you agreed with us, and we have since taken another decision”
If the Investigation Director was still in office, she would have to approve prosecutorial decisions; no prosecutor can withdraw a case or take decisions independently.
“If she was still there, she would have to approve ... No prosecutor can withdraw the case in the ID on my own ... the matter must be authorised”
The original chargesheet against Ms Mokwele was flawed because the corruption counts inverted the roles of giver and receiver, alleging she accepted a gratification in the form of an appointment without identifying any unlawful act she was to pay for in return.
“First, the corruption counts inverted the giver and the receiver ... did not identify any unlawful act which Ms Mokwele was to pay for in return”
The chargesheet included a repeated corruption count against Ms Mokwele regarding the same gratification.
“Second, a further corruption count appeared to be a repetition of the count against accused number 7 being directed against her in respect of the same gratification”
The fraud counts on the chargesheet contain contradictions, including allegations that Ms Mokwele misrepresented information in her curriculum vitae and SAPS application form, while the General was alleged both to be a victim and a perpetrator of the fraud.
“Thirdly, the fraud counts gave rise to a contradiction ... alleged that Ms Mokwele had misrepresented in her curriculum vitae ... and SAPS application form ... General ... victim ... and perpetrators ... rigged the process in her favour”
The charge that the Generals colluded to appoint Ms Mokwele, if true, would amount at most to conspiracy rather than fraud, and the same persons cannot be both victims and parties to the fraud.
“If, as the chargesheet alleged, the Generals colluded to appoint her, they were not deceived by her ... conduct would not be fraud ... but at most a conspiracy”
Fraud in this context would be committed against the state, represented by its officials, including the Generals, rather than against the Generals themselves as individuals.
“fraud would have been committed against the state and not necessarily the Generals”
The amended chargesheet was disclosed to the Defence around September and was the version that would have gone to trial if not amended again.
“So around September, they are now asking for a final chargesheet ... it was disclosed to the Defence ... this would have gone to trial if it had not been amended”
Prosecutors have the right to ask for amendments to the chargesheet before plea and trial commence, but after evidence has been led and the accused has pleaded, amendments are limited.
“Those who came after me ... have a right to ask for an amendment of the chargesheet ... can always change it ... but if the trial has already started, the accused pleaded and evidence led, then you cannot”
ADV Serunye drafted the amended chargesheet and disclosed it to the Defence, and sent the related email to one of the attorneys representing accused number 1 (Mr Lushaba) sharing the chargesheet with other attorneys.
“This charge sheet... is the chargesheet that I drafted ... disclosed to the Defence ... I think I am the one who sent the email to one of the attorneys who represents accused number 1 ... representing Mr Lushaba ... and thereafter sent it to the other attorneys”
ADV Serunye emailed Advocate Johnson on 25 August, attaching a trial preparation document and expressing the view that the enrolment was rushed and that the case showed a prima facie case of fraud but not corruption based on available evidence.
“I sent an email at 11:44 on the 25th of August to Advocate Johnson, copied PA Ms Sekhukhune, and Mr Matthew Sesoko, with subject status Khumalo and Others, and then I put in an attachment... There is an attachment to that email. Trial Preparation Document 3. I said to the ID that: “Khumalo and Others matter refs. Attached, please find a copy of my trial preparation note 3 addressed to the team. My view is that the enrolment was rushed. However, there is a prima facie case of fraud (not corruption) at least not on the available evidence.””
ADV Serunye did not receive a response from Advocate Johnson or Mr Sesoko to the email containing the trial preparation document but is certain the email was received.
“I did not get any response to this email... No, I had not... I sent it to her email, and this time copied her PA. I am sure she got it... She did not respond. I do not have proof of that, but I sent it to her.”
Mr Dylan Perumal, Chief Investigator, showed an affidavit with a section 27 referral document to Advocate Serunye, holding it but not giving access to read it easily.
“the Chief Investigator, Mr Dylan Perumal, informed me that he had the section 27 referral and showed me a document in his office. He showed me the document whilst holding it. It was as if he wanted me to see its existence but not its contents”
Advocate Serunye read the section 27 referral affidavit, which was similar to the complainant Fadiel Adams' statement and contained nothing of substance.
“I read and I could see as I am reading through that this affidavit is similar to the other affidavit of Mr Adams because there was nothing that stood out for me in that affidavit”
Advocate Serunye raised concerns with Advocate Hlatshwayo about the section 27 referral because it seemed to be hidden away and not provided despite requests since August.
“I raised my concern with Advocate Hlatshwayo immediately afterwards. I told her that she was going to have a problem with the section 27 referral because at the time I was under the impression that it was signed by the deponent at one place and commissioned by the Commissioner of Oath in another place”
Advocate Serunye did not insist on obtaining a copy of the section 27 referral affidavit for Advocate Hlatshwayo or prosecution because he thought the affidavit contained nothing substantial and had been instructed to back off.
“I did not think of making a copy because when I read the statement, there was nothing substantial for me... We had a very good relationship with Mr Perumal... I was told to back off from demanding this section 27”
Advocate Serunye was instructed by IDAC to back off from demanding the section 27 referral and only do his job without further inquiries.
“The ID says, I have seen it, are you not believing my investigators? So I was not going to ask for a copy of that because I got clear instructions to stay away from this, just do your job, and then leave it”
Advocate Khumalo accused Advocate Serunye of being scared of IDAC and thus not insisting that Advocate Hlatshwayo receive the section 27 referral document at discovery stage, which is required for the accused's rights.
“So you were scared. You were scared of the ID. That is why you did not insist that it be made available to the prosecutor”
ADV Serunye saw the document referred to as 'the 27', was satisfied it existed, but did not demand a copy because he knew he did not have to deal with it as he was recused from the case by 16 September.
“I have seen the 27. I am satisfied that it exists ... I did not even demand a copy because I knew I do not have to deal with this document, but at least I have seen it ... I have since been recused in 16 September.”
ADV Serunye was told when still part of the case that the document 'the 27' was an internal document and should not be disclosed to the Defence.
“we were told now when I was still part of the case ... that the 27 should not be disclosed ... The ID said it is an internal document, it should not be disclosed to the Defence”
ADV Serunye saw an affidavit thought to be related to the case, which was signed in Cape Town but stamped with a Pretoria IDAC stamp, which he did not understand.
“It was clear he had signed it in Cape Town and the Commissioner of Oath had signed, but there was an IDAC stamp next to it, which was a Pretoria stamp, which I could not understand.”
ADV Serunye says the affidavit shown to him is not the section 27 affidavit that started the whole thing and that he was misled by Mr Perumal who showed him that document as section 27 referral.
“If Mr Perumal showed you this document and said to you it is a section 27 referral, he misled you ... this is a statement marked A1 by him.”
ADV Serunye admits that after reading what was shown to him he did not think it contained sensitive information and was surprised it had not been shown to him earlier; he implies he stopped asking about it after being told not to question it.
“after reading what was shown to me, it was like I was reading one of the affidavits of Mr Adams which I saw in the docket ... it was like a two or three-page statement which really did not say much ... I was amazed why has it not been shown to me all along ... if they had given me this all along, I would have stopped asking for it.”
ADV Serunye confirms he could not contradict his superior officers on disclosure instructions despite knowing they were wrong about the document's status.
“I could not say to my boss you are wrong, I am going to disclose it anyway against your instruction.”
Witness felt unable to disclose a document against the expressed instruction of a superior due to fear of consequences including up to 15 years imprisonment for disclosing an internal document.
“I could not, I did not have the guts to say to my boss you are wrong, I am going to disclose this, whether you approve it or not. I know there is going to be consequences. There can be discipline, there can be charge, and so on. Especially that we have signed non-disclosure forms. So it was going to be, you disclose a document which we have told is an internal document, and therefore you are facing up to 15-years imprisonment for this”
The section 27 referral affidavit becomes the initial primary document forming the basis of the inquiry file and can be supplemented if needed.
“the section 27, when it is sent say by complainant, that forms the basis, that is the first document that we receive that say I have seen or I suspect that such and such an offence has been committed ... And that is the first document that we have when we are opening an inquiry file as we are building up our case and investigating. Now, if it is not sufficient, we will go back and obtain a further statement”
A complainant's section 27 referral affidavit should not be withheld from the Defence and should be part of the docket and disclosed like other documents in the inquiry.
“I do not understand why it had to be kept away from the Defence, because it is a complainant statement ... it should form part of the docket and be disclosed like all the other documents”
ADV Serunye was still asking about the existence of the section 27 referral affidavit at the end of October 2025 and was shown the document by Mr Perumal after that date.
“during that period of October 2025, I was also looking for it ... as I have shown through the email I have sent to Mr Sesokoon on the 31st of October, I was still asking questions about the existence of this document ... So when Perumal showed me the document, it must be after 31 October”
The true date of request for the section 27 referral was about 31 October 2025, not days after a management meeting in early September as initially stated.
“your statement is incorrect where you say some days after the management meeting ... it looks like it is a month or two after ... it is actually about 31st of October 2025”
The arrests related to the investigation were premature and made before the investigation was complete.
“ADV SERUNYE said that the verification of Ms Mokwele's qualifications, the analysis of financial and communication records, and the assessment of the appointment process should have preceded and not followed the arrest.”
Advocate Serunye was asked to oversee the Lushaba matter but found no case on the docket and questioned why General Lushaba, the victim, had been charged.
“I was also asked to oversee the Lushaba matter, in which Advocate Ramsamy was the lead prosecutor. Having considered the docket, I was of the view that it disclosed no case. In particular, I did not understand why the complainant, General Lushaba, who on the face of the docket was the victim, had been charged.”
Advocate Serunye requested Mr Sesoko to attend a meeting to give feedback to the Investigating Directorate about his view that the docket disclosed no case.
“I am then saying to them: 'I am going to request Mr Sesoko also attends so that he can give feedback to the ID about my views.' I wanted him to be part of the meeting, and I can confirm the meeting was then held.”
General Lushaba was charged with defeating the ends of justice and fraud because he had lost his items including a laptop and wallet containing bank and police cards after being drugged and robbed by a woman.
“He was charged among others with defeating the ends of justice. He was charged for fraud, but all that emanated from the fact that he had lost his items. I think his laptop, his wallet, which had his bank cards and a police card, after being dropped off by one of his friends at his home with a certain lady.”
ADV Serunye expressed concerns that the charges in the docket were badly crafted, containing duplicate and repetitive counts, lacking evidence, and no prima facie case was evident.
“It was really badly crafted and not supported by evidence , most importantly . Questioning the charges themselves . The elements of the charges are lacking . There is no evidence to substantiate those charges . Also to say , some of them are duplicate charges .”
ADV Serunye stated that after reviewing the docket and submissions, they were still of the view that there was no prima facie or winnable case to be made, and planned to provide a written report to the Investigating Directorate and the team.
“I am sorry to say that I am still of the view that we do not have a prima facie or winnable case . I will provide my written report to the ID , Mr Sesoko , and the team in due course .”
ADV Serunye did not provide the written report to the ID and Mr Sesoko due to events overtaking the matter, and ceased to be part of the case by 16 September.
“I did not , Commissioners . I am saying I was overtaken by – everything was overtaken by events here . This is 29 August , and by 16 September , I then ceased to be part of the case . I did not write the report , but it is the emails I sent them to the ID .”
Neither the ID nor ADV Serunye's colleagues responded to the email about the charges and case issues, though a robust virtual meeting was held on 29 August where ADV Serunye presented their views.
“No , the ID did not respond to me on the basis of this email , neither did the colleagues . The colleagues , at least , we had a meeting on the 29th . I remember it was a virtual meeting , a very robust one , where I sent out my views .”
Some prosecutors, including Advocate Serunye, were doing their work to the best of their abilities but were unaware of things happening behind their backs and being used improperly in opposing certain legal provisions (sections 63 and 65).
“it appears to me that some of us were used – if you are giving instruction, go and oppose a 63. You go in, you think you are doing your work to the best of your abilities, go and oppose a 65.”
Despite queries raised about the Lushaba incident, Advocate Serunye was not referring investigators to General Khan to obtain an affidavit; General Khan later sent an affidavit that did not help and was never signed off.
“I am querying a number of issues , but nothing about referring them to General Khan . And in his response to me , he came to the affidavit to say some of your queries can be answered by this . But I read it at the time . It was not helping ... it was never signed off and does not form part of the docket .”
Advocate Serunye and two prosecutors, Hlatshwayo and Ramsamy, raised complaints about investigators not listening to prosecutors and other issues in their emails and memos around August 2025.
“I was also getting complaints from the prosecutors, Advocate Hlatshwayo and Advocate Ramsamy, saying about how the investigators are not listening ... some of the issues that I have been raising in my emails and in my memos, the two prosecutors also did the same. They showed me a document directed to the office of the ID with a lot of queries around August 2025.”
The witness was raising issues by email about cases being rushed to court and questioning them with investigators and Mr Sesoko at the ID (likely investigating department).
“my emails are telling the story. I am questioning and raising these issues, not only with the investigators, but with the ID, with Mr Sesoko, that these cases were rushed to court, and I am raising a lot of issues here.”
The cases discussed are exposing the investigation department to reflection; wrongdoing by ID officials, including premature arrests, required strategic planning and proper processes to be put in place.
“these two cases are exposing us ... ID officials to do wrong things, arrest people prematurely ... We must go back ... have our strategic planning ... like you are saying ... know when a person is not doing things in accordance with the rules ...”
Adv Serunye claims he was not part of the case initially and was brought in to help juniors; he notes the prosecution team was unprepared for the bail application with no bail statement available from the investigating officer.
“I was not part of this case ... My first involvement is going to court to try and help a junior ... I did not know how they had planned ... the prosecution were not even ready for the bail application because when I asked for a bail statement from the investigating officer , I realised they do not even have one”
Adv Serunye was brought in to oppose the upcoming bail amendment application, not by choice but because the Defence had a senior lawyer who warranted his involvement at that level.
“I was brought in to oppose that ... because she says that the Defence has a lawyer who is senior in her own ... and therefore , I need you at that level”
Adv Serunye contends there was nothing wrong with what the Magistrate did as the Criminal Procedure Act allows such conditions in the interest of justice, even if not requested by the State or addressed at the time.
“there was ... nothing wrong with what the Magistrate did ... the Criminal Procedure Act allows him to do what he did . Section 60 (12) says the Magistrate can impose any conditions which in the interest of justice would make him to come to it”
Advocate Serunye says she was involved in the case by instruction of Advocate Hlatshwayo to oppose the section 63 bail amendment application.
“But when she comes before the Commission, she says something else that, as if I was doing things on my own. If she did not instruct me to be part of the case, I would not be sitting here today. She involves me in the case. I do not know what the brief to her was by Hlatshwayo, but she says specifically, because there is a senior lawyer involved there, I want a senior person to oppose this.”
Advocate Serunye claims she was told to oppose the bail condition amendment application and did not receive instruction to amend the bail condition, as it was not requested.
“She did not say to me, or to us at least, go and amend the bail condition because we did not ask for it. She said oppose the application. We do that, but in the back of my mind, I am not following, I cannot follow, I am not going to follow a wrong or an irregular or an unlawful instruction.”
Advocate Serunye engaged in High Court arguments referencing a Bloemfontein case where an official of the NPA committed fraud and was barred from entering NPA offices as a bail condition.
“I engaged. The High Court judge took me to cases. I tried arguing for my case. I did not get their first thing conceded. I tried and I said, this is what the law says, this is what the Magistrate said, and these are case laws where I even referred the High Court to a case in Bloemfontein where an official of the NPA committed fraud against the NPA or the DPP's office, and one of the conditions thereby the Magistrate's Court was that he is barred from entering the NPA offices in the Free State.”
Advocate Serunye expresses regret for being portrayed as acting on her own without consulting, clarifying she acted under instructions to oppose the bail appeal.
“I am very sorry for the head to come before this Commission and say, portray me as having acted on my own without consulting. It is just not true... I did my job to the best of my abilities.”
Advocate Johnson gave instructions approving an appeal based on Mr Padayachee’s affidavit and sent a WhatsApp message instructing Advocate Ramsamy to inform Advocates Serunye and Hlatshwayo, though Advocate Hlatshwayo did not ask for the bail condition in court.
“Advocate Johnson gave instructions approving the appeal based on Mr Padayachee's affidavit and she then sent a WhatsApp to Advocate Ramsamy, instructing her to then inform Advocate Serunye and Advocate Hlatshwayo... but Advocate Hlatshwayo did not ask for that condition in court.”