Investigating Directorate Against Corruption

Peter Serunye is currently reassigned to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) of the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa and has personal knowledge of IDAC's criminal investigations into allegations against Lieutenant General Samuel Dumisani Khumalo and six other Crime Intelligence officials regarding the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele.

“I have been subpoenaed by the Commission to give evidence regarding my involvement in and knowledge of IDAC's criminal investigation into the allegations against Lieutenant General Samuel Dumisani Khumalo and six other Crime Intelligence officials regarding the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele, commonly referred to as the Mokwele matter (State versus Khumalo and others) and the matter of Major General Lushaba.”

Peter Serunye was authorized by the then Investigating Director Hermione Cronje on 13 October 2021 to exercise powers under section 24(2) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act and to represent the state in criminal proceedings and appeals instituted by the Investigating Directorate within South Africa.

“On 13 October 2021, I was issued with an authorization by then ID Advocate Hermione Cronje, the then-Investigating Director of the Investigating Directorate, to exercise powers as set out in section 24(2) of the National Prosecuting Authority, Act 32 of 1998, and to appear on behalf of the state in criminal proceedings, appeals and matters arising from criminal proceedings instituted by the Investigating Directorate in all jurisdictional areas and courts within the Republic of South Africa in respect of any offence envisaged in section 7(1) read with proclamation 20 of 2019, and section 28(1)(c) of the National Prosecuting Authority, Act 32 of 1998, and I attach as Annexure PS1 the authorization.”

Within IDAC, Peter Serunye's principal functions are to prosecute and manage a group handling high-level corruption cases in both public and private sectors.

“Within IDAC, my functions are principally the prosecution and the management and oversight of a group that deals with high-level corruption cases in the public and private sector.”

The group led by Peter Serunye within IDAC comprises senior and junior state advocates (prosecutors), lead investigators, criminal investigators, financial investigators including a chief financial investigator, a data analyst, and a project manager, and operated through four groups each headed by a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and a project owner.

“The group comprises of senior and junior state advocates, that is, prosecutors, and then lead investigators, criminal investigators, financial investigators, as well as chief financial investigators, a data analyst and a project manager. At the relevant time, IDAC operated through four groups, each headed by a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and a project who would then also be a project owner to cases under such groups. I headed the group dealing with high-level corruption in the public and private sector as aforesaid.”

IDAC groups carried historic matters as well as matters generated from recommendations of Commissions of Inquiry such as the State Capture Commission (Zondo Commission), Mpati Commission, and Nugent Commission.

“Each group carried both historical matters and matters generated from the recommendations of the Commissions of Inquiry, that is, the State Capture Commission, commonly known as the Zondo Commission, the Mpati Commission, and the Nugent Commission.”

Ms Ramasamy is a full-time employee of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) attached to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), joined as a state advocate on 1 March 2023.

“I am an adult female admitted attorney in the full-time employee of the National Prosecuting Authority, attached to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, commonly known as IDAC ... I joined the IDAC as a state advocate on the 1st of March 2023.”

IDAC formulated charges against General Masemola alleging willful and grossly negligent conduct regarding the tender and purchase orders from May 2024 to May 2025.

“IDAC is basically saying from the date the tender was awarded, because they say from May 2024 until May 2025, so they say from the date the tender was awarded, already there was wilfulness and gross negligent, grossly negligent conduct on the part of General Masemola.”

The charge sheet drafted by IDAC contains no allegations of corruption, containing only statutory PFMA contravention charges.

“my concern in the debate about whether or not this falls within the IDAC mandate is that on the charge sheet itself, there is no allegation of corruption. You do not make that allegation in the charge sheet. The charge sheet and the charges are purely statutory contravention, PFMA”

Major General Matlou submitted a section 27 referral affidavit together with an unprovided preliminary report, triggering the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of General Masemola regarding an alleged unlawful tender award to Medicare 24 Tshwane District.

“General Matlou's affidavit is what eventually triggered the arrest, the eventual arrest and prosecution of General Masemola.”

Advocate Baloyi SC asserted that section 38(1)(e) of the PFMA relates to SAPS's own tax compliance rather than the tax compliance of service providers or Mr Matlala's company, raising suspicion about the motive behind IDAC's charges against the National Commissioner.

“So it is charges like that, a count like that, that reference to section 38 as one of the charges against him that feeds the suspicion that I have about the motive of putting these charges and me saying that lawyers could never have missed that that section 38(1)(e) has nothing to do with his involvement with the tax compliance of Mr Matlala's company. It has to do with SAPS' own tax compliance.”

IDAC only became aware of the findings and basis for General Masemola's termination of the contract on 26 June 2026 upon receipt of a 284-page affidavit by General Matlou.

“findings only came to the attention of IDAC on the 26th of June 2026... that was by way of a further affidavit by General Matlou dated the 26th of June 2026... So officially for purposes of investigation, that is the first time IDAC even becomes aware of the basis on which General Masemola eventually had to terminate on the 5th of May 2025.”

There is an allegation that IDAC actively participated in a well-coordinated attack against General Mkhwanazi, General Masemola, and General Khumalo, which Adv Johnson denies.

“there was an allegation that IDAC actively participating in a well-coordinated attack against General Mkhwanazi, General Masemola and General Khumalo, are you aware of it? You said you have heard of that allegation, but there is no truth to it.”

IDAC's decisions and Section 28 summonses targeting SAPS Generals and the PKTT constituted a concerted effort to discredit or prejudice them.

“In light of at least the three that I have named, logic dictates that it was a concerted effort to either discredit or somehow prejudice them.”

General Matlou's section 27 referral is non-compliant with section 27 and did not trigger the mandate of IDAC.

“Let us go to General Matlou's referral, which we have agreed is wholly non-compliant with section 27, which based on our conversation over the past two days, did not trigger the mandate of IDAC.”

IDAC's flawed process and faulty section 27 referral created a risk that jeopardized the ongoing prosecution.

“So because of the approach that IDAC has adopted, that running roughshod over everything, there is a serious risk, and I put it no higher than that, that it may have placed in jeopardy the very prosecution that is currently being pursued.”

Advocate Johnson contends that the section 27 referral was accompanied by a preliminary report setting out a factual basis and offences linking the individuals.

“that 27 was read, as I understood it this morning, with the preliminary report which sets out a more factual basis that links the different people and perhaps sets out the offences.”

IDAC procured the preliminary report directly from General Matlou.

“And just to indicate, IDAC procured it from General Matlou.”

Adv Johnson stated that conflicting sets of four A1 affidavits were taken separately by Mr Perumal and Mr Mansa on a date when they were supposed to be executing one function together with the prosecutor.

“having a set of four A1s taken by a person, Mr Perumal, then you have four A1s taken by Mr Mansa, on a date when they are all supposed to have been together, executing one function together with the prosecutor.”

Adv Johnson testified that a Public Service Commission report dated 2023 was only shown to him for the first time during the inquiry, despite the fact that it made findings that should have halted the IDAC investigation once received.

“we have the Public Service Commission report dated 2023, Commissioner Khumalo, which I see for the first time. I only allude just to these two because they are very pointed and they are very factual in the nature of what is before us. I have had to ponder why we find ourselves in this position as IDAC, and why, while I accept, and I do not think that there is meanness when questions are posed by the Commission about, but why you did not know you should have read. I think the Commission understands I cannot read everything and will not know everything, and I do have to trust and rely on my people. And I am, I sat with a conundrum last night of, why were these things not brought to my attention? And if, especially with the Public Service Commission report, which is somewhat quite different, it should have stopped the day the report came in, because it should have been brought to the attention of the ID to say, ID, look, we thought we have a right to investigate this, but here it is. It has been done. Findings have been made. That would have set that matter aside. That was not done.”

Adv Johnson conceded that undisclosed external actors or internal staff may have operated with motives to cast narratives or exert influence on IDAC's investigations beyond his knowledge.

“A lot of the times, and history had shown that, you find that staff get overzealous in wanting to present their case, but more often than not, you find that they engage with persons outside the purview of the work we are supposed to do, and you are not privy to that engagement. And so the mind you expect them to bring to bear on the mandate and on the cases is what you are engaging them on. It has been a past experience. In the way things happened this past week, it seems that there are other actors that might have been engaged with for us to be where we are.”

The Chairperson stated that Adv Johnson acted wrongfully as Head of IDAC by authorizing an investigation based on a section 7 referral affidavit containing nothing except factual conclusions.

“On a document or on an affidavit that had nothing except for factual conclusions, you acted. It had to be your decision, you as the Head of IDAC. It had to be your decision, and indeed it was, for any investigation to have gone on in the first place. To cut a long story short, I do not understand why you would want to blame others. As it should have, the buck stopped with you, and indeed from where I am sitting, it did.”

Adv Johnson accepted full responsibility for the decisions and actions taken by IDAC regarding the Adams matter and section 7 referral.

“I sit here today knowing that I have to take responsibility for all the actions that we do, intentionally or unintentionally, and I will be judged for those actions.”

IDAC applied for arrest warrants against the accused following an investigation into Mr Adams's section 27 referral, after which a prosecution memorandum and draft charge sheet were prepared for the Director of Prosecutions.

“IDAC then applied for warrants of arrest against the accused. I then prepared a prosecution memorandum and submitted the same to the Director of Prosecutions, together with a draft charge sheet and a request for the enrolment of the matter.”

Advocates Sello and Khumalo asserted that paragraph 20 of the IDAC prosecution memorandum only invokes section 9 of SAPS National Instruction 11 of 2017 regarding nepotism and favouritism, while making no reference to PRECCA or gratification.

“because your memorandum does not even invoke PRECCA at all. It speaks of no gratification. It speaks of nepotism and favouritism. That is a point I sought to make earlier. That if your memorandum is intended to inform and advise the DPP, the only instrument you invoke at your paragraph 20 is section 9 of the National Instruction 11 of 2017, which you quote verbatim. And that speaks to nepotism and favouritism.”

Advocate Johnson stated that IDAC attached the draft charge sheet to the prosecution memorandum so that the DPP could review both documents, raise questions, and identify any deficiencies in the charge sheet summary.

“The charge sheet, sorry, the memorandum is a summary. But the charge sheet is also attached so that the DPP is able to apply her mind to both the prosecution memo and the charge sheet. So where one may have missed something in the summary, she is fully within her right, as is always the case, to go through the charge sheet and to also raise questions about the charge sheet and/or any deficiencies in the charge sheet.”

Advocate Johnson testified that IDAC submits situational reports summarizing charges to SAPS following arrests of police personnel, leaving subsequent employment and disciplinary decisions to police management.

“What IDAC does is we write up, I think the police call it a situational report, after we have an arrest of any SAPS personnel across the board. We just give them a summary of the charges, who was charged, when they appear, and that then goes to the police. It is for the police to decide what steps they are going to take, but we have to put everybody in that was charged, not just one particular person, and then we escalate it to them for further action.”

IDAC sent a situational report/memorandum to the SAPS National Commissioner outlining allegations and charges against individuals, leaving disciplinary or administrative action to the discretion of SAPS.

“O u r s i s m e r e l y t o s u m m a r i s e w h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a r e , w h a t a r e t h e c h a r g e s , a n d t o e s c a l a t e i t t o t h e o ff i c e o f t h e N a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n e r.”

An IDAC memorandum alleged that accused individuals committed crimes involving dishonesty, abuse of authority, and state capture by circumventing systems and processes to unduly benefit another.

“Th e c a s e r e l a t e s t o c r i m e s i n v o l v i n g d i s h o n e s t y a n d a b u s e o f a u t h o r i t y t h a t w e r e c o m m i t t e d a g a i n s t a n o r g a n o f s t a t e . T h e a l l e g a t i o n s a l s o a f f i r m t h a t t h e a c c u s e d r e l a t e s t o s t a t e c a p t u r e i n t h a t [p86 #1] t h e y s o u g h t t h r o u g h t h e i r a c t i o n s a n d i n t h e f u r t h e r a n c e o f a c o m m o n p u r p o s e t o c i r c u m v e n t s y s t e m s a n d p r o c e s s e s t o u n d u l y b e n e f i t a n o t h e r .”

IDAC issued an urgent recommendation requesting warrants of arrest for individuals involved in offenses detailed in a draft charge sheet relating to abuse of authority and non-compliance with a National Instruction.

“I t i s r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t w a r r a n t s o f a r r e s t o f t h e p e r s o n s i n v o l v e d i n t h e C o m m i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n c e s o u t l i n e d i n t h e d r a f t s h e e t10 b e o b t a i n e d .”

Adv Johnson confirmed she had communication, including a letter, with DPP Advocate Harrison from KZN regarding Mr Adams' arrest to clarify his status as an IDAC witness and how NPA should manage him.

“I did. I also think I wrote her a letter. The gist of the conversation was just to indicate, I am not sure if you are aware that Mr Adams is a witness, and in an IDAC matter, and I just wanted to know whether or not he is going to be arrested, just so that we know how to handle him, because we are one NPA.”

Adv Johnson explained that her letter to DPP Harrison clearly stated IDAC was not suggesting Mr Adams should avoid arrest if he committed a crime, but requested a heads up because he was an IDAC witness.

“I said I do not want her at any stage to think that IDAC is indicating that he should not be arrested if he committed a crime. I just thought that because it was open knowledge that he was a witness to IDAC, just give us a heads up, because witnesses become difficult, and they become difficult to manage.”

Ms James informed Adv Johnson at the Ad Hoc Committee that Suneel Bellochun was appointed to IDAC despite pending cases against him registered in 2024 and red flags dating back to 2014.

“Ms James says: “There is currently a case, you said there are no rogue elements within this organisation. Here you have a member that you have appointed. There was red flags from 2014, again in 2024. You said there is no rogue elements. Whether he has been found guilty or not, there is a pending case against him registered in 024.””

Popcru reported that IDAC appointed Suneel Bellochun as a senior investigating officer despite an active warrant of arrest against him for alleged fraud linked to Pretoria West CAS 97/05/2021.

“First paragraph states that: “It was a startling revelation that IDAC appointed Suneel Bellochun as a senior investigating officer, despite him having a warrant of arrest for alleged fraud.””

Sergeant Nkosi reported that Suneel Bellochun led a team of nine IDAC investigators on 13 July 2026 to meet him without his attorney to solicit testimony implicating Generals Khumalo and Masemola.

“The third we dealt with in this hearing, which is by Sergeant Nkosi, of Mr Bellochun leading a team of nine, let me say people, investigators and maybe others, from IDAC of the 13th of July 2026, to meet with him in the absence of his attorney and to solicit, again, it is my own summary, testimony from him that would implicate Generals Khumalo and Masemola.”

Suneel Bellochun ran his own fingerprints through the Local Criminal Record Centre and reported back that he had no outstanding matters or criminal records, forming the basis of IDAC's report to Adv Batohi.

“Mr Bellochun had gone ahead and on his own, through the Local Criminal Record Centre, put through the fingerprints to see if there were any matters outstanding... He gave a report back that there were no matters that were outstanding on the LCRC. And it is on that basis that prior to Advocate Batohi leaving office, we had compiled a report, Chair, which said that there was no one in IDAC... that had outstanding cases, previous convictions, or pending misconduct.”

Following testimony by Witness N, Mr Bellochun received an intention to suspend notice, and a separate complaint from Sergeant Nkosi regarding events of 13 July is also being escalated to the IDAC Judge.

“I am given to understand that Mr Bellochun received a notice yesterday indicating an intention for him to be suspended. And I would assume it comes only out of that matter because, Chair, that was the first matter that I have escalated to the IDAC Judge.”

Advocate Johnson provided a single-page case study document prepared for FATF concerning the Tembisa Hospital investigation, requesting it be kept confidential under an embargo agreement with FATF.

“You provided a document which speaks to those matters and you will address momentarily, but you highlighted the sensitive nature of that document and its contents and requested that it not be made publicly available because it provides detail as to progress of investigations.”

The SIU referred the Tembisa Hospital investigation in all its forms to the DPCI in or around 2020.

“Th e Te m b i s a h o s p i t a l m a t t e r, i n a l l o f i t s f o r m s , i n h o w e v e r m a n y l e g s o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n i t h a s , w h o m e v e r t h e p e r s o n s a n d e n t i t i e s o f i n t e r e s t a r e , h a d b e e n r e f e r r e d a r o u n d a b o u t 2 0 2 0 o r... b y t h e S I U t o t h e D P C I .”

IDAC does not hold or handle the Maumela / Tembisa Hospital matter, as it falls under the jurisdiction of the DPCI.

“C a n I s a y o n e m o r e t i m e , w e d o n o t h a v e t h e M a u m e l a m a t t e r.”

Advocate Johnson stated that he is no longer the head of IDAC and highlighted the need for more checks and balances within IDAC and the NPA.

“I am no longer the head of IDAC. ... what has become apparent is that there needs to be a few more checks and balances than there currently are. And I am hoping, Chair and Commissioners, that that would be at least a part of those recommendations so that we are able to take them on board, or IDAC and the NPA can take them on board.”

Sergeant Nkosi was taken from his detention cell by prison official Mr Matlala and questioned by Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) officials about his relationship with Vusimuzi Cat Matlala and threatened with corruption charges for possessing Matlala's FNB card.

“I was called out from my detention cell by the senior prison official known to me as Mr Matlala ... who informed me that there were investigators from Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, commonly known as IDAC, who wanted to interview me. ... They started to question me about the relationship between myself and Vusimuzi Cat Matlala and threatened to charge me with corruption for once being in possession of Vusimuzi Cat Matlala's FNB card.”

IDAC officials, led by Suneel Bellochun, questioned Sergeant Nkosi about alleged corrupt relationships involving Vusimuzi Cat Matlala, National Commissioner General Masemola and Lieutenant General Khumalo.

“Suneel Bellochun ... asked me what I know about any corrupt relationship between Vusimuzi Cat Matlala, National Commissioner, General Masemola and Lieutenant General Khumalo. ...”

White male IDAC official took photos of Sergeant Nkosi without his consent during an interview, which were said to be part of the investigation against him.

“white male IDAC official took photos of me without my consent while I was being interviewed by Suneel Bellochun. ... they informed me that they form part of their investigation against me.”

Sergeant Nkosi informed his attorney that he received calls and WhatsApp messages from Senior Investigator Suneel Bellochun following the visit from IDAC investigators on 13 July 2026.

“the caller was my client, Fannie Ezekiel Nkosi. ... he got a missed call from a cellphone number ... that it belonged to Suneel Bellochun. On Tuesday 14 July 2026 at 08h29, the same number phoned him again ... users sent a WhatsApp message reading: 'Good morning, sir. I am Senior Investigator Bellochun from IDAC. Can you please return my call?'”

On the afternoon of 13 July 2026, IDAC staff investigators visited Fannie Nkosi to implicate General Masemola and Lieutenant General Khumalo by claiming a relationship between them and Mr Matlala.

“members of the IDAC staff investigators visited Mr Fannie Nkosi to get him ... to implicate General Masemola and Lieutenant General Khumalo by claiming that there is a relationship between the two and Mr Matlala.”

A complaint was received by Ministry and referred to the National Commissioner, indicating the Division Inspectorate mishandled the service complaint levelled by Mr Adams and inappropriately handed multiple dockets to the Investigating Directorate against Corruption (IDAC).

“The purpose of the information note is to provide a response to the allegation that one, the Division Inspectorate was complicit and irregular in the handling of these service complaint levelled by Mr Adams, and two, to reflect on an averment that the Division Inspectorate irregularly handed seven dockets to the Investigating Directorate against corruption, IDAC.”

Lieutenant General PAJ Jacobs in a memo dated 1st November requested a report on a complaint received from a Member of Parliament, showing passing of the complaint through to the National Commissioner and issues of complicity and irregular handling by the Division Inspectorate regarding Mr Adams' complaint and referral of seven dockets to IDAC against corruption.

“‘Good morning, Major General Sebula. Ministry has received this complaint from a Member of Parliament. In order for the Ministry to respond accordingly, please furnish this office with a report in responding to this complaint and the details of the investigating officer who was assigned to investigate those cases. Your report is expected by Monday, 4th of November.’ ... The purpose of the information note is to provide a response to the allegation that one, the Division Inspectorate was complicit and irregular in the handling of these service complaints levelled by Mr Adams, and two, to reflect on a averment that the Division Inspectorate irregularly handed seven dockets to the Investigating Directorate against corruption, IDAC.”

Advocate Andrea Johnson represents the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), a unit within National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

“I am currently employed as the Investigating Director and Head of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption , IDAC , a unit within the National Prosecuting Authority , NPA”

Advocate Andrea Johnson is the Head of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) and is the appropriate person to engage on all matters pertaining to IDAC, despite being relieved of duties related to the Khumalo arrest matter.

“advocate Andrea Johnson in her capacity of Investigating Director of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, IDAC”

Advocate Andrea Johnson stated she was appointed as Investigating Director and Head of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) within the National Prosecuting Authority by President Cyril Ramaphosa effective from 1 March 2022.

“I am currently employed as the Investigating Director and Head of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption , IDAC , a unit within the National Prosecuting Authority , NPA , established in terms of section ( 1 ) ( A ) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act 32 of 1998 , ( the NPA Act ) . I was appointed to this position by President Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa with effect from 1 March 022 in terms of section 13 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the NPA Act .”

Colonel Brian Padayachee is a retired Colonel of the South African Police Service with 44 years of experience, currently employed as a senior investigator at the National Prosecuting Authority's Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC).

“I am an adult male employed at the National Prosecuting Authority as a senior investigator assigned to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption , IDAC . I am a retired Colonel of the South African SAPS . I have served the SAPS for 38 and a half years ... It is now 44 years of my law enforcement career.”

The Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) is established in the Office of the National Director to investigate serious, high-profile, or complex corruption, commercial or financial crime cases.

“Theres hereby established in the Office of the National Director an Investigating Directorate to be known as the Investigating Directorate against Corruption to investigate, and carry out, any functions incidental to investigations relating to serious, high-profile or complex corruption, commercial or financial crime cases”

IDAC investigates cases arising from recommendations of commissions of inquiry, referrals by the National Director under section 28(1)(b), or referrals under section 27, which include offences like fraud, forgery, uttering, theft, and any offence involving dishonesty.

“arising from the recommendations of commissions of inquiry; referred to the Investigating Directorate by the National Director in terms of section 28(1)(b); or referred to the Investigating Directorate in terms of section 27, subject to section 26(2); relating to additional related offences or categories of offences, including common law offences of fraud, forgery, uttering, theft; and any offence involving dishonesty”

The mandate of IDAC includes statutory offences under legislation like the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 2004, Prevention of Organised Crime Act 1998, and others related to financial governance and dishonesty.

“including contraventions of - (i) the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 (Act 12 of 2004); (ii) the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998 (Act 121 of 1998); (iii) the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities, 2004 (Act 33 of 2004); (iv) the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act 1 of 1999); (v) the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 (Act 56 of 2003); (vi) the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 2001 (Act 38 of 2001)”

Complaints to IDAC come in by affidavit under section 27 of the NPA Act and are reviewed by the Case Intake Committee to determine if they fall within IDAC's mandate, followed by investigation under section 28 if sufficient information exists.

“Section 27 deals with the reporting of matters to the Investigating Director...A complaint that is referred in terms of section 27 comes to the Head of Office, the Investigating Director, then to the Case Intake Committee who decide if it falls within mandate...If sufficient information on referral, a full-blown investigation can be conducted in terms of section 28”

Towards the end of 2025, Witness N received information about alleged criminal conduct by Suneel Belochan, a senior Investigator at the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC).

“Towards the end of 2025, I received information concerning alleged criminal conduct on the part of Mr Suneel Belochan, a senior Investigator at the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, which is known as IDAC.”