Witness: Mr Matlala, Colonel Brian Padayachee, Mr Carrim. Evidence Leader: Adv Sello SC.
Loading transcript text…
Mr Matlala's appearance was postponed to 15 July 2026 from an earlier subpoena date of 7 July 2026 following an engagement between his legal representatives and the Commission.
“Mr Matlala had been subpoenaed to appear on the 7th of July 2026 and on that date, Mr Matlala's legal representative and I presented ourselves before you and we had an engagement, the outcome of which was that Mr Matlala's appearance was postponed to the 15th of July, today”
Mr Matlala is due to commence a criminal trial on the coming Monday and has the constitutional right to attend and be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
“he is due to commence with a trial on Monday. We believe that he has got the constitutional right to attend this trial and be regarded as innocent until proven guilty”
Mr Matlala's constitutional rights override any compulsion by the Commission to give evidence prior to the conclusion of criminal proceedings.
“I respectfully submit that when you have a person that is either an accused or a suspect, I respectfully submit that your constitutional rights, with the greatest of respect, overwrite the compulsion that there would be from the Commission's side for him to give evidence”
Mr Matlala's lawyers believe that his constitutional rights cannot be taken away by the Commission during a fact-finding exercise and that evidence from the Commission side may be untruthful or unlawfully obtained.
“we so strongly believe that your constitutional rights, where the Constitution is the most important document in this country, those rights cannot be taken away from you by a Commission who has got a certain mandate and who has, to quote my learned friend, on a fact-finding exercise. And more so, I think what we have done, Chairperson, we have tried to set out to you why we believe that the constitutional rights... potentially, is either not the truth or unlawfully obtained”
Mr Matlala's legal team stated that the issue preventing earlier affidavit submission was due to a plea agreement entered into involving their client and IDAC.
“...came in late, through a different legal representative with IDAC, the gentleman that has been named here was part of that, entered into some, to a 105A plea agreement.”
The State wished to continue with the plea agreement but the other side (representing Mr Matlala) opposed continuation, signaling the criminal procedure act treats it as if no plea negotiations happened.
“he asked the State, what is your contention? The State said, oh, we wish to continue. He asked us and we said, no, we assail from the agreement. What then happens in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act is that it is as if there was never any plea negotiations happen.”
The magistrate found the sentence not just and allowed parties to reconsider, due to very material and important issues not raised in the plea agreement that could have materially influenced the outcome.
“the magistrate then came back and found that the sentence was not just, and therefore gave all the parties time to go and reconsider. The issue that, that is when I got briefed to come back because there were very material and important issues that were not raised in the 105A that we believe would have materially influenced potentially the outcome of such an agreement.”
The legal team representing Mr Matlala was not involved in the plea negotiations and lacks the notes and documents related to those negotiations, thus they are not prepared to answer questions about them yet.
“we were not involved in those negotiations. We know what transpired and under what circumstances in those negotiations. ... my attorney and my self made the decision that we are not prepared to deal with any of these questions until such time as we are provided with the notes as to what transpired during these negotiations, as well as potentially any other documents that were drafted and signed ... We want to come here as officers of the court properly advising our client that these are questions that you have to answer, you are compelled to answer them. You cannot, let us say, invoke section 35 right ... we still cannot give you an answer ... because we still do not have that.”
There is a penalty of perjury for making untruthful statements, and potential previous inconsistent statements can be raised against Mr Matlala during the Commission hearing.
“there is also the penalty of perjury and of course, there is a previous inconsistent statement that can be raised at any stage.”
There are issues that Mr Matlala can deal with before the Commission despite the application saying the Commission process must be postponed pending finalization of the criminal process.
“the applications says the entire Commission process must be postponed pending finalization of the criminal process ... you have responded and said, no , no , no , there are. So there are issues that he can deal with before this Commission.”
Mr Matlala's legal team denies that he is the mastermind behind the issues before the commission and says there is a fallacy in that implication.
“The fact of the matter is that my client has been made out to be this mastermind by everybody and we respectfully, from our interaction, say that there is a fallacy in that.”
A person can be identified as a suspect through plea negotiations but not named in the plea deal and still appear in Regulation 10.6 proceedings, affecting how the legal team must deal with such a suspect.
“Let us say you are a suspect that you connived with General X to do A, B, and C. General X does not appear, for instance, in the plea deal. It is discussed there, there is questions made, there is recordings made, but General X appeared in the Regulation 10.6. Now, for me to deal with whether he is a suspect or not... I need to know what was discussed during the plea negotiations...”
During the plea deal, there are negotiations beyond the wording of the deal involving investigators, the client and attorneys where information, names, and potential suspicions come up.
“During a plea deal, there is much more than the simple wording in the plea deal that takes place. There is other negotiations that happens between the investigators, the client, and the attorney and during those investigations, there is names that come up, there is information given, etcetera and during that negotiations...”
The legal team needs to understand who is involved in the plea negotiations and what was agreed before they can allow Mr Matlala to deal with issues related to 'General X' as a suspect.
“for me to deal with whether he is a suspect or not in respect of anything to do with General X, I need to know what was discussed during the plea negotiations...”
CHAIRPERSON says they are not interested in the specifics of plea deal issues falling under section 35, but only on the broader issues which are not in question and can be dealt with by the Commission.
“I am not interested in the nitty gritty of what falls under the section 35 bucket. I am looking at the broader question of, on those issues on which there is no question whatsoever, which can be dealt with by this Commission...”
ADV VANDENHEEVER submits that they can only form common cause with the client saying they do not know persons A, B, C, D, and E on the list in Regulation 10.6, the rest of the issues cannot be dealt with at the stage without further information.
“the only thing is that my client can answer... that we say that we form common cause on is who he does not know on the list of the 10.6. The rest of the issues, if I may please... The rest of the issues, I cannot say to you, I am prepared to answer this because I do not know if I can.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER highlights the importance of knowing what the client can answer before allowing the client to testify in the Commission to ensure truthful evidence based on facts.
“I am trying to ensure that my client comes to this Commission and gives evidence to you that is to your benefit, i.e. the work of the Commission, and not for him to answer things that...”
ADV VANDENHEEVER states the concern that their client might sit and say they do not know various persons on oath, and that legal officers cannot allow a client to testify without knowing what they are saying is right.
“That is the only issue that we can form common cause on that he can, at this point, answer... We are trying to come to the Commission and answer what we can. The problem is... I can only do so if I know what he can answer is shown to me in black and white... I will not perform my duty as an officer of the court if I allow that...”
ADV VANDENHEEVER explains they have made common cause on issues that their client can answer and that the client does not know certain persons listed in Regulation 10.6, but they cannot address other issues until shown what can be answered in black and white.
“the only thing that is, that he can say to you at this point, I do not know A, B, C, D, and E. The rest of the issues, we cannot deal with.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER states it would not be desirable to have a piecemeal hearing, yet also clarifies the client may have to confirm not knowing certain persons under oath.
“the only part of the Regulation 10.6 that we are ad idem with each other... the only thing that is, that he can say to you at this point, I do not know these people... The rest of the issues, again, I want to emphasize, we want to cooperate.”
CHAIRPERSON states that facts cannot change depending on the outcome of a plea deal, facts remain facts.
“Just to finalize, the facts could not be this or that, depending on the outcome of the plea deal. The facts are facts.”
General Mkhwanazi was forced unlawfully and unconstitutionally to answer questions without access to a lawyer and was questioned over 6 hours without food, which influences the facts he gave that cannot be relied upon.
“General Mkhwanazi ... was forced unlawfully and unconstitutionally to answer questions ... was questioned for over 6 hours without food”
Mr Matlala cannot currently respond properly to questions because he has not had access to the negotiations and documents related to the plea deal approved by the court.
“you want access to the negotiations and the documents ... and you say because you have not had access to that, you are unable to get Mr Matlala to respond to the notice that he has been given”
The facts relied upon by General Mkhwanazi were unlawfully obtained and thus should not be accepted without challenge.
“the facts that your rely on, General Mkhwanazi, for instance, says, are not lawfully obtained facts”
The plea deal process that ADV BALOYI SC refers to has concluded and has been declared null and void by law, so it never happened for all intents and purposes.
“that process has concluded, has been declared in accordance with the law to be null and void. So for all intents and purposes, it never happened”
The plea agreement process to finalize the 105A involves a quid pro quo and the details of what was exchanged need to be known.
“That process to come to a finalization of a 105 A involves a quid pro quo, and I need to see what the quid pro quo was”
Mr Matlala is entitled to say he does not know something if he does not know, and should respond truthfully to specific questions asked for the statement he is to submit.
“he is entitled to say, I do not know anything about this ... and the assumption that we must make is he is going to be truthful in his responses”
In the plea negotiations, specific information such as names, admissions, or evidence that falls outside the plea agreement may have been requested as part of the quid pro quo, and understanding what transpired in these negotiations is highly relevant.
“In order for them to offer this deal, ... we want information on A, B, C, and D ... A, B, C, and D is not part of the plea agreement, that is the deal ... if there is a Section 04 affidavit ... I want to see that ... what transpired during this plea negotiations ... it is recorded”
ADV VandenHeever emphasizes that names, admissions, or evidence could have been disclosed in the negotiations and he cannot address these issues without knowing what happened.
“names could have been mentioned, admissions could have been made, evidence ... disclosed ... I cannot deal with it if I do not see what happened”
ADV VandenHeever does not trust the 105A process and is concerned about the process that was followed afterward.
“I was not going to be involved in it, because I did not trust it ... that is the 105A process, and subsequently, I am even more concerned about the process that was followed”
The negotiation process referred to is irrelevant to the Commission and should not be referenced as it is null and void.
“that negotiating process has nothing to do with us. It is completely irrelevant for purposes of the Commission... as matters stand, is null and void... we could never make any reference whatsoever to what happened in that process.”
Mr Matlala has been asked questions within his personal knowledge and can choose to answer or say he knows nothing.
“he has been asked questions that are within, presumably within his personal knowledge and he can give you instructions about those... he can say I know nothing and he will come and tell us that.”
Mr Matlala is invoking the privilege against self-incrimination and refuses to answer questions to avoid incriminating himself as he has a trial coming up.
“Mr Matlala has the privilege to claim self-incrimination, I will not answer this question because it will incriminate me, I have a trial coming up.”
Mr Matlala refuses to submit a statement to the Commission, and the reasons for this refusal have not been communicated.
“what you should be saying to us is Mr Matlala refuses to submit a statement to the Commission because of A, B, C, D, then we deal with it on that basis.”
The refusal to answer questions is presented as needing explanation beyond mere self-incrimination claim, which has not been provided.
“You have not said or explained why Mr Matlala cannot submit his statement or answer the questions...”
The Commission is asking if anyone has tried to influence or intimidate Mr Matlala, which is relevant to its work.
“there is a specific question that says, has any person tried to influence you, intimidate you, etcetera. Now, you cannot say to me that that is not relevant to the Commission's work.”
If Mr Matlala answers yes to being intimidated or influenced, the Commission can follow up for details when he presents evidence.
“If he says yes, someone has tried to intimidate me, the Commission may well follow up when he presents evidence and say, give us the detail of that intimidation...”
Mr Matlala's counsel insists that advising a client not to answer questions to avoid self-incrimination is their ethical obligation, and they must ensure the affidavit they submit is correct.
“I advise my client, that is my duty... I do not know a single attorney or advocate that will allow their client to depose to an affidavit if they are not satisfied that what is in that affidavit is correct...”
Mr Matlala's counsel wants him to assist the Commission but only when he is satisfied with the correctness of the materials and without fear of perjury accusations due to inconsistent statements.
“I want my client to come and assist the Commission, but I want him at the end of the day to do so free of anybody coming and saying you are committing perjury because you have got something to the contrary...”
The counsel clarifies that the refusal to submit a statement or testify is not contingent solely on receiving material from IDAC, but involves other considerations.
“My position is not, it does not only relate to IDAC...”
The Commission is in possession of recordings disclosed only to Mr Matlala and his counsel.
“The Commission is in possession of recordings that was only disclosed to us...”
Mr Matlala cannot depose a statement or testify until the IDAC material is received and considered by his legal team.
“until you have received the IDAC material that led to the now collapsed plea deal, Mr Matlala will not be in a position to file a statement to the Commission, and Mr Matlala is not in a position to testify before the Commission”
ADV VANDENHEEVER states he is ethically bound to act in a manner that delays filing a statement until IDAC material is received, but believes the statement can be filed relatively quickly once the material is obtained.
“Chairperson, of course that is my position at this point in time, because I am ethically bound to act in that manner. ... I truly believe we can get the information relatively quickly.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER confirms the position that until IDAC material is received and considered, Mr Matlala will not file a statement or testify.
“...is the position that until you have received and considered, as his Counsel, or his legal team, until you have received and considered the IDAC material, Mr Matlala will not file a statement and he will not testify.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER states he is protecting his client's rights by adhering to the decision not to file or testify before receiving IDAC material.
“Part of what I am doing here is to protect my client's rights, I stand by that.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER has instructions to file a statement as soon as possible, even without the IDAC material.
“My instructions are that we will file a statement as soon as possible.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER confirms his instruction to file a statement even if the IDAC material is not yet received.
“That is my instructions at this point.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER expects the statement can be filed within two weeks, assuming recordings referenced by witnesses in the Commission are received.
“We think we can do it in two weeks. ... that we get the recordings that has been referred to and relied on by certain witnesses in the Commission.”
ADV VANDENHEEVER did not have access to important recordings until recently, which delayed their ability to act and get instructions.
“With the recordings that was not given to us, and which is quite important. ... we have got limited access to the client. I personally had to phone the head of C-Max to ask... And he is not even finished listening to the recording. So it has also impeded quite a bit of the issues.”
During the unfolding of process 105, ADV VANDENHEEVER and his client had no involvement and could not get instructions because others were dealing with it.
“Whilst this process of the 105 was unfolding, we were not part of it. We could not get instructions on it because somebody else was dealing with it.”
Mr Matlala's legal representatives did not indicate any changes in facts that would make it impossible to comply with the undertaking made on 7 July, indicating the undertaking should still hold.
“Mr Matlala's legal representatives were informed by certain facts to conclude that they are in a position to make certain undertakings on his behalf. They do not come here and say, those facts have changed. They do not come here and say, since the undertaking was made, new facts have come to light that make it impossible for us to comply.”
An undertaking was made on 7 July involving filing by 8 July and appearing on 15 July, which should be respected by witnesses to avoid wasting the Commission's time.
“an undertaking was made . So if those facts were not relevant prior to the 7th, and the very facts, notwithstanding the very facts they were able to make specific undertakings, which included filing by the 8th of July and appearing on the 15th”
The reserved right to supplement a filing after a deadline was a procedural accommodation to deal with tight timelines and missed deadlines.
“that proviso was discussed amongst ourselves because of the tight timeline they then had to file by, having missed previous deadlines. The only way to cure any potential prejudice to Mr Matlala was to agree and place on record that he reserves the right to supplement.”
Mr Matlala's constitutional rights as posited by Ms Vanden Heever are irrelevant to the Commission's enquiry as those rights existed on 7 July when the undertaking was made and do not advance the issue further.
“what the legal position is regarding Mr Matlala's constitutional rights, as posited by my learned friend, is irrelevant for our purposes. She may very well be correct, she may very well be wrong, but it does not advance the issue any further. Those rights existed on the 7th when she made the undertaking, unless she suggests that they have since or very recently been earned.”
The Commission's interest is confined to the issues raised in the Rule 3 notice and subsequent Regulation 10.6 notice served on Mr Matlala, not any aborted or stillborn plea agreement with IDAC.
“the aborted or stillborn plea agreement with IDAC, at the risk of stating the obvious, that has got absolutely nothing to do with this Commission. What this Commission is interested in is its terms of reference. It is interested in the issues that were raised in the rule 3 notice that was served on Mr Matlala, as well as the subsequent regulation 10.6 notice.”
The Commission is concerned that the approach by Mr Matlala's representatives is unappreciative of the operational challenges the Commission faces, particularly the impact on scheduling and limited time remaining.
“I am concerned about the approach being adopted by Mr Matlala's representatives and I do not think it is particularly appreciative of the challenges that the Commission faces. ... This Commission has got a limited time spent left to it.”
Witnesses must comply with rulings given by the Commission and adhere to undertakings or appearances on directed dates; otherwise, it hinders the Commission's work due to tight scheduling and limited time.
“Either witnesses respect the rulings given by the Commission and adhere to those rulings and file, or either appear on the dates that have been either directed by the Commissioners or on which they have made undertakings, because otherwise, it makes the work of the Commission impossible.”
Not everything Mr Matlala could say is covered by section 35 constitutional protection, as accepted by Ms Vanden Heever.
“And as I put it to Ms Vanden Heever, it cannot be that everything he could ever say is covered by section 35. Or bears relevance to the section 35 protection. It can never be, and Ms Vanden Heever accepted that.”
Facts should not change according to what happened under a plea deal and the Commission should not be hamstrung by any plea deals Mr Matlala may conclude in criminal trials.
“And facts are facts, and they should not change in accordance with whatever it was that went on under the plea deal. But as Commissioner Baloyi said, that is null and void anyway. In any event. And once again, it depends on whether I understood her correctly, it gets worse, because now it sounds like the Commission shall be hamstrung by any plea deal that Mr Matlala may choose in any criminal trial, whether ongoing or in the future, to conclude. So effectively, if Mr Matlala were to tomorrow face five charges in five different criminal trials, and he considers whether or not to conclude a plea deal in any one of them, then this Commission is hamstrung, unless I completely misunderstood Ms Vanden Heever.”
There is a conditional offer to file a statement in two weeks dependent on receiving requested information from IDAC to answer questions posed.
“However, the offer, if I understand it correctly, sounds to be conditional, and this is what the condition is. It is dependent on whether or not they get the requested information from either IDAC to enable them to answer the questions posed.”
Mr Matlala has two legal defenses in the Commission: section 35 defense and protection under section 8(2) of the Commission's Act preventing self-incrimination in criminal cases.
“He has two defences in this Commission, the section 35 defence, or buttressed, in fact, by section 8 (2) of the Commission's Act, that anything he says that would incriminate him cannot be used against him in any criminal case.”
Adv Sello SC accepts the offer to file a statement in two weeks if it is wholly unconditional by a specified date.
“If it is wholly unconditional by a specified date, then I am happy, because my concern was that if they do not get the required information from IDAC, or IDAC just outright refuses, then they would be entitled in law to approach a court to compel IDAC to provide such information if they have a basis in law to do so, and if that case is unfavorable to them, there are appeal proceedings. So the question would be, do we await that information and the challenge to, right to that information to run its course until the Constitutional Court before we get a statement? But I will accept what Commissioner Baloyi says, she says the filing in two weeks is unconditional. If that is the case, then we just need to set a date, and if the statement is not filed, we shall be back before you, Chair, and I suggest that the consequences will follow.”
ADV Vanden Heever denies going back to the issue of the plea deal and claims having experience to demonstrate its importance later.
“I am not going to go back to the issues of the plea deal. I stand, I have got experience in that regard, and I know it is important and at some point in time, I will demonstrate to you what the importance of that is.”
Adv Vanden Heever claims that subsequent to 7 July, there were court proceedings on 13 July and recordings disclosed on 8 July, disputing a claim that nothing happened after 7 July.
“The second thing, my learned friends says that subsequent to the date of the 7th, nothing happened. The affidavits sets out quite clearly what happened subsequent to the 7th. The 13th we were back in court. There is also the issue on the 8th, the recordings were disclosed, and what happened there. So my learned friend's not correct when she says there is nothing.”
Adv Vanden Heever states that before 7 July, they requested recordings and were given 7 or 13 voice files, but claim some were cherry-picked and incomplete recordings requested.
“We wanted, so we asked, we said that there must be certain recordings. We were then given 7, no, 13 voice files. We then said, it is clear somebody went and extracted, like, cherry-picked and given us 7 voice files. We now want the complete recordings from which these were extracted.”
ADV Vanden Heever requests the Commission to facilitate weekend access to the client with electronic devices so the client can review evidence files efficiently.
“I am going to ask you and the Commissioners to consider the following. I am going to ask that we be assisted and that an order is made that we get access to the client over weekends with electronic devices, in other words, with the computers, to assist us in dealing with all of these things. It is very difficult if we cannot do that.”
Adv Vanden Heever alleges one recording was not given to them and they were only provided with an unofficial transcript to listen to and verify recordings themselves.
“There is, in fact, a third recording that was not given to us. Then we were handed over, I discussed it with my learner friend, and she made some enquiries. We were given a transcript, an unofficial transcript of the one. So, and these are long. They are over, the one is 6 hours, and the other together is longer than that. So, and the client must sit and listen to it because he needs to ensure himself. So that process was not even concluded.”
Adv Vanden Heever claims the defense team had consultations before an upcoming trial and had access to disclosed dockets to prepare a plea.
“We have had consultations long before. It is actually a much simpler matter than anybody has made it out to be and that is why, for that, it was easy. We have given the client the dockets that was disclosed. And when we had opportunities, we have discussed with him our defence, our plea, so that was, and we had one or two person-to-person meetings that was allowed by the Head of the unit where he is.”
The recordings served with Rule 3 notices were not random extracts but 13 recordings played during witnesses' testimonies, provided on 18 June, and further full recordings provided on 8 July after a ruling.
“The recordings that were provided were recordings that were played in this Commission during the testimonies of witnesses. As we do when we provide our Rule 3's, we provide the evidence that implicates the particular witness who is served with the Rule 3. Those are the 13 recordings that were played in here. They were not random.”
Mr Carrim was unable to appear due to hospital admission on 7 June but had no valid excuse for not responding to Regulation 10.6 notices regarding his companies' auditors and financial statements.
“He is not here today and we received a doctor's note yesterday that refers to his admission to hospital on the 7th of June... We are still waiting for Mr Carrim to tell us, for example, who the auditors of his companies are... there is nothing in the doctor's note that suggests his health conditions are of such an order that he has been unable to do that for two months... we are still waiting for Mr Carrim to furnish audited or even unaudited financial statements for three of his companies, Ziggy, Tasmica and Tameez...”
Mr Carrim did not provide financial documents despite undertakings, and whistleblower reports confirm he was seen out for lunch in Western Cape despite hospital admission claims.
“Mr Carrim... did not provide any of the documents we sought in that notice... after we received the doctor's note... we received two different whistle-blower reports, both confirming that Mr Carrim and an entourage had been seen yesterday going out for lunch at a shopping centre in the Western Cape.”
Mr Carrim is the ANC Treasurer in the North West region, where his companies have been paid hundreds of millions of rands by provincial and municipal government entities.
“companies in this group... have been paid hundreds of millions of rands from the North West Provincial Government and North West municipalities in the region of which he is the ANC Treasurer.”
CCTV footage of the shopping centre has been subpoenaed and is expected to be received and analyzed by midday tomorrow.
“We have subpoenaed CCTV footage from the shopping centre and we expect to have it received and we expect to have it thoroughly analysed by midday tomorrow”
There is a concern that Mr Carrim may be taking liberties with the Commission, amplified by whistleblower reports that he has been seen at social gatherings in the North West despite his ostensible incapacity.
“we have a concern that Mr Carrim may be taking liberties with this Commission ... this concern is amplified by other whistle-blower reports that we have received indicating that Mr Carrim has been seen at social gatherings in the North West over his period of ostensible incapacity”
Subpoenas will be issued today to hospitals where Mr Carrim has been receiving treatment to establish admission and discharge dates, and to his doctor in Cape Town to establish dates of medical consultations.
“we are going to issue a subpoena later today to the hospitals at which he has been receiving treatment, to establish when he was admitted and when he was discharged ... also going to be issuing a subpoena to his doctor, who is based in Cape Town, to establish the dates on which he has seen Mr Carrim”
Eyewitnesses at a shopping centre have independently confirmed seeing Mr Carrim arriving with an entourage and visiting Woolworths before going to have lunch at a restaurant there.
“they have now been confirmed by eyewitnesses at that shopping centre who we have independently contacted ... that someone who seemed very much to be Mr Carrim arrived at the shopping centre with an entourage, went into Woolworths before going off to have a late lunch at a restaurant in the shopping centre”
A formal postponement application regarding Mr Carrim's appearance is expected to be considered on Friday morning or lunchtime, with conditions for the application to address his hospital admissions, medical consultations, travel movements, social engagements, and business management over the last four months.
“The evidence leaders will reply to that postponement application by 6 p.m. tomorrow ... It could be heard by Friday morning at 9.30 ... if ... more time ... respond by 10.00 on Friday ... heard on Friday afternoon, not Friday morning ... What we do expect the postponement application to address is at least the following issues: The dates on which Mr Carrim has been admitted to hospital over the last four months ... The dates on which he is attended medical consultations over the last four months ... His travel movements over that period ... Whether he is attended social engagements over that period ... Whether he is played any role in the management of his businesses over that period ...”
Mr Chaska requests information on how Mr Carrim traveled from the North West to the Western Cape, including booking flights, and notes that if Mr Carrim can instruct others to book flights, he can also instruct others to give the names of accountants.
“I am interested to know how he travelled from the North West to the Western Cape. Did he book flights? Did he fly there? Because if he can give instructions to people to book flights to him, surely he can give instructions to people to give you the names of accountants.”
Mr Premhid refers to a confidential medical report concerning Mr Carrim and points out that the learned friend’s contention about inability to explain attendance is contradicted by medical evidence from an expert in a specific medical field.
“I am going to refer you to the confidential medical report ... When you read paragraph 1 of that report, that will deal with my learned friend's contention that there is an inability to explain attendance ... that is contradicted by the medical evidence of an expert in a particular field of medicine”
Mr Premhid states Mr Carrim suffered a medical incident on 13 April and has been under medical treatment since, which impacts his ability to give undertakings in the Commission.
“On the 13th of April suffered the medical incident, and ... he has been in medical treatments since then, and so his ability ... must be construed having regard ... to that second paragraph”
Mr Premhid emphasizes that he does not question Mr Carrim's ability to rely on allegations to raise questions about his position before the Commission and submits respectfully.
“I do not for one minute question my learned friend's ability to rely on those allegations to raise a question about Mr Carrim's position in front of you, we would respectfully submit”
Mr Premhid acknowledges whistleblower reports about social gatherings involving Mr Carrim were known before but that they are only learning about the facts in open proceedings today, which he places on record.
“these social gatherings were known about before, and it is the first time we are learning about these things today, and I must place this on record”
Mr Premhid asserts that the claim of hundreds of millions of rands of unlawful business dealings with the state is unproven and states that any business dealings may be lawful and are not established here or elsewhere.
“until such time that a Court orders otherwise, that there was unlawful business dealings with the state to the tune of those hundreds of millions of rands ... that there is business that may or may not be done to the tune of hundreds of millions of rands is neither here nor there”
It is regrettable that they are learning about a formal postponement application concerning Mr Carrim's absence, due to him being in hospital, in an open proceeding rather than earlier.
“It is unfortunate we are learning about this in an open proceeding ... given that the client is not here because he is presently in the hospital”
There is not agreement on whether Mr Carrim has provided CCTV footage he already has in his possession showing vehicles transporting him yesterday, but the license vehicle registration details have been provided.
“I do not think we are in agreement on that ... my learned friend very kindly has given me the licence vehicle registration of the vehicles that were apparently transporting my client or not transporting my client yesterday”
Mr Premhid is concerned that the postponement application and allegations about his client's movements are being used to undermine unchallenged medical evidence.
“I am now concerned that we are inadvertently using the postponement application and the allegations regarding the movements of my client or otherwise, as a mechanism through the back door to undermine the otherwise unimpugned medical evidence in front of you”
The Chairperson is addressing the impropriety regarding how Mr Carrim came to know about certain information, which is separate from how Mr Carrim deals with that information.
“the impropriety that you suggest with regard to how you came to know, is what I am addressing. That has nothing to do with how Mr Carrim then deals with the information”
Mr Premhid contends that serious accusations require formal written notice rather than informal verbal communication between colleagues.
“formally in writing because these are very serious accusations and I understand that my learned friend is under his collegial obligation to give me notice that he was going to raise it today at the hearing, but he could have perhaps, we could have reached some or other arrangement about being informed about this formally and then given an opportunity to respond”
Mr Carrim's application for postponement should directly address new information related to his medical certificates and attendance and explain why he cannot provide or facilitate the information requested by the Commission.
“when you apply for the postponement, why is it ... that he should not, in the application for a postponement, deal with those? If he says, I was never out of town, I was never at this alleged food outlet, and therefore my medical certificate stands ... I do not see what the hurdle is in Mr Carrim dealing with new information on that basis”
Mr Carrim has not provided information requested some time ago on the basis that he is not well, but new developments suggest he is going about his life, raising questions about his notability and ability to provide information or instructions to the Commission.
“Mr Carrim has not provided it on the basis that he is not well. Now, these developments ... suggest that Mr Carrim is going on about his life. That raises the question ... how can it be that he is notable, either himself to furnish that information, or to do so through others, and he is afforded an opportunity to respond ... and to move the application on Friday”
Mr Premhid placed manner and form no higher than a concern rather than an ambush or claims of trial prejudice and fair trial rights.
“I placed manner and form no higher than a concern , rather than using that favourite A word of ambush , and also claiming trial prejudice and fair trial rights .”
If Mr Carrim can continue managing his businesses remotely from his sick bed, he should also be able to provide the external information when requested, but he has not done so for months.
“if he can keep his businesses ticking over remotely from his sick bed , he can also issue an instruction that the information that exists external to him can be made available to us . And he has not done that for months now .”
The Commission will arrange an independent psychiatric or other medical examination for Mr Carrim to investigate his medical conditions and provide a report.
“If Mr Carrim wants to make himself available for our own independent psychiatric or other medical examination, we will do that. We will do that and we will arrange that an appropriate specialist, dealing with whatever medical conditions he has... are investigated and a report is furnished.”
Mr Carrim has not made a formal postponement application but is proceeding on an assumption that he can have a postponement.
“Mr Carrim comes here asking for a postponement without making a postponement application. We have information that makes us concerned about the bona fides of his claim to a postponement application.”
There is a suggestion that Mr Carrim should make himself available for an independent medical examination, but it was said that the commission does not have the power to compel this.
“there was a suggestion on the table that Mr Carrim should make himself available for independent medical examination and we were told , oh no , you do not have the power to do that . You are not a High Court with powers under the rules . You cannot do that . He will not make himself available without your , you know , and you do not have the power to do that .”
There is a substantial business group carrying on apparently in the absence of Mr Carrim.
“there is a very substantial business group that is carrying on in the apparent absence of Mr Carrim .”
Mr Carrim has not provided details such as financial statements and auditor identities for three of his companies, despite repeated requests.
“we cannot get , through a simple request from Mr Carrim , details like financial statements of three of those companies in the group , the identity of the auditor of three of those companies who we still have not been able to ascertain from repeated requests to Mr Carrim .”
Postponement application scheduling is suggested for a Friday to avoid interfering with scheduled evidence, noting previous days were lost due to postponements.
“In relation to the timetable, we have suggested Friday because we have had a succession of witnesses this week who were scheduled who have not appeared and who are not appearing. So scheduling this postponement application on Friday will no longer interfere with evidence time that we have scheduled.”
The Commission is willing to tailor any camera process tightly to address privacy concerns raised in connection to Mr Carrim’s matter.
“If there are legitimate concerns in relation to privacy, we are happy to accommodate them, but whatever happens in that regard needs to be tailored very tightly, so that any in camera process is confined to that which is necessary to address the privacy concern.”
Mr Chaskalson clarified that the medical certificate has been subject to doubt and the suggestion is for Mr Carrim to undergo an independent examination.
“Mr Chaskalson to simply be making the point that you are not correct to say this medical certificate has no doubt cast on it and all he was saying was we have said he should go for an independent examination...”
Mr Premhid clarifies that there is no inconsistency between wanting an independent examination and subpoenaing a doctor; both options are open to the Commission.
“My client placed on record that the power of independent examination is open to serious doubt... I used the phrase, there are less intrusive means that are available to the Commission, if there is a doubt about the medical evidence and the subpoenaing of the doctor is one such option. So there is no inconsistency between what I have said to you today and what I have said to you previously...”
Mr Chaskalson's team seeks information about Mr Carrim's hospital admissions, medical consultations, travel, social engagements, and business management over the last four months, including travel to Cape Town possibly for hospitalisation.
“What we were asking for was the dates on which Mr Carrim has been admitted to hospital over the last four months. The dates on which Mr Carrim has attended medical consultations... His travel movements... How he travelled to Cape Town... Whether Mr Carrim has attended social engagements... Whether he has played a role in the management of his business...”
Commissioner Khumalo is concerned about the specifics of Mr Carrim's travel from the North West to Cape Town and requests detail on flight bookings and travel arrangements.
“In his presentation, Mr Chaskalson said they have information that he has been travelling from the North West... So unless he drove to Cape Town, I am assuming he would have flown from either OR Tambo or the other airport... If you can give instructions to anybody to book flights for you, then you can give instructions to those who are running the business to provide the detail the Commission is looking for.”
Adv Baloyi SC advises broadening the inquiry from Mr Carrim's business management to business affairs to avoid confusion with purely operational management.
“Mr Chaskalson, you have narrowed down his activities, business activities, to management. Can I suggest that it be in the business affairs and not narrow it down to management, because management would suggest, could easily be interpreted as being purely operational.”
Mr Premhid flagged that there will be an in camera request coming and it would need to be considered how to argue it balancing interests in front of the Chairperson at the Friday hearing.
“I have already flagged the fact that there is going to be a request for in camera ... how it is going to be argued in front of you in a way that balances”
There is media speculation risk regarding Mr Carrim's medical condition pending the Friday hearing.
“this Commission issues a ruling essentially stopping speculation about Mr Carrim's medical condition ... there is a risk coming out of today's hearing, there may be wild speculation in the media”
The application papers for the postponement must be served and filed on or before 20:00 on Thursday 16 July 2026.
“The application will be served and filed on or before 20:00 on Thursday 2026”
There will be a postponement application hearing scheduled for Friday 17 July 2026.
“the postponement application is set down for hearing at 14:00 on Friday, 17 July 2026”
The answering affidavit for the application must be served and filed on or before 11:00 on Friday 17 July 2026.
“The answering affidavit will be served and filed on or before 11:00 on Friday, 17 July 2026”
The replying affidavit will be served and filed on or before 13:00 on Friday 17 July 2026.
“The replying affidavit will be served on or before 13:00 on Friday, 17 July 2026”
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”
There are four dockets, with docket four concerning General Khumalo and related criminal charges, and this docket is still under investigation but no further investigations are ongoing and the accused have been disclosed everything to prepare for trial.
“This current docket is the one, the charges for which General Khumalo and other members of the panel were arrested, have appeared in court, are on bail. And we confirmed that there are no further investigations in that matter. The docket in its entirety has been fully disclosed to the accused to prepare for the criminal trial.”
The Chairperson referred to a subjudice point raised by IDAC about confidentiality, but decided that confidentiality rights will not be pursued for the particular docket under discussion.
“because that one is still under investigation, we should tread carefully... that they will not pursue the confidentiality rights insofar as this particular docket is concerned.”
There is a concern raised about documents related to the docket being made public when some accused individuals are still dealing with these documents in court.
“the concern, as I understand it, is the documents being made public... some people are still going to deal with them in court.”
Questions on the documents are allowed and accepted, but the concern is about the documents being publicly available and the impact that has for ongoing court matters.
“questions on the documents, it is something that he accepts has got to happen because otherwise we would be hindering this Commission from doing the very duties that it has to discharge. But his concern was, as indicated to me, the documents now being available out there in circumstances where some people are still going to deal with them in court.”
The Commission is addressing the difficulty of how to handle references to names in the documents when they are necessary for context but could raise confidentiality concerns.
“there is no undoing that. There is not a taking back, for instance, reference to a Mr Adams... how does it arise, because it is not a new document... how does the Commission deal with it?”
The document at issue has been engaged with at length by commissioners and counsel, and there was no previous concern about the categorization or handling of the document raised yesterday.
“My inclination is to rule that we continue as we did yesterday... It is a document that we engaged with at length, you, my co-Commissioners, and me. We dealt with the document at length. So I just do not follow what the concern should certainly be.”
This particular docket falls under a category of dockets where there is no issue or concern about confidentiality asserted, indicating no confidentiality claims for these documents.
“this particular docket does not fall or is not the one about which we were told yesterday. There must be caution in dealing with it. This document falls under the first category, which is those dockets will be dealt with as the Evidence Leader pleases... No issue, no concern about that category of dockets.”
There are varying views within the institution represented by lawyers regarding the treatment of documents, and despite the concerns, the position as presented on day one remains the same.
“The difficulty we have is were present an institution that has lawyers in it and there is obviously going to be varying views here and there, regardless of the counsel that one gives. But in so far as what we presented here on day one as to the treatment of the documents, we stand by that.”
There is no issue with the docket as confirmed by Mr Bodlani and agreed by the Chairperson to proceed on the basis of the docket.
“I called upon you to confirm and you did.”
There are no restrictions on what can be publicly extracted from the docket except as per the usual POPI Act, so documents can be dealt with publicly.
“There are no restrictions to what I can extract publicly from that docket ... There are no restrictions absolutely on this docket, except the usual POPI Act.”
The docket was agreed to be dealt with publicly during the hearing and there is no confidentiality attaching to it beyond normal privacy act provisions.
“...the hearings are public, anything that is ventilated in this room must be done so publicly... that is how I structured how I am dealing with the testimony of this witness... The witness seems to want to backpedal that and asserts some level of confidentiality without necessarily invoking Rule 10(4) in its entirety.”
The witness Colonel Padayachee has concerns about the docket being before court and the effects of documents becoming public but wants to cooperate and testify truthfully before the Commission.
“My concern was also... the docket is currently before Court... I do not want to come across like we want to hide anything... He is ready to testify and he is going to answer questions that are put to him on the docket.”
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.”
It is inappropriate for a witness to raise a legal issue during the hearing that should have been resolved with their legal representatives.
“We cannot be addressed by your legal representatives and by you on a legal question which should have been resolved between you and your legal representatives.”
Once documents become public and are flighted, they can be grabbed and used by anyone on platforms like social media, over which there is no control.
“Once they are public, they are flighted here, people can grab them and do with them whatever they will.”
There is an agreement that docket documents can be flighted publicly and dealt with publicly; confidentiality claims must be made explicitly otherwise it is understood they can be publicly shared.
“There has been agreement that they can be flighted publicly, they can be dealt with publicly. So, or you could have said, no, no, no, they should not be... I am claiming confidentiality for A, B, C, D reasons... That is not what happened.”
The witness is instructed to give instructions to their legal representatives; contradictory positions between the witness and their counsel about confidentiality are problematic.
“You give instructions to your legal representatives. Mr Bodlani has said there is no issue with this. You are suggesting that there is an issue.”
The docket in issue is with the accused and it is not known what he is doing with it or to whom he has revealed its contents.
“There is no dispute about the fact that the docket in issue is with the accused. Nobody knows what he is doing with it. Nobody knows to whom he has revealed whatever content is there.”
High-ranking police officials were involved in manipulating promotional and security vetting processes to unduly benefit a civilian person, potentially constituting criminal conduct.
“involvement of these high-ranking police officials in the manipulation of promotional and security vetting processes to unduly benefit a civilian person”
Highly skilled and qualified senior police officers who applied for a post were overlooked by management who favored Ms Mokwele over them.
“highly skilled and qualified senior police officers who applied for the post being overlooked by the CIM management who favoured Ms Mokwele over them”
The situation described in paragraph 2 points to potential criminal conduct despite appearances of an HR issue in paragraph 3.
“when we read 2 with 3 to conclude that there was criminal conduct that resulted in what at first blush might seem to be a purely HR issue”
The unlawful appointments and gratifications given in relation to appointments or employments amount to corruption under the Corrupt Activities Act.
“the giving of that appointment or employment and the receiving of that employment amounts to corruption in terms of the Corrupt Activities Act”
High-ranking police officials manipulated promotional and security vetting processes to unduly benefit a civilian with no prior policing or management experience, constituting a crime.
“allegations relate to certain high-ranking police officials being involved in manipulating promotional and security vetting process to unduly benefit a person, a civilian... It is a crime because she had no prior policing experience. It is a crime that she had no management experience”
Colonel Padayachee identifies that an allegation involves the appointment of an outsider, a person from outside Crime Intelligence with no policing or management experience, into a specialised Crime Intelligence environment, which raises 'small flags' and requires investigation.
“this is Crime Intelligence ... a specialised component ... appointing a civilian or a person from the outside Crime Intelligence ... highly specialised environment ... small flags that come to my notice”
Advocate Baloyi states that the appointment of someone from outside, by itself, is not a criminal offence, suggesting the irregularity is an allegation pending investigation, not yet legally set aside as unlawful.
“I am still trying to understand what is the crime ... are you saying it is a crime ... No ... just talking about the appointment as a whole ... unlawful appointment ... it has not been declared unlawfully yet ... it is an allegation initially”
Colonel Padayachee confirms that the appointment was advertised externally for outsiders to apply, thus the appointment was not limited internally to Crime Intelligence personnel only.
“that was advertised externally ... I confirm that the advert was an external advert”
The appointment of a person from an external company into Crime Intelligence is considered by the witness as an alleged irregular appointment.
“the unlawful appointment ... an alleged unlawful appointment of a person with no experience”
Advocate Baloyi clarifies that the affidavit does not suggest gratification as part of the unlawful appointment allegation.
“this affidavit does not say to you there is gratification ... the affidavit does not say it ... I would have been surprised if the deponent said that there is gratification”
The affidavit alleges irregularity and manipulation in the appointment process to benefit an outside person with no police or management experience.
“irregular appointment ... manipulated the processes in order to benefit an outside person ... appointed someone with no policing experience and no management experience”
A serious allegation was made concerning the appointment of a person with no experience and manipulation of processes, which is a starting point for further investigation.
“A person was appointed, processes were manipulated, the person had no experience.”
The affidavit in question seems to be a typical HR matter that the Public Service Commission would deal with, rather than a criminal investigation matter.
“That seems a typical HR matter that the Public Service Commission would deal with.”
The section 27 referral leads to investigations including warrants of arrest and court appearances, but the current allegations discussed about corruption in Crime Intelligence are not contained in the referenced affidavit.
“We are dealing with the section 27 referral, which results in you investigating a warrant of arrest... but the genesis of it is what we are discussing now... the other allegations about corruption in Crime Intelligence... they are not contained in this affidavit.”
The investigator takes a holistic approach to a package of allegations including vetting issues, security clearance problems, and vetting manipulation, not just the single appointment matter.
“It was a whole lot of allegations on different vetting issues, security clearance, vetting manipulators, so it is a whole lot of different allegations that stay... a package of alleged corruption and Crime Intelligence.”
There is no single affidavit by Mr Adams; there are multiple affidavits and dockets.
“There is not one Mr Adams affidavit. There are a few. There is not one docket, there are a few dockets.”
Only the appointment allegation comes from the referenced affidavit; other affidavits single out other offences.
“The only thing that comes from this affidavit is the appointment... but other affidavits single out the other offences.”
Chief Perumal assembled the investigators, briefed them on allegations relating to Crime Intelligence, and provided guidance which started the whole investigation.
“Chief Perumal assembled us as investigators... that was the briefing from him which started the whole investigation and the guidance from him.”
The witness had not seen the section 27 affidavit until recently and stands by his previous statement that he did not see it before.
“I did not see the section 27... I stand by what I said yesterday.”
Investigations related to these allegations started with retrieving dockets and subpoenas and identifying witnesses.
“There are dockets that were opened in Cape Town, there were dockets opened here. These dockets are with the inspectorate. So the first was to retrieve the dockets... and where we identify witnesses, we start from there.”
The affidavit signed by Colonel Padayachee on 24 June 2025 includes a draft chargesheet alleging corruption, defeating or obstructing the administration of justice, and perjury against General Khumalo and others.
“The attached draft chargesheet outlines the acts committed by each of the seven suspects in a very comprehensive way, which includes charges of corruption, defeating or obstructing the administration of justice and perjury.”
The chargesheet relies extensively on the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA) sections defining gratification, corruption, and related offenses.
“Your rely extensively on PRECCA, the Act, and you actually unpack the provisions of PRECCA at page 2427... And you quote the provisions of section 3. At 2430, the provisions of section 4. And at 2432, the provisions of 26(1). So those are the sections that you rely onto culminate in the chargesheet at 2433, which charges against the seven are more or less similar...”
The accused number 7 is a civilian employee, charged differently under PRECCA compared to accused 1 to 6 who are charged with contravening section (a) of PRECCA with related sections.
“...except for accused number 7, who is the employee, the civilian. But in respect of the others, accused 1 to 6, most of them, if not all, are accused of contravening the provisions of section (a) of PRECCA...”
Offering someone an offer of employment does not by itself constitute gratification.
“Gratification cannot be an offer of employment.”
Employment contracts fall under the definition of gratification in the PRECCA Act for purposes of charging corruption offenses.
“Gratification in the definition of gratification under PRECCA, employment, contract of employment falls within the definition of gratification in the Prevention of Corrupt Activities Act.”
The gratification definition under PRECCA includes money, gifts, employment, contracts of employment, and other advantages as possible forms of gratification, relevant to the charges.
“PRECCA in section 1 defines gratification as: Including money, within cash or otherwise, any donation, gift, loan, fee, reward, valuable security, property or interest in property or any description, whether movable or immovable or any other similar advantage... Any office, status, honour, employment, contract of employment or service or any agreement to give employment or render services in any capacity and residential or holiday accommodation...”
Colonel Padayachee admitted there is evidence of illegal, dishonest, unauthorized, biased acts and abuse of position related to offering employment as gratification in the docket.
“Is there evidence of anyone acting personally or by influencing another person in a manner that amounts to the illegal, dishonest, unauthorised, biased acts that amounts to the abuse of position ?… Yes, Commissioner.”
Colonel Padayachee stated Mokwele received employment as gratification which was not due and that there was manipulation in the appointment process.
“The gratification that she received was the employment which was not due. The investigation and evidence that we looked at, we looked at the documents, we looked at the application and where we could clearly see that the applicant should have not been appointed. There was manipulation.”
The gratification given to Mokwele is understood to be returned at some future date due to the powerful post she was appointed to and under the authority of the panel chairperson.
“The giving back or return for the gratification does not have to be immediately. It can be at some other time. And given the situation that she is appointed in a very powerful post and the Chairperson of the PANEL who was the Commander of that whole section.”
The employment contract for Mokwele starting in November 2024 requires her to provide services to the South African Government, implying legitimate service rather than illegal acts in return for the gratification.
“In this case where your offer of employment and contract of employment says your job is to provide services the South African Government because we have the contract of employment here commencing 1 November 2024.”
Adv Khumalo argued that for acceptance of employment as gratification to be an offense, there must be an intention to influence someone to do something illegal or improper.
“The point there is that accepting for a moment that employment is gratification, you must be giving that in order to influence the other person to do something illegal.”
Colonel Padayachee agreed that the return for the gratification given to Mokwele might not be immediate but could be at a later stage given her powerful appointed position.
“What she is supposed to give back was not going to be immediately, but can be given at a later stage because of the position that she was appointed in.”
Adv Baloyi criticized the basis of the prosecution for arrest based on a charge that rests on uncertain future illegal conduct not yet demonstrated.
“That you have formulated a charge, you got a warrant of arrest, you got people arrested, you have people appearing in court and continue to do so on the basis of something that you say, and rightly so, fairly so, you say, well, we do not know, maybe in future she was going to do that. How does that for a seasoned investigator, how does that sound…”
Adv Khumalo highlighted the problematic timeline where alleged offence date is October 2024 but contract signed two months later in December 2024, posing challenges to the acceptance of gratification charge.
“My concern is that the date of the offence is listed in A1 in the supporting annexure as October 2024, but she signs the contract of employment in December 2024, so two months after the date of the offence.”
The Commission's role is to examine whether IDAC was influenced or acted improperly, not to determine guilt or innocence of individuals in the criminal case.
“We do not want to go into the merits of whether people are guilty or innocent of a crime. That is for the Court. What we are concerned with is what was IDAC's motive? Was IDAC doing these things because they were influenced by politicians, or there was some ulterior motive, or they were acting contrary to the NPAA Act?”
In an affidavit from June 2025, Colonel Padayachee acknowledged that the position was advertised externally, indicating that he knew of this at that time.
“I have read your affidavit, the same affidavit we are looking at from June 2025 and in that affidavit you say so, in so many ways that this position was advertised externally.”
Colonel Padayachee stated he only became aware of the advert after the relevant documents were subpoenaed and received around February/March 2025.
“I did not say that it is now, only get to know now. When the documents were subpoenaed and we got the documents, the whole appointment documents, the advert was there.”
The act suspected to be committed by the employee is the capture of Crime Intelligence, meaning placing people in positions to manipulate tenders and give out information unlawfully.
“When we look at the investigation of Crime Intelligence, and when we talk about capture, it is when the division, your people are placed in specific positions to do certain things... It could mean tenders, manipulating of tenders, it could be giving out information on operations that are there.”
Investigations revealed that the employee applied for the post, but lied and misrepresented herself during the process, which was known to the panel members.
“Investigations revealed that she lied, misrepresented herself on that. The panel were aware of it. Each of the panel members to themselves...”
After criminal investigation and arrest, General Lushaba was found guilty in a disciplinary process for negligent loss of property and defeating the ends of justice.
“Fast forward, investigation takes place. General Lushaba is charged for defeating the ends of justice... He is found guilty for the negligent loss of property... disciplinary case is opened, and he is found guilty.”
General Lushaba was initially not charged for the alleged breaking and theft of classified items due to inaction by General Khumalo, who failed to institute a board of inquiry or disciplinary steps.
“General Lushaba was supposed to be charged, but he was not. When General Khumalo took over... Khumalo putting documents for the loss of state property... A board of inquiry should have been instituted, and disciplinary steps should have been taken against Lushaba. General Khumalo did not do that. General Lushaba was not charged.”
The initial investigation that alleged General Lushaba was drugged was not properly conducted, and it was found upon further investigation that he was not drugged.
“When we looked further into the investigation, which they did not even look and probe at, we found that he was not drugged.”
The appointment of Ms Mokwele to the panel was fraudulent and involved gratification according to the documents and evidence collected.
“the appointment of Mokwele was clearly, one, fraud, and two, there was a gratification”
General Khumalo selected the panel that appointed Ms Mokwele and controlled the panel and manipulated the appointment process.
“My apologies, Commissioner. The panel was selected by General Khumalo. He selected the panel. The members on the panel, together with General Khumalo, it was very clear that they manipulated the process of appointing.”
The panel chaired by General Khumalo appointed Ms Mokwele through a manipulated appointment process and as part of a scheme to capture Crime Intelligence.
“It is that particular panel, chaired by General Khumalo, appointed by General Khumalo, chaired by General Khumalo, that appointed Ms Mokwele ... when you look at that, here is another appointee coming into Crime Intelligence ... appointed for a specific purpose ... from a capture point of view.”
General Khumalo holds a powerful position and could control or influence Ms Mokwele through his appointment of her.
“General Khumalo, you say that ... having appointed Ms Mokwele, that General Khumalo would have been able to control her or influence her.”
The panel that interviewed Ms Mokwele did in fact appoint her; it recommended her to the National Commissioner who eventually appointed her.
“That is the panel that appointed her.”
The appointment panel was selected by General Khumalo and this selection was approved by the National Commissioner's office.
“The panel selection is sent to the head office. The head office approved the panel that he selected.”
The HR department that deals with panel approvals resides within the National Commissioner's office.
“It goes to the HR department of the National Commissioner's office.”
The National HR Office is a national office for the whole country and resides in the National Commissioner's office.
“It is the national office, the national HR office for the whole country.”
Each province has its own Provincial Commissioner and provincial HR department.
“You have a Provincial Commissioner where the provincial HR department is also.”
The selected panel was chosen by General Khumalo and was sent for approval to the HR department of the National Commissioner's office.
“So you say the selected panel is selected by Khumalo, was sent for approval to that particular office?”
The approval of the panel complied with applicable prescripts and was granted by the HR department.
“It complies with it. Approval was granted.”
General Khumalo selected the panel himself and sent it to the HR department of head office for approval, which was then approved.
“When it was stated that it actually meant that Khumalo selected the panel himself. And it was sent up to the HR department of head office, which was approved.”
The head office has the power to approve or reject the panel selected by General Khumalo.
“Head office will receive it, they either approve it or turn it down.”
Once the head office receives the information note or correspondence from General Khumalo, they approve the panels.
“When they respond, they say your information note or your correspondence dated so and so, the panels are approved.”
Approval granted by the head office makes the panel an approved panel and recommendations given by General Khumalo are approved by head office.
“Well, if the panel is approved by head office, it is approved. It is an approved panel. So that means the recommendations given by Khumalo is approved by head office.”