Witness: Adv Andrea Johnson. Evidence Leader: Adv M Sello SC.
Loading transcript text…
General Masemola faces four charges based on the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA).
“that stemmed from a question put to you by Commissioner Baloyi and that question concerned the four counts that General Masemola is charged with, all of which are based on the Public Finance Management Act, or the PFMA as it is usually called.”
The charges against General Masemola and other accused arise from serious complex corruption and commercial crime in the Medicare matter.
“But they all arise out of the serious complex corruption and commercial crime matter, which is the Medicare matter.”
General Matlou from Police Risk Audit alerted the National Commissioner to unlawful corruption in the Medicare contract and advised him as Accounting Officer to stop the contract and payments.
“General Matlou, from the Risk Audit of the police, brought it to the attention of the then Commissioner to say that there is these offences taking place. There is unlawfulness happening in this contract, and Commissioner, as the Accounting Officer, you need to stop the contract, and therefore stop, it would therefore stop the payment.”
General Masemola failed to act promptly as Accounting Officer, resulting in approximately R50 million being paid out under unlawful and corrupt activities before the contract was stopped.
“It took him a long time to do so, and what then happened is, in not acting in terms of his duties as the Accounting Officer, to act promptly, to act diligently, monies were in fact then paid out because of these unlawful, corrupt activities in the approximate value of R50 million and then the contract was stopped.”
Advocate Johnson clarified that the prosecution does not allege General Masemola was a party to the corruption itself, but charges him under the PFMA for failing to stop matters he became aware of.
“It is so, Chair, we never said that he was party to the corruption, but he is being charged then for the PFMA arising out of those matters that he had become aware of, and that we say he then did not stop”
Members of SAPS Supply Chain Management colluded with Mr Matlala's company in relation to the conclusion of the contract and purchase orders.
“some members of SAPS in Supply Chain were colluding with Mr Matlala's company and as a result, this contract was concluded. They were also colluding in relation to the issue of, I think it is in charge 3, of the orders, of the purchase orders”
General Matlou advised General Masemola to consider terminating the contract with Medicare to prevent irreparable financial harm to SAPS, and General Masemola accepted the advice and terminated the contract.
“she then advised General Masemola to consider terminating the contract with Medicare to save SAPS from irreparable harm and to diminish the financial prejudices suffered by SAPS. Then she says General Masemola terminated. So General Masemola accepted the advice.”
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 service provider was appointed in June, meetings regarding contract implementation took place thereafter, and implementation commenced in September.
“The service provider was appointed in June, and after they were appointed we have had evidence that there were then meetings about how the contract is going to be implemented, and the contract was then implemented much later, from September onwards, if I remember Brigadier Matjeng’s evidence correctly.”
General Masemola took time before acting on the advice and information given by Risk Officer General Matlou, during which period monies were released.
“General Matlou, he took quite a bit of time before he acted on the information and the advice given. And it is precisely because he took a long time, it is in that period that monies became released.”
SAPS paid R50 million throughout the contract, not solely after General Matlou's advice was provided to General Masemola.
“How I read this affidavit, it says the 50 million is what was paid throughout, not after the advice was given.”
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”
General Matlou submitted a preliminary report together with her Section 27 affidavit regarding the matter.
“I am given to understand that General Matlou submitted a preliminary report together with the section 27 affidavit.”
Advocate Baloyi SC asserted that the charges against General Masemola lacked good faith intention to prosecute and were a scheme to force an appearance in court and cause his removal from office.
“there was no good faith intention to prefer a charge because it is justified, it is supported by the facts. This was just a scheme to get him arrested or present to court, to have him appear in court and the purpose is achieved just by that fact alone.”
Advocate Johnson denied any ill intent or scheme in charging General Masemola, stating that prosecutors evaluated the case in its totality and firmly believed in the PFMA charges, though acknowledging the connection/link between charges was not drawn.
“at no stage was there an intention to make a spectacle of anything. The prosecutors looked at the case in its totality. And as I explained this morning, it relates to, I accept, the only part that I do accept is they did not draw the link between the two. That in itself does not make the conduct malicious and there was no intent to put him on show.”
Advocate Johnson acknowledged that the charge sheet against General Masemola may have been clumsily or incompetently drafted, but reiterated that this does not constitute ill intent.
“Incompetently put, but that does not make for ill intent at all.”
The Chairperson and Advocate Sello SC asserted that General Masemola could not legally be joined with co-accused charged with fraud and corruption under Section 155(1) or Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Advocate Johnson conceded the point.
“Surely in charging General Masemola together with people charged with fraud and corruption, you did not rely on section 155(1). I must be correct in that view.”
Chairperson references legal precedent set by Trollip JA regarding the judicial discretion to grant a separation of trials under section 156, balancing prejudice to the accused against prejudice to the State or co-accused.
“In exercising his discretion, the trial court has to weigh up the likelihood of prejudice to the applicant/accused... resulting from a joint trial against the likelihood of prejudice to the either accused or the state if their trials are separated, and decide whether or not, in the interest of justice, a separation of trials should be granted.”
General Masemola was joined as a co-accused to a trial involving other individuals charged with fraud and corruption, despite Masemola not being charged with fraud or corruption himself.
“General Masemola ought not to have been lumped together with these accused persons that are charged with fraud and corruption. Bear in mind that yesterday you accepted already that General Masemola is not complicit in fraud and corruption.”
Adv Johnson accepts that General Masemola will suffer legal prejudice from being tried jointly with accused persons who are facing fraud and corruption charges.
“I accept that.”
Adv Johnson denies there was any intention to embarrass General Masemola by joining him to the case, stating prosecutors joined him to lead evidence together regarding PFMA statutory offences and complex fraud.
“I gave the contention that I did, that the prosecutors put him in one matter because there is this serious complex fraud corruption and it would be one matter when they lead the evidence with the PFMA... but at no stage, Chair, was there an intention to embarrass.”
The Chairperson suggests that General Masemola was joined to the fraud and corruption matter deliberately to embarrass, taint, and publicly associate him with fraud and corruption charges.
“At face value, it seems to me that this must have been done to embarrass him, to taint him and to make the public or to cause the public to see him as also being complicit in fraud and corruption.”
Adv Johnson confirms that prosecutors made the decision to add General Masemola as a co-accused, and that he participated in the briefing discussion regarding whether Masemola would be charged jointly or separately.
“Yes, the prosecutors take the decision. When we were briefed, we agreed that he is charged only for the 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.”
Adv Johnson acknowledged that evidence of fraud and corruption was not admissible against General Masemola under section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Act, making the decision to join him in the proceedings legally incorrect.
“I will accept that.”
Charge 3 against General Masemola alleging gross negligence for failing as SAPS Accounting Officer to ensure Medicare 24 Tshwane District was tax compliant and screened under Section 38 of the PFMA does not legally or logically apply to the Accounting Officer, as tax screening duties lie with the bid evaluation committee and state tax obligations refer to the institution itself.
“Amongst others. It does not make sense.”
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.”
Advocate Sello SC asserted that under section 38(1)(a)(iii) of the PFMA, General Masemola's legal obligation as Accounting Officer is to ensure SAPS maintains an appropriate, fair, and competitive procurement system under section 217 of the Constitution.
“Section 38 of the PFMA prescribes that: “The Accounting Officer for a department, trading entity or constitutional institution - (a) must ensure that the department, trading entity or constitutional institution has and maintains …” And I will go to (iii): “… an appropriate procurement and provisioning system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.” On a reading of that you would agree with me that that is the responsibility that General Masemola bears.”
Mr Matlala attempted to challenge the termination of the Medicare 24 contract in court or engaged in discussions with SAPS members challenging what he termed an unlawful termination.
“Mr Matlala attempted to go to court or there was discussion between him and other members of SAPS to challenge what he termed the unlawful termination of the contract.”
General Matlou submitted a referral affidavit indicating that she initiated a criminal investigation into the unlawful awarding of a tender to Medicare 24, which resulted in a contract that General Masemola subsequently terminated.
“General Matlou had indicated that she was initiating a criminal investigation into the unlawful awarding of a tender to Medicare and if one has regard to 6, we learned that, 7, we learned that Medicare 24 was awarded that tender and resulting in a contract being concluded. And at 8 we learned that General Masemola terminated that contract.”
General Masemola terminated the Medicare 24 contract on 15 May based on the findings and advice of an Internal Audit report that was made available to him prior to that date.
“that internal audit report that General Matlou references at her paragraph 5, as I understand things it is what gave General Masemola the basis to terminate. ... So he acted upon the advice of Internal Audit seemingly.”
Advocate Khumalo SC asserted that Count 2 against General Masemola incorrectly misapplies section 38(1)(d) of the PFMA, because under section 38(1)(f) SAPS was legally obligated to pay invoices and honor purchase orders while the contract remained active.
“Because if you look at (f), (f) says he must settle all contractual obligations and pay all monies owing. So for as long as the contract was alive, he had an obligation to pay Medicare 24. So (d) deals with something completely different, so breach of (d) is not consistent with count 2, because count 2 is about management of, it is about maintenance and management of assets.”
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.”
General Masemola terminated the SAPS contract with Medicare on or about 15 May 2025 following advice from General Matlou, by which time SAPS had suffered approximately R50 million in financial prejudice.
“having advised the National Commissioner to terminate the contract with Medicare to save the SAPS from irreparable harm and to diminish the financial prejudice being suffered by the SAPS, General Masemola ultimately terminated the contract with Medicare on or about the 15th of May. By that time, SAPS had suffered prejudice of approximately 50 million.”
A 3-year tender valued at R360 million was unlawfully awarded to Medicare.
“there is, in paragraph 2 there is an unlawful awarding of a tender to Medicare for a period of 3 years to the value of 360 million.”
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.”
Advocate Johnson signed off on a Section 28 summons following a complaint by Mr Adams that requested irrelevant documents, including lists of Divisional Crime Intelligence heads, performance assessments of Major Generals, advertisements, audio recordings, interview records, and documents General Jacobs refused to return.
“you signed off on a summons that asked for a litany of documents that had no bearing on the complaint, including a list of all Provincial Heads and Section Heads who were stationed in Division Crime Intelligence, the performance assessment of all Major Generals for that year, the advertisements for that position, audio recordings and interviews. Then you want documentary records that General Jacobs refused to return.”
Advocate Johnson requested documentary files and applications for promotions regarding commanders and members of the PKTT via Section 28 summons beyond the scope of Mr Adams' original complaint.
“you ask in the same summons for documentary files and applications for promotions and Commanders and members of the Political Task Teams through deviation. According to you, the PKTTT did not feature anywhere. So once again, that is way beyond the scope of the original complaint by Mr Adams.”
Advocate Manilall signed a Section 28 summons under the CAS number relating to the Mokwele appointment, requesting identities and travel documents of PKTT members who arrested Mr Adams.
“That is the section 28 summons signed by Advocate Manilall, which wanted the identities and certified travel documents of PKTTT members who went to arrest Mr Adams, and he does so under the CAS number relating to the Mokwele appointment.”
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.”
Advocate Manilall claimed the Section 28 summons was issued to determine if Lieutenant General Khumalo breached bail conditions by authorizing PKTT members to arrest Mr Adams, who was a state witness.
“the purpose behind it from the prosecutor was to determine whether someone else within the PKTT approved those trips, that is fine, and that if it was in fact General Khumalo who authorized those trips, then he was sending people to deal with Adams, and it could have a potential of interfering with the bail condition.”
Advocate Manilall's explanation for issuing the Section 28 summons was false because PKTT members were under no bail condition preventing them from dealing with witnesses or arresting Mr Adams.
“I want to say if that is the explanation he gave you it is a false explanation. Those individual members and anyone else in the world was under no bail condition that they could not, that is one reason, that they could not deal with any witnesses. There was nothing like that.”
IDAC prosecutors misused bail conditions against General Khumalo to insulate Mr Adams from legitimate arrest or investigation by the PKTT.
“So you are brandishing that condition over General Khumalo to say whatever wrong he commits, you dare not touch him, because he is my witness and if you do, you will be breaching a bail condition.”
SAPS concluded an unlawful contract with Mr Matlala, leaving the ongoing prosecution on a questionable legal basis.
“SAPS seems to have concluded an unlawful contract with Mr Matlala, but the prosecution for that sits on a highly questionable legal basis.”
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.”
General Matlou concluded in an internal audit affidavit commissioned on 26 June 2024 that specified SAPS transactions constitute corruption and requested corrective, remedial, and criminal action.
“And at 3817 she concludes: “The abovementioned transactions constitute corruption. On behalf of the South African Police Service, I would like corrective, remedial and criminal action to be instituted in this regard.””
General Matlou's department (Internal Audit Risk and Integrity Management) received a request from the Minister of Police on 9 January 2025 initiating an internal audit process.
“And at paragraph 3, General Matlou states that her department, Internal Audit Risk and Integrity Management, received a request from the Minister of Police on the 9th of January 2025 and that is what initiated this process.”
IDAC procured the preliminary report directly from General Matlou.
“And just to indicate, IDAC procured it from General Matlou.”
Adv Sello SC asserted that IDAC's investigations targeting Generals and the PKTT fell wholly outside IDAC's mandate under section 7(1)(A) and flouted legislative prescriptions, risking the destabilisation of law enforcement institutions.
“all that we have discussed about these investigations and aiming at the Generals and the PKTT is wholly outside the mandate of IDAC as we understand it, as contemplated in terms of section 7(1)(A). That is my assessment. And if you strongly deny that there is a hand in this, I would like you to explain to the Commissioners on what basis, because this entire effort and exercise cannot have been to the benefit of IDAC. It is not to the benefit of the country to flout legislative prescriptions in the manner that it would appear have been flouted by IDAC consistently and deliberately, and then to offer an explanation for why IDAC would conduct itself in such a manner, which conduct has the risk to destabilise the law enforcement environment and institutions.”
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.”
Section 9(1) of SAPS National Instruction 1/2017 prohibits selection panels from being biased, engaging in nepotism or favouritism, abusing authority, or influencing other panel members.
“A selection panel may not be biased and must ensure that the selection process is free of nepotism or favouritism. A panel may never abuse its authority, and panel members may not influence each other to be influenced or to abuse their authority”
Evidence collected shows that SAPS members accused 1 to 6 contravened National Instruction provisions without just or reasonable cause to benefit accused 7.
“Evidence collected proves that accused 1 to 6 … contravened the provisions of the above quoted sections to the benefit … of accused 7; … without just or reasonable cause.”
Adv Johnson asserts that the selection panel tampered with panel documents by removing pages and inserting new ones to misrepresent who was on the panel, as supported by an expert document report.
“the selection panel tampered with the panel documents. The panel was not who they initially purported the panel to be, and when the investigation started, they had removed pages and inserted new pages, and that is what I recollect is in the docket, and there was an expert who does indicate that there was a tampering with that process”
A document was fabricated by one of the accused to give false credibility to the selection panel and make it appear as though the process had been approved without the knowledge of the alleged author.
“there was a document created, allegedly by one of the accused, to give the impression that the process had been approved, but the person who should have authored that document was unaware that this document had been created and authored.”
Adv Sello SC notes that Colonel Padayachee's testimony and the docket provided to the Commission contain no claim or evidence regarding document tampering or panel manipulation, other than General Kahn's statement that he was excluded from the panel.
“because in so far as the panel is concerned, we are not aware of such a claim. The only complaint would appear as reflected in an affidavit, in a statement provided by General Kahn, but the only issue was that the panel did not include General Kahn, but there was no suggestion otherwise of the manipulation of the panel.”
Accused 7 (Mrs Mokwele) made fraudulent averments in her CV, submitting false and misleading information that was deliberately ignored during the selection process.
“there was fraud, a fraudulent averment in the CV, which was deliberately not picked up so that a candidate could go through”
The draft charge sheet attached to the prosecution memorandum relies heavily on the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA) Act 12 of 2004 regarding allegations of nepotism and favouritism.
“What I find in the charge sheet are significant, I think in respect of each charge, is extensive reference to an invocation of the provisions of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 004.”
The charge sheet contains allegations at points 12.12 to 12.14 regarding Mrs Mokwele submitting false CV information, misrepresentations regarding vetting, and abuse of authority under SAPS National Instruction by accused 2 to 6.
“12.12, and that is Mrs Mokwele, submitting false and misleading information in the application and curriculum vitae. 12.13 is misrepresentations made by the accused with regards to the vetting of accused number 7. And 12.14 speaks to accused, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 abusing authority vested in them by disregarding and not complying with SAPS National Instruction.”
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 submitting charge sheets to the DPP provides checks and balances and requires DPP agreement on reasonable cause before enrolling criminal cases.
“I said in the original affidavit: “ … was the first is the DPP is a measure for checks and balances. The second is so that the relevant DPP may grant permission for and/or agree to the enrolment of the matter unless satisfied on the information given to him or her that there is reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, the DPP will not place a matter on the role for criminal cases. ” So it does give them latitude. They are not a rubber stamp.”
Advocate Johnson conceded that the DPP could not have properly exercised their mind in approving the specific vetting count against Brigadier Mokwele when the details were present in the charge sheet but entirely absent from the prosecution memorandum.
“I accept that.”
Advocate Khumalo SC asserted that in file 62438, the DPP rubber-stamped the decision to prosecute within a single day without conducting any engagement or requesting clarification regarding missing details in the prosecution memo and charge sheet.
“And Commissioner Baloyi 's point that the DPP in file 62438 , all he or she then says is that having considered your memo and the charge sheet, they are satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused and they concur with your decision to charge them. So it means they only considered the two documents that Advocate Sello and Commissioner Baloyi are referring you to.”
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.”
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 .”
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.”
Following their arrest, the accused individuals (including General Khumalo) were subject to bail conditions prohibiting them from attending their workplace, and General Khumalo was temporarily reassigned by the National Commissioner until his bail issue was resolved.
“We d o k n o w t h a t t h e r e i s a b a i l c o n d i t i o n t h a t s a y s t h e y m u s t n e v e r g o t o t h e o ff i c e . We d o k n o w f r o m t h e d o c u m e n t s t h a t a r e b e f o r e u s t h a t , i n f a c t , a t l e a s t G e n e r a l K h u m a l o , I d o n o t r e m e m b e r t h e o t h e r s , t h e N a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n e r p u t h i m s o m e w h e r e e l s e i n t h e m e a n t i m e , p u t h i m s o m e w h e r e20 e l s e u n t i l t h e i s s u e o f h i s b a i l w a s r e s o l v e d , a n d t h e n h e b r o u g h t h i m b a c k t o h i s s u b s t a n t i v e p o s i t i o n .”
Adv Johnson previously stated at the Ad Hoc Committee that there was no flight risk regarding the accused individuals and that Colonel Padayachee accepted they could have presented themselves to court without needing an arrest warrant.
“y o u s a i d t h a t t h e r e w a s n o r i s k o f t h e m f l e e i n g a n d n o t p r e s e n t i n g t h e m s e l v e s t o C o u r t . . . C o l o n e l P a d a y a c h e e a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d h a v e p r e s e n t e d , y o u k n e w w h e r e t h e y w o r k e d , y o u k n e w t h e i r a d d r e s s e s”
Advocate Johnson accepted Advocate Baloyi SC's assertion that executing arrests instead of using less intrusive means was an abuse of process.
“I accept that.”
Advocate Johnson acknowledged that less intrusive means than arrest should have been used to secure the attendance of suspects at court.
“I accept your argument that it was not, there are these less intrusive means that should have been used.”
Advocate Johnson conceded that an arrest was not necessary to bring suspects to court and that summoning them would not have harmed the State's case.
“I accept.”
Lieutenant General Khumalo was arrested after landing at Oliver Reginald Tambo International Airport (ORTIA) while his co-accused had been invited to report to Brooklyn Police Station.
“Lieutenant General Khumalo was arrested after he had landed at Oliver Reginald Tambo International Airport, ORTIA. I do not recall where he was travelling from. I was informed that at the time his co-accused had already been invited to report to Brooklyn police station.”
IDAC investigators went to ORTIA to inform Lieutenant General Khumalo of an arrest warrant and to have him hand himself over before accompanying them to Brooklyn Police Station.
“They went to ORTIA to inform him that there is a warrant for his arrest, for him to hand himself over, and he then accompanied them to the Brooklyn police station.”
Adv Sello SC noted an aborted arrest on June 18, 2020 in respect of docket 543-06-26, and questioned whether it or warrant applications were prompted by Mr Fadiel Adams' arrest by the PKTT.
“I call it the first arrest, and not that there was a second, but I do so to distinguish it from what I call the aborted arrest, the one of June 18th, Yes, June 18th, 2020, ja, thank you. Now, that, the one of June 18th is in respect of docket 543-06-26, the second docket. Now, it was not that arrest or application for those warrants, they were not by any, in any manner, prompted by the arrest of Mr Fadiel Adams by the PKTT, no?”
Adv Johnson confirmed there was no connection between the aborted arrest/warrant application and Mr Fadiel Adams' arrest by the PKTT.
“No.”
Advocate Johnson accepted the assertion that investigators went to the airport specifically to arrest Lieutenant General Khumalo, leaving him with no option but to go directly to Brooklyn Police Station.
“I am accepting your point.”
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.”
Adv Johnson denied that she engaged DPP Harrison to inquire about who authorized J50 arrest warrants.
“No.”
Adv Johnson stated that internal NPA engagement protocols involve writing to the relevant DPP when seeking information about matters in another jurisdiction.
“The DPP would then be able to, when we write, we engage in that way. I write to the DPP if she wanted to know something that was happening in Pretoria, she would write to the DPP in Pretoria, and the DPP goes ahead and finds out if there is such a matter, and who is dealing with the matter, and what the matter is about”
The Chairperson issued a ruling postponing the hearing of Mr Carrim's evidence to 14 August 2026, subject to conditions regarding independent medical evaluation.
“The hearing of Mr Carrim’s evidence is postponed to 14 August 2026 at 09:30 at which hearing Mr Carrim shall be required to appear and testify in person subject to paragraph 2.”
Adv Sello SC and Adv Johnson discussed a preliminary internal audit report (marked CJC399 starting at 3818) submitted in Exhibit File 9A, received alongside General Matlou's section 27 statement.
“you indicated that there was a preliminary internal audit report that had been availed. I confirm a document has been availed to the Commission.”
An internal audit report flagged red flags and potential fronting regarding the bid of Medicare 24 Tshwane and noted companies registered to Mr Matlala, Mr Van Wyk, and 12 companies registered to Mr James George Murray.
“At 3838, it then makes certain observations regarding red flags and/or evidence of fronting in the bid of Medicare 24 Tshwane. Sets out the basis for concluding there were red flags. Then addresses at 3839 the various companies registered to Mr Matlala. At 3840, registered to Mr Van Wyk, as well as other 12 companies registered to Mr James George Murray.”
The Bid Adjudication Committee failed to exercise due care when considering the evaluation report from the Bid Evaluation Committee regarding the Medicare 24 Tshwane bid.
““The Bid Adjudication Committee did not exercise due care in considering an evaluation report from the Bid Evaluation Committee.””
An internal audit report recommended terminating the Medicare 24 Tshwane bid under section 23(1)(c) of the General Conditions of Contract due to observed procurement irregularities, and suggested subjecting the bid to a forensic and potential criminal investigation.
““The bid should be terminated. The accounting officer should seek legal counsel on how to proceed with termination... Evidence of procurement irregularities were observed in the bid. Therefore, the bid is currently being subjected to a forensic investigation with a view of pursuing a criminal investigation against the supplier.””
General Matlou's section 27 affidavit contains no evidence of irregular, unlawful, or criminal conduct attributable to General Masemola.
“insofar as General Masemola is concerned, it does not cure the shortcomings in the section 27 affidavit as submitted by General Matlou because it is absolutely silent on either irregular conduct, unlawful conduct, or criminality attributable to General Masemola.”
National Police Commissioner General Masemola terminated the Medicare 24 Tshwane contract approximately two weeks after receiving the preliminary audit report signed by Acting Chief Audit Executive T E Mogwana and Chief Risk Officer Major General Matlou.
“By Acting Chief Audit Executive T E Mogwana [?] and by Chief Risk Officer Major General Matlou. In fact, it is the 29th of April. 29th of April 2025. And we know from General Matlou's section 27 referral that by the 15th of May, General Masemola had terminated that contract.”
Accused numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in the Mokwele matter were granted bail by the Magistrate's Court with conditions prohibiting them from visiting Crime Intelligence premises nationwide and designating Mr Brian Padayachee to assist them with collecting personal belongings.
““Accused number 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are prohibited from being at any premises of Crime Intelligence within the country, RSA, while the matter is pending.” ... “Mr Brian Padayachee will assist the accused with the collection of any matters or items of personal nature the accused may have at the premises in the Crime Intelligence offices.””
There was no intended or executed arrest on 18 June 2026 against General Masemola, General Khumalo, or General Madondo.
“There was never an intended arrest for General Masemola, General Khumalo and General Madondo.”
Crime Intelligence witnesses indicated they were subjected to intimidation and victimisation, justifying bail conditions that barred accused persons, including General Khumalo, from accessing Crime Intelligence premises.
““The assertion being that Mr Padayachee would be allowed to have access to Criminal Intelligence is incorrectly interpreted, mainly because we have witnesses at CI. Those witnesses had indicated that they had been intimidated and victimised. The condition for them not going to CI was to ensure that the witnesses were not intimidated.””
Bail condition number three was overly broad as it barred Crime Intelligence officials from every CI office in the country, whereas the intended purpose was only to protect witnesses employed within CI who feared the return of the accused.
“bail condition number three, that bail condition was way too wide for every Crime Intelligence within the country. These were Crime Intelligence officials, Chair, at head office. So, and the purpose for which I understood they were going to ask for that condition was merely based on the fact that there were witnesses still employed within Crime Intelligence and that these witnesses feared any of the accused coming back. That part made sense, but not the barred them from every Crime Intelligence office in the country”
Colonel Padayachee filed an affidavit opposing the amendment of a bail condition restricting Crime Intelligence officials' access to CI offices, despite lacking security clearance to access CI information himself.
“Colonel Padayachee filed an affidavit in opposition of the amendment of that condition in circumstances where you, as his leader, knows that that condition would not make sense because Mr Brian Padayachee himself does not have any security clearance to access information that is within the CI offices?”
Prosecutor Joy Hlatshwayo did not request or seek the disputed bail condition restricting CI access or nominating Mr Padayachee as a go-between in open court.
“are you aware that such a condition was not even sought by the prosecutor? Even a watered down version as you put it, that they be allowed to go into CI offices but accompanied by Mr Padayachee, even that was never sought.”
Colonel Padayachee explained that he could not testify regarding how the bail condition was imposed because he had left court by the time the prosecutor finished her address, or alternatively that the Magistrate overheard him and the prosecutor conferring and added the condition without an open court request.
“His explanation was he cannot testify to that because I think by the time the prosecutor finished her address to Court as regards to bail conditions, he had since left court. Alternatively, that maybe the Magistrate overheard him and the prosecutor conferring in a corner and without it being requested in open court, the Magistrate then decided to add that condition.”
During the bail hearing court address, Mr Padayachee was visible behind prosecutor Joy Hlatshwayo at all times and did not leave court as claimed.
“during that particular address, which I understood to be the application which is the application for bail, Mr Padayachee is visible behind her at all times.”
The High Court appeal judgment concluded that there was no judicial or evidentiary basis for the bail condition imposed by the Magistrate, as the Magistrate failed to confine his assessment to the facts presented before the Court.
“I am unable to find any judicial basis on the evidence and submissions before the Court aquo for the bail condition that was imposed. In exercising his judicial discretion, the Magistrate did not confine his assessment to the facts presented before the Court.”
Advocates Baloyi SC and Sello SC assert that the condition preventing the accused from visiting head office was not originally requested by the prosecution in open court, yet prosecutor Hlatshwayo failed to correct the magistrate's order or notify her superiors appropriately.
“Does it mean that the prosecutor and the investigator did not disclose to you that they got the bonus of a condition that was not asked for?”
Adv Johnson asserts that had he known the bail condition restricting movement to head office was not requested by the State, he would not have opposed the bail appeal or the recusal of the Magistrate, but rather returned to the court of first instance to amend the conditions.
“The prosecutors would have had to go back to the same Magistrate at the Lower Court and indicate that there is an imposition of a condition not either in line with what we asked or not what we asked at all, and we hereby request that that bail condition be amended.”
Brian Padayachee submitted an affidavit on behalf of IDAC opposing the amendment of bail conditions for Accused 3 (Madondo), arguing it was not in the interest of justice as she lacked top secret security clearance and had a propensity to commit criminal offenses.
“The purpose of this affidavit is to inform the Honourable Court why it is not in the interest of justice to admit the bail conditions of accused 3.”
Charity Matlala Matlou, Chief Risk Officer, submitted an affidavit regarding Major General Madondo's rank, senior management status, and top secret security clearance requirements.
“that is the affidavit of Charity Matlala Matlou. She is the chief risk officer. You recall we came across section 27 affidavit in the SAPS Medicare contract.”
Granting General Madondo access to Crime Intelligence increases the likelihood that State witnesses from that environment will be influenced or intimidated.
“most of the State witnesses would be from Crime Intelligence environment. Her access being granted to the same environment increases the likelihood of witnesses being influenced or intimidated.”
Division Commissioner Lieutenant General Khumalo failed to take action since February 2024 regarding General Madondo's presence in Crime Intelligence, which poses a security risk.
“The fact that no action was taken by Division Commissioner Lieutenant General Khumalo since 2024 February, raises serious concern as Madondo's mere presence in the Division Crime Intelligence poses a serious security risk to Crime Intelligence and the SAPS.”
Mr Padayachee solicited an affidavit from General Matlou to resist General Madondo's court application to amend bail conditions.
“clearly he is gone to SAPS to go solicit an affidavit from General Matlou. I do not know what he has to do with these issues, but he got it.”
Mr Padayachee and General Matlou used reckless claims and accusations to impugn General Madondo's integrity in opposition to a bail condition amendment application.
“this resistance to an amendment of that condition has invited Mr Padayachee, General, what is their name, Matlou, to seriously impugn General Madondo's integrity and by throwing wanton claims against her and accusations.”
General Matlou's affidavit filed in the bail appeal made irrelevant allegations regarding General Madondo's security vetting file, lack of security, and propensity for dishonesty without factual basis.
“the affidavit of General Madondo, it does not seem to even speak to anything that would be relevant. Even if it were permissible. I mean, she is not alleging facts. She says she works in Crime Intelligence. She has a propensity to be dishonest. She does not have security. That has nothing to do with this appeal.”
General Matlou colluded with Colonel Padayachee to oppose General Madondo's bail application despite having no involvement in the underlying legal matter.
“what interest did she have to file this kind of affidavit opposing a bail application where she is not involved whatsoever in the matter, and here colluding with Colonel Padayachee because he says pretty much the same things which have nothing to do with the bail appeal.”
Advocate Johnson signed and sent a letter dated 30 June 2025 to the National Commissioner stating that Generals Lushaba, Khumalo, Madondo, Lekalakala, Gabela, Ncube, and Brigadier Mokwele were prohibited by court order from entering any Crime Intelligence premises or contacting its personnel.
“On the 30th of June 2025, you penned, signed, and addressed a letter to the National Commissioner informing him that General Lushaba, General Khumalo, General Madondo, it is going to be projected here, General Lekalakala, and General Gabela, as well as Ncube, I apologise, I do not remember her rank, and Brigadier Mokwele. You state in this document... “Kindly note that none of the above named officers are allowed to enter any premises or office which forms part of the Division Crime Intelligence, or have any contact with its personnel as ordered by the Court.””
Advocate Johnson signed the letter regarding bail restrictions based on a summary prepared by Chief Investigator Perumal without verifying the actual court order or bail conditions.
“It was prepared for me by Chief Perumal because I was not linked to the conditions and I do see that problem of allowed any premises.”
Advocate Baloyi SC and the High Court appeal judgment noted that a disputed handwritten condition on a bail order was not requested in court.
“So I think it has been, at least on the evidence of Colonel Padayachee and the judgment itself, the appeal judgment, we can accept that it is established that the condition was not asked for.”
The High Court overturned a court condition specifically because it had not been requested.
“The Judge in the High Court, that is precisely the basis of his overturning it because it was not asked for, and the judgment states as much.”
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.””
Witness N testified that IDAC investigator Suneel Bellochun extorted money from members of the Pakistani community in East London and treated them harshly.
“Witness N once again testified on complaints by, and I use the term liberally, the Pakistani community living, is it East London or PE, that which is said, East London, I think. It is alleged that investigator Bellochun is extorting monies from, and otherwise dealing with them harshly”
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.”
An active J50 warrant of arrest for Suneel Bellochun exists in connection with a 2021 assault case opened against him.
“We fast forward to now, and we are faced with this issue again. And I was faced with it about two Sundays ago in preparation for the Commission, because I see it then in the bundle of documents that are sent to me is a J50. And in our legal language, it is a live.”
Advocate Mzinyathi (DPP Pretoria) wrote to the Head of IDAC regarding the conduct of prosecutor Mr Ledwaba in relation to case Pretoria CAS 97/05/2021 (or Pretoria West CAS 7/05/2021).
“Advocate Mzinyathi wrote to the then Head of IDAC on the th of June 2021, refers to the conduct of a prosecutor, Mr Ledwaba, that surrounds Pretoria CAS 97/05/2021”
Advocate Mzinyathi instructed the Acting Chief Prosecutor to request the cancellation of the warrant of arrest in case Pretoria West CAS 7/05/2021 pending the finalisation of police investigations, directing that the case not be enrolled without his written authorisation.
“In respect of Pretoria West CAS 7/05/2021, I have instructed the Acting Chief Prosecutor to request that the warrant of arrest be cancelled pending the finalisation of the police investigations. I have further directed that the matter may not be enrolled without my written authorisation to that effect.”
An investigator under an active warrant of arrest continues to serve in office, arresting other individuals while under the active warrant.
“And that is really the issue that he continues to be in office investigating, arresting other people when he himself is under an active warrant.”
The police docket relating to the active warrant was closed and marked undetected around October 2023 or October 2024, despite the warrant remaining active on the system and uncancelled.
“According to him, the docket is closed, marked undetected, and this docket would have been closed in October of 2024. October of 2024 or October of 2023? But it was in that time that the docket was closed. I said to him, but that still does not help me. The warrant is active.”
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 Financial Action Task Force grey-listed South Africa in January 2023 and placed the country on a watchlist.
“The Financial Action Task Force, which grey-listed South Africa in January 2023, has had us on a watch list.”
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 attended General Khan's 50th birthday party and shares a personal, close friendship with him beyond a purely professional working relationship.
“y o u a t t e n d e d G e n e r a l K h a n ' s 5 0 t h b i r t h d a y ... b e s i d e s t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , y o u h a v e t h i s p e r s o n a l o n e .”
In her statement of 10 July 2026, Advocate Johnson downplayed her relationship with General Khan, describing it as solely professional and limited to stakeholder and SAPS meetings.
“A d v o c a t e J o h n s o n , i n y o u r s t a t e m e n t , y o u r t h i r d s t a t e m e n t , t h e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e 1 0 t h o f J u l y 2 0 2 6 ... y o u r r e s p o n s e w a s a f a i r l y t e r s e o n e , s t a t i n g t h a t y o u k n o w t h a t h e i s a G e n e r a l b a s e d a t C r i m e I n t e l l i g e n c e ... S o a c c o r d i n g t o y o u r s t a t e m e n t , y o u s i g n i f i c a n t l y p l a y e d d o w n t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p .”
Advocate Johnson confirms that she considers General Khan a very good friend, but denies ever visiting his home or having him visit her home.
“I c o n s i d e r h i m a v e r y g o o d f r i e n d .”
Advocate Johnson routinely grants high-ranking police officials access to the IDAC office via a side entrance.
“usually when we do invite high-ranking police officers to the office, we usually let them use the side entrance.”
Advocate Johnson and General Feroz Khan maintained a close personal relationship, addressing each other affectionately and arranging private meetings.
“It is really two people who are friends and this relates to a favour to him. It has nothing to do with IDAC's work.”
General Feroz Khan entered the IDAC office via a VIP/side entrance without signing in at reception to conduct a personal visit with Advocate Johnson.
“you arrange for him not to sign in in the normal course but to come in via the VIP entrance and come directly to your office without going via reception.”
Advocate Johnson and General Feroz Khan both maintain a close personal relationship with General Senthumule.
“one picks up from the chats that both of you have a very close relationship with General Senthumule.”
Advocate Johnson advised General Feroz Khan on workplace trust and potential plotting regarding workplace suspicions.
“For now, be smart about who you trust at work. Please do not say anything to anyone about you heard someone is out to get you because you could be talking to the culprit.”
The Commission issued a subpoena to Advocate Johnson requesting specific dockets, emails, and communications.
“on the 7th of July 2025/26, the Commission issued you with a subpoena requesting that you submit certain documents, and that subpoena is dated the 7th of July 2026.”
General Masemola and General Mkwanazi allegedly received Louis Vuitton bags from a SAPS supplier.
“dockets in respect of investigations into General Masemola's and General Mkwanaz's alleged receipt of the Louis Vuitton bags from a SAPS supplier.”
Brigadier Phetlhe lodged a complaint and opened a criminal case against General Feroz Khan for alleged assault.
“regarding the complaint lodged and criminal case opened by Brigadier Phetlhe against General Feroz Khan for an alleged assault.”
Inbanathan Kistiah was subject to an investigation documented in dockets requested by the Commission.
“the third request was in respect of dockets into the investigation of Mr Inbanathan Kistiah.”
Advocate Johnson was unable to retrieve Gmail records or communications with Witness O from around 2018 due to the age of the emails.
“Your explanation for failure to provide that information was that this goes back to 2018, or eight years ago, seven, eight years ago, and that your emails do not go that far.”
Adv Johnson shared documents with General Khan regarding Brigadier Phetlhe's complaint docket, which was refreshed and confirmed upon reviewing witness statements and records.
“I had a recollection, as I explained in our consultation, that I had shared documents with her. It is when you showed it to me that I realised what it was that was shared. I just wanted to correct. I did not dispute what was shared.”
Adv Sello SC asserts that Adv Johnson shares a very close and personal relationship with General Khan, contradicting Adv Johnson's claims of a non-personal relationship.
“We have established that this is a very, very close and personal relationship. So I say you must know why and under what circumstances you shared that docket with General Khan.”
A docket implicating Adv Johnson in alleged criminal conduct was confirmed by the NPA on 10 July 2026 to be before the NPA for a prosecution decision.
“The allegations are contained in a docket, which is now with the NPA for a decision on whether I should or should not be prosecuted and further handling. That this is so, Chair, was confirmed by the NPA on the 10th of July 2026, as well as by the Witness McLean when he testified on that day.”
Adv Johnson submitted a supplementary affidavit invoking the right against self-incrimination regarding allegations of criminal conduct made by Colonel Kobus Roelofse, Captain McLean, and Witness O.
“The notice requires me to deal with allegations against me testified to by Colonel Kobus Roelofse, Captain McClean, and Witness O. The allegations, as summarised, implicate me in alleged criminal conduct.”
Adv Sello SC noted that Mr Mogoetsi raised his entitlement not to incriminate himself on a question-by-question basis.
“which I think w a s f o r c e d o n u s b y c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h M r M o g o t s i . I t w a s q u e s t i o n b y q u e s t i o n a n d h e r a i s e d h i s e n t i t l e m e n t n o t t o i n c r i m i n a t e h i m s e l f”
Witnesses gave strong evidence indicating that Adv Johnson shared an investigation docket implicating General Khan in an assault with General Khan.
“w i t n e s s e s h a v e g i v e n w h a t , o n t h e f a c e o f i t , a p p e a r s t o b e v e r y s t r o n g e v i d e n c e t h a t y o u d i d s h a r e t h e d o c k e t w i t h G e n e r a l K h a n .”
Mr Matling, Mr Roelofse, and Witness O testified that Adv Johnson shared a docket implicating General Khan in an assault with General Khan, after which General Khan prepared his own statement to the police.
“M r M a t l i n g [ ? ] t e s t i f i e d , s o d i d M r R o e l o f s e a n d W i t n e s s O , a n d a l l o f t h e m t e s t i f i e d o n m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o y o u r s h a r i n g o f t h e d o c k e t i m p l i c a t i n g G e n e r a l K h a n i n a n a s s a u l t w i t h G e n e r a l K h a n , p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h G e n e r a l K h a n t h e n p r e p a r e d h i s o w n s t a t e m e n t t o t h e p o l i c e .”
Adv Johnson elected not to answer questions regarding the docket-sharing allegations in order to exercise her privilege against self-incrimination.
“I e l e c t n o t t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s , s o a s n o t t o i n c r i m i n a t e m y s e l f .”
Mr Bateman filed an affidavit and testified regarding interactions with Adv Johnson after becoming aware of the investigation, resulting in the docket coming to Adv Johnson.
“d o e s t h a t i n c l u d e t h e t e s t i m o n y a b o u t y o u r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h M r B a t e m a n , a n d t h e r e i s t w o p a r t s t o i t ? T h e r e i s t h e f i r s t , w h i c h r e s u l t s i n t h e d o c k e t c o m i n g t o y o u , a n d t h e n t h e r e i s t h e s e c o n d p a r t w h e r e h e s a y s y o u h a v e c a l l e d h i m , h e h a s f i l e d a n a ff i d a v i t , h e s p o k e t o y o u , I m e a n r a t h e r y o u s p o k e t o h i m a f t e r a l l o f t h i s h a d c o m e o u t , w h e n y o u b e c a m e a w a r e o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n .”
Mr Bateman was a journalist at the time of his communications with Adv Johnson and subsequently moved to AfriForum.
“H e i s a t A f r i F o r u m , y e s .”
General Khan sent a message stating that 552 blocks of pure cocaine with an estimated street value of R20,000,000 were seized at business premises in Aeroton, whereas standard records reflect the seizure involved 541 kilograms.
“General Khan is sharing with you details about a bust he was involved in a tabusiness premises in Aeroton. Here is the date of the 9th of July. Second paragraph, we have dealt, we have had testimony regarding that bust. It involved, on record, the seizure of 541 kilograms of Cocaine. You might have heard about it, or perhaps not, but what I state to you is factually correct. I am interested in what General Khan says to you at midway the second paragraph, and he states that: “552 blocks of pure Cocaine were seized with a street value of approximately R20 000 000.” Why it strikes me is we have always known that Aeroton bust to involve 541 kilograms, and that General Khan was a part of that eventual seizure. I find it interesting that in a message to you, he has got a slightly different weight of 52 blocks.”
General Kadwa and General Khan would activate the DPP Office regarding organized crime matters so that resources could be allocated.
“the reason this message would have come is at the time in 2021, we were dealing with organised crime matters. And very often, even General Kadwa, for example, would activate us to say at the DPP Office there is such a matter, so that we looked out for the matter and we were able to allocate resources to them, but this is the message I received.”
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.”