Hearing day 144

Advocate Andrea Johnson was supposed to appear before the Commission but was unable due to being indisposed and recently provided a fuller medical certificate for it.

“Advocate Johnson has provided us this morning with a full, or fuller medical certificate following her treatment last week when she was due to appear”

Since about 18 June, Advocate Andrea Johnson requested to be relieved of responsibility for certain matters due to a conflict of interest and personal reasons, and Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions Nicolette Bell now oversees these matters.

“since the 18th of June, or thereabout, Ms Johnson asked that she be relieved of the responsibility to deal with those matters, given what was said at some point, even about her personally”

The documents concerning the arrest and prosecutions related to General Khumalo and others are no longer in the possession or responsibility of Advocate Andrea Johnson or IDAC Head.

“The instructions are the documents concerning the arrest and prosecutions relating to General Khumalo and others are no longer in the possession of Ms Johnson, nor is she responsible for them”

Prosecutors from IDAC remain in charge of cases related to these documents but report to Deputy National Director Nicolette Bell, not to the Head of IDAC Andrea Johnson, who no longer leads these processes.

“the Prosecutors from IDAC remain in charge of those cases, but they do not report to the Head of IDAC ... but the instruction is that one advocate, Nicolette Bell ... is the one who is now charged with the responsibility to oversee all the matters”

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

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

No documents have been served to the Commission indicating that Advocate Johnson is not responsible for certain aspects of IDAC as of 18 June.

“We do not have, or neither have we been served, with any document that informs the Commission that there are certain aspects of IDAC that Advocate Johnson is not responsible for, as at the 18th of June”

Advocate Johnson has been relieved of her responsibility in respect of the Khumalo matter, and it is not known who has taken over that responsibility.

“Advocate Johnson has since been relieved of her duties, has been relieved of her responsibility in respect of that matter”

IDAC's section 28 summons covers broader investigations including the use or abuse of the Secret Service Fund beyond the scope of Colonel Padayachee's specific investigation.

“this was a broader summons to cover other ongoing investigations within IDAC ... investigation into the use or abuse of the Secret Service Fund ... it is not confined to a specific investigation”

A section 28 summons dated 6 February 2025 required original complete applications for security clearances and vetting files for senior officers of the South African Police Service including Generals Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo, Ncube, and others.

“section 28 summons dated the 6th of February 2025 ... required original complete applications for security clearances and vetting files ... for the following senior officers of the South African Police Service ... Lieutenant General Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo, Ncube, Janse van Vuuren ...”

The security clearances and vetting were required for all ranks the listed generals and officers have held within SAPS.

“it required their security clearances for all the ranks they have held within SAPS”

The subpoena specifically pertains to documentation relating to the bigger investigation into security clearances, not the arrests of General Khumalo and others.

“the subpoena must be responded to positively because it does not deal with the arrest of General Khumalo and the others”

Advocate Johnson may have been excused from dealing with the arrests of Generals Khumalo and others, but the larger investigation into security clearances remains with IDAC.

“to the extent that Advocate Johnson may have been or is excused from dealing with the arrests, the issues arising from the arrests do not address the bigger investigation which looks into the security clearances”

Advocate Johnson was divested of the power to be involved in matters involving General Khumalo and others by a request granted by the National Director of Public Prosecutions.

“she made a request to be divested and it was granted by the National Director of Public Prosecutions”

Such divestiture of power is not known to be done statutorily as per the brief of legal counsel.

“I am not aware that kind of details ... is an interior the confines of my instructions and my brief”

The NDPP has issued an instruction that certain documents should be made available during the course of the day.

“I have just received an instruction that the NDPP has issued an instruction that these documents be made available”

There are three statements by Advocate Johnson relevant to the inquiry; the third statement raises Advocate Johnson's protection against self-incrimination.

“I saw three statements by Advocate Johnson... one that I was given yesterday, which raises Advocate Johnson's protection against self-incrimination”

Advocate Sellos confirms that three statements by Advocate Johnson exist, dated October 2025, July 2026, and one added yesterday.

“there are now three statements by Advocate Johnson, the one, the first from October 2025, the second from July 2026, and the last one coming in yesterday”

The main legal question on the third statement is whether it engages with the issue of self-incrimination and warrants a full legal argument for consideration by the Commissioners.

“the main question that arose was whether or not before that statement is engaged with, it is necessary to have a full-blown legal argument before you for the Commissioners to determine whether the issues that the defence has raised therein are appropriately raised, whether they are valid and whether they are upheld by the Commission”

The first statement by Advocate Johnson was commissioned and submitted to the Commission in either October 15 or October 25, 2025, but one page (with a stamp of the Commission) is missing from the copy available.

“It was submitted to the Commission... on the 25th, it is either the 15th or the 25th of October 2025... there is a page missing with a stamp of the Commission”

Advocate Johnson has supplied three statements to the Commission, which are on the record, and she confirms their accuracy except for three corrections in the third statement.

“Advocate Johnson confirms three supplied statements... with one correction in the third statement... otherwise correct”

IDAC allegedly operates outside its mandate as defined in section 7(1A) of the NPA Act, as amended.

“That IDAC allegedly and unlawfully operates outside of its mandate in terms of section 7(1A) of the NPA Act, as amended”

IDAC has allegedly pursued a criminal case against Lieutenant General Khumalo and other Crime Intelligence officials as part of ongoing political interference in the South African Police Service.

“That IDAC has allegedly pursued a criminal case against Lieutenant General Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence in the furtherance of ongoing political interference in SAPS”

The specified offences defined in section 7(1) of the relevant Act were deleted in August 2024 by the Legislature in error.

“The 7(1) in terms of the specified offences was deleted and we have the 7(1A). And we did raise that that seems to have been an error in deletion. It was an error by the Legislature and the specified offences should not have been deleted …”

Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused face charges including contraventions of sections 4(a) and 4(b) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act and fraud.

“The charges which each of the accused persons, Lieutenant General Khumalo in particular, is facing. The Commission will note that they are facing, among others: 1.1 Contraventions of the provisions of section 4(a) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 12 of 2004; 1.2 Contraventions of the provisions of section 4(b) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, again 12 of 2004; and 1.3 Fraud and other related offences.”

Lieutenant General Khumalo was arrested on 26 June 2025 at Oliver Reginald Tambo International Airport by two senior criminal investigators from IDAC, Mr Suneel Bellochunan and Ayan Dambalo.

“Lieutenant General Khumalo was arrested on 26 June 2025 at Oliver Reginald Tambo International Airport, OR TIA. Only two senior criminal investigators within IDAC were tasked with the exercise and affected his arrest. It was Mr Suneel Bellochunan and Ayan Dambalo (the investigators).”

Lieutenant General Khumalo was arrested at Oliver Reginald Tambo International Airport, with his co-accused already invited to report to Brooklyn Police Station at the time of his arrest.

“Lieutenant General Khumalo was arrested after he had landed at the Oliver Reginald Tambo International Airport, OR TIA. 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 the Brooklyn Police Station.”

Investigators informed Lieutenant General Khumalo of a warrant for his arrest at ORTIA and requested him to hand himself over, with warrants also sought for his co-accused at Brooklyn SAPS.

“The investigators went to OR TIA to inform General Khumalo that there was a warrant for his arrest and for him to hand himself over. They had a warrant of arrest for him. Warrants of arrest had also been sought and obtained for his co-accused before they were requested to hand themselves over at the Brooklyn SAPS.”

Lieutenant General Khumalo was being investigated by IDAC in his capacity as Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence for alleged unlawful conduct related to his execution of duties.

“The truth is that IDAC was investigating Lieutenant General Khumalo in his capacity as the Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence for alleged unlawful conduct that manifested itself in the execution of his duties in that capacity.”

Lieutenant General Khumalo personally thanked Chief Investigator Perumal for treating him and his co-accused respectfully during the arrest process, indicating no ulterior motives by the unit involved.

“Once Lieutenant General Khumalo had been processed at Brooklyn Police Station, he personally thanked Chief Investigator Perumal for treating him and the other co-accused in a respectful and dignified manner. This talks to anything but the conduct of a unit that is motivated by ulterior motives other than to address alleged criminality.”

Lieutenant General Khumalo cooperated with investigators at ORTIA and was taken to Brooklyn Police Station without incident, accompanied by his security detail and treated respectfully.

“Upon finding him at OR TIA, the two investigators explained who they were, why they were there, why he was sought, and what his rights were. They then asked Lieutenant General S D Khumalo to accompany them to Brooklyn Police Station in Pretoria. He cooperated and was taken there. There was nothing dramatic about it. At all times during his arrest, Lieutenant General Khumalo's security detail was with him. He was not threatened and was accorded all the respect that could be accorded a person of his profile. On the way from OR TIA to Brooklyn Police Station, the investigators had occasion to stop and get something to drink from a filling station at the request of Lieutenant General Khumalo for himself.”

The fact that Lieutenant General Khumalo held a portfolio related to the PKTT was unknown to the investigating body and irrelevant to his arrest.

“The fact that Lieutenant General Khumalo also held another portfolio in relation to the PKTT was not within our knowledge. At no stage was I, as the Head of IDAC, aware that Lieutenant General Khumalo had anything to do with the PKTT, let alone being its convener. In any event, even had I been aware of same, such would have been irrelevant because of the reasons for his arrest.”

It is false to suggest Lieutenant General Khumalo was arrested because he was the coordinator of the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT).

“I would be remiss if I do not dismiss the suggestion that Lieutenant General Khumalo was arrested because he was the coordinator of the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT). This suggestion is anything but true. It is false as it is unfortunate.”

It is a practical consideration that the Investigating Director does not decide who must be investigated; the application is brought to them and they apply their mind, becoming the decision-maker per section 28 of the Act.

“the Investigating Director would then have to apply her mind to the application on what offences, persons, etcetera, must then be investigated. That then becomes my decision, or the Investigating Director's decision in terms of section 28 of the Act”

There is no committee that makes the decision whether to take on a matter; the suggestion of a committee is part of a draft operations manual but it is not implemented yet.

“He is incorrect about a committee. These are Chair, when you put to me about the juristic nature of things, after IDAC became permanent ... we have come up with a draft operations manual ... in that draft operations manual, which is soon to be finalized, that you would find the suggestion of a committee. But there is not, Commissioner Baloyi, a committee”

Mr O'Sullivan did not refer the specific case to IDAC; the first referral looked at by the speaker was the affidavit by Mr Adam dated 21 November, followed by a letter from the Minister's office dated 11 November.

“I am unaware of any referral with regards this matter from Mr O'Sullivan... I do confirm that the Minister's office did write a letter to us... and then there is the referral by Mr Adams dated the 21st of November... I am unaware... of any referral made by Mr O'Sullivan”

The Minister's letter came first followed by Mr Adam's affidavit; no referral from Mr O'Sullivan was known to the office.

“The Minister's letter came first, yes. ... His affidavit came after. ... That is correct, Chair. ... That is correct.”

The referral made by Mr Fadiel Adams (Mr Adams) was supervised by usual protocols, with a letter sent to SAPS Divisional Commissioner Detective Lieutenant General Senthumule requesting dockets.

“The referral was made by Mr Fadiel Adams (Mr Adams). ... Following the common established process, I sent a letter to the SAPS Divisional Commissioner of Detectives, Lieutenant General Senthumule, requesting the dockets.”

State capture is a type of systemic political corruption referenced in the affidavit, with leave to testify before the Commission intended to expand upon these issues.

“State capture is a type of systemic political”

An investigation was undertaken upon receipt of the dockets, concluding there was reasonable and probable cause for prosecution and formulation of charges against Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused.

“Following upon receipt of the dockets, the information contained therein was analysed. Thereafter, an investigation was undertaken. The investigation unearthed sufficient evidence to: conclude that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution; and formulation of the charges against Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused.”

The affidavit by Mr Adams makes allegations of manipulation of recruitment processes, appointment of unsuitable persons in senior strategic posts in the Criminal Intelligence Unit, bypassing of vetting processes, and appointments as gratification linked to collusion in looting state funds, including purchase of properties.

“The manipulation of recruitment processes and appointment of persons without suitable qualifications into senior strategic posts in the Criminal Intelligence Unit; the bypassing of vetting processes ...; and the appointments of persons not suitably qualified or experienced as a form of gratification for their collusion later in the looting of state funds, for example, the purchase of properties.”

Appointment and installation of certain persons in Crime Intelligence Unit (CIU) by Lieutenant General Khumalo and co-accused helped them access funding without following proper processes, and token appointments did not stop their unlawful acts.

“the appointment and installation of certain persons in certain positions within the Crime Intelligence Unit , CIU , by Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused persons helped them strategically to access funding without following proper processes . This is because the token appointments would not stop them from their unlawful acts .”

The appointment and installation of certain persons in positions within the Crime Intelligence Unit (CIU) by Lieutenant General Khumalo and co-accused enabled them to strategically access funding without following proper procedures, and token appointments did not stop their unlawful acts.

“The picture that has emerged is that the appointment and installation of certain persons in certain positions within the Crime Intelligence Unit, CIU, by Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused persons helped them strategically to access funding without following proper processes. This is because the token appointments would not stop them from their unlawful acts.”

The only complaint about appointments that is referred to IDAC relates to the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele, with no other complaints or referrals concerning others in different positions.

“The only complaint I am aware of ... is the complaint about the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele. ... No out of this, no.”

IDAC identified issues relating to vetting and appointments from the referral by Mr Adams, including the complaint about Brigadier Mokwele’s appointment and one other matter concerning appointment vetting non-compliance.

“They were able to identify that there are issues relating to vetting and appointments. The appointment of Brigadier Mokwele was one of them, but the other, there are, I think there is one other matter where there is issue of an appointment is also part of the complaint, a part of the investigation that was dealt with.”

IDAC referral from Mr Adams included issues relating to vetting and appointments, with Brigadier Mokwele's appointment being one of the matters.

“When we got the referral from Mr Adams and it was given to the prosecutors together with those dockets , they were able to identify that there are issues relating to vetting and appointments . The appointment of Brigadier Mokwele was one of them , but the other , there are , I think there is one other matter where the issue of an appointment is also part of the complaint , a part of the investigation that was dealt with .”

The only complaint about appointment referred to IDAC involved Brigadier Mokwele, and no referral to IDAC regarding other appointments.

“the only complaint I am aware of , I may be mistake , is the complaint about the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele . Are there any other appointments in respect of which there are complaints ?”

The sole complaint to IDAC about an appointment relates to Brigadier Mokwele’s placement, which arose from non-compliance with vetting positions and questions her appointment as unlawful.

“Perhaps it is complaint about the placement of a person in a position that arose out of the non-compliance with the vetting positions. So it is not, the only complaint about an actual appointment was the Mokwele, that were, the allegation is she should not have been appointed.”

No complaint to IDAC about appointment and installation of certain persons in plural, only a person (Brigadier Mokwele).

“So then there is no complaint to IDAC about appointment and installation of certain persons , plural . No , it is a person . Person .”

There was no referral to IDAC about other persons strategically placed in Crime Intelligence Unit; decisions to investigate others who were strategically placed were made by IDAC itself.

“So to the extent that IDAC went and looked at other people who were “ strategically placed ” , it is IDAC that decided to do that . There was no referrals saying there are people who are strategically placed within Crime Intelligence , investigate how they were placed there .”

Apart from Brigadier Mokwele, there were no referrals to IDAC regarding other persons or positions described as having token or strategic appointments within the Crime Intelligence Unit.

“To the extent that IDAC went and looked at other people who were 'strategically placed', it is IDAC that decided to do that. There was no referrals saying there are people who are strategically placed within Crime Intelligence, investigate how they were placed there.”

The token appointment of Brigadier Mokwele would not stop her from unlawful acts.

“This is because their token ... appointment would not stop her from unlawful acts.”

Token appointment of Brigadier Mokwele would not stop her from unlawful acts.

“This is because their token ... appointment would not stop her from unlawful acts .”

Cases referred to IDAC by Mr Adams depict state capture, fraud, corruption and defeating the ends of justice.

“This is what IDAC , upon looking at all the matters holistically , established . However , if one looks at an individual case , this bigger and clearer picture does not emerge . When looked at holistically , the cases depicts state capture , fraud , corruption , and defeating the ends of justice .”

Upon holistic review of all matters, IDAC established the cases depict state capture, fraud, corruption, and defeating the ends of justice.

“This is what IDAC, upon looking at all the matters holistically, established. However, if one looks at an individual case, this bigger and clearer picture does not emerge. When looked at holistically, the cases depicts state capture, fraud, corruption, and defeating the ends of justice.”

After investigation, IDAC applied for arrest warrants against all the accused and submitted a prosecution memorandum with draft charge sheet to the Director of Public Prosecutions for the North Gauteng Division of the High Court.

“Once the investigation was concluded, I was briefed by the team that had conducted the investigation on behalf of IDAC. IDAC then applied for warrants of arrest against all the accused. I then prepared a prosecution memorandum and submitted same to the Director of Public Prosecutions responsible for the North Gauteng Division of the High Court, that is the office of the DPP, together with a draft charge sheet and a request for the enrolment of the matter.”

IDAC applied for warrants of arrest against all the accused and prepared a prosecution memorandum submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) responsible for North Gauteng Division of the High Court, including a draft charge sheet and request for enrolment of the matter.

“Once the investigation was concluded , I was briefed by the team that had conducted the investigation on behalf of IDAC . IDAC then applied for warrants of arrest against all the accused . It then prepared a prosecution memorandum and submitted same to the Director of Public Prosecutions responsible for the North Gauteng Division of the High Court , that is the office of the DPP , together with a draft charge sheet and a request for the enrolment of the matter .”

The Director of Public Prosecutions acts as a measure of checks and balances and may grant permission for the enrolment of a matter only if there is reasonable and probable cause for prosecution.

“The first is that the DPP is a measure for checks and balances. The second is so that the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions 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 roll of criminal cases.”

Measures have been implemented to ensure the Commission receives the documents requested through subpoenas related to Advocate Johnson's testimony.

“I can report back that the measures have been put in place to ensure that the Commission receives the documents requested in terms of all these subpoenas.”

IDAC applied for the warrant of arrest against all the accused after the investigation was concluded, followed by a prosecution memorandum submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

“once the investigation was concluded you were briefed, you were briefed and you applied, IDAC applied for the warrant of arrest against all the accused. You say: “I then prepared a prosecution memorandum and submitted same to the Director of Public Prosecutions.””

Advocate Johnson prepared a prosecution memorandum and submitted it to the Director of Public Prosecutions after IDA applied for warrants of arrest against accused persons.

“I then prepared a prosecution memorandum and submitted same to the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

Advocate Johnson indicated the prosecution memorandum was submitted prior to enrolment and referred to in terms of section 24(2) of the NPA Act.

“... kindly ask for the prosecution memo that is submitted to the office of the DPP prior to enrolment, which is what is referred to in terms of section 24, subsection 2 of the NPA Act.”

A prosecution memorandum referred to by Advocate Johnson was requested by the commission but not originally made available as it was assumed to be in the docket; the commission requests the memorandum and related documents.

“My request to you, are you able to provide the Commission with that prosecution memorandum your referenced at paragraph 30, or, and I doubt, do you require the Commission to issue a subpoena to obtain same?”

A request was not made for the prosecution memorandum because it was assumed to be in the relevant docket, however the memorandum is not in the docket and the Commission requests it to be provided.

“At the time, a request was not made of you to provide such a memorandum because the assumption was that it would be found in the relevant docket... That is one document that is not in the docket. My request to you, are you able to provide the Commission with that prosecution memorandum you referenced at paragraph 30?”

Advocate Johnson stated he prepared the prosecution memorandum himself, which he believes should be easy to locate.

“I know that it was prepared by you. You say, I then prepared. So it should be difficult to locate, I believe.”

The prosecution memorandum and the consultation note(s) form a set of documents including correspondence dated 24 and 25 June 2025.

“It is correspondence dated 25 June 2025... references your correspondence dated 24 June 2025 ... annexed to that was the consultation note, and I guess the memorandum, or maybe it is the same thing, consultation note and the memorandum.”

The senior members of SAPS implicated in those matters included then Acting National Police Commissioner General Phahlane, General Ngwenya (first black female Deputy National Police Commissioner), General Nematunzela (Head of Analysis at Crime Intelligence), and various other very senior SAPS officials.

“The accused in those matters included, amongst others, then Acting National Police Commissioner General Phahlane, General Ngwenya, who was our first black female Deputy National Police Commissioner in the SAPS, and also at the time, the wife of Lieutenant-General Shadrack Sibiya, General Nematunzela, who was the Head of Analysis at Crime Intelligence, and various other very senior SAPS officials.”

Senior SAPS members implicated in corruption matters included Acting National Police Commissioner General Phahlane, General Ngwenya, General Nematunzela, and various other senior SAPS officials.

“The accused in those matters included, amongst others, then Acting National Police Commissioner General Phahlane, General Ngwenya, who was our first black female Deputy National Police Commissioner in the SAPS, and also at the time, the wife of Lieutenant-General Shadrack Sibiya, General Nematunzela, who was the Head of Analysis at Crime Intelligence, and various other very senior SAPS officials.”

The Investigating Directorate (ID), predecessor to IDAC, was already dealing with several complex fraud and corruption matters implicating very senior SAPS members in the supply chain management unit when Advocate Johnson joined.

“When I joined the Investigating Directorate (ID), predecessor to the IDAC, there were already several complex fraud and corruption matters in place. These matters implicated very senior members of SAPS in alleged criminality. This was especially so in the supply chain management unit.”

The correspondence and memorandum satisfied that a prima facie case was made and was concurred with by the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions.

“Having considered the contents of all this documentation ... I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, and then I concur with your decision ...”

Upon joining the Investigating Directorate (ID), predecessor to IDAC, Advocate Johnson found several complex fraud and corruption matters implicating very senior SAPS members, especially in the SAPS supply chain management unit.

“When I joined the Investigating Directorate (ID), predecessor to the IDAC, there were already several complex fraud and corruption matters in place. These matters implicated very senior member of SAPS in alleged criminality. This was especially so in the supply chain management unit of the SAPS.”

Advocate Johnson states that the prosecution memorandum and related documents are in the form of a set of correspondence, including a letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the response, constituting the documentation referred to in paragraph 30.

“They actually do just form, they are not a different set, they form a set. It is writing a letter to the DPP, saying this is what I attach, this is the purpose, and then you send that through, and then you get this response, Commissioner Khumalo, that you referred to.”

IDAC was investigating multiple matters involving senior members of the South African Police Service related to supply chain management issues which had already been enrolled in various courts when Advocate Johnson joined IDAC.

“IDAC had other matters, that it was investigating against senior members of the South African Police, which matters I found were already within that space when I arrived, and that those matters related to the supply chain management issues, and that the officials mentioned in 32 are of the officials that were charged in the various Courts on these matters.”

IDAC is not involved in any investigation relating to Molefe. IDAC's only interest in Vusimusi 'Cat' Matlala's case arose from a section 27 referral from SAPS concerning the unlawful awarding of a tender to Matlala's company Medicare 24, and allegations of collusion and corruption with Matlala and some SAPS officials. Cyber search warrants for Matlala's phones and electronic devices were obtained and the data was downloaded in the presence of Lieutenant Colonel Khumalo, who then left with the devices.

“IDAC is not involved in any investigation relating to Molefe. With regards to Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala (Matlala) IDAC's only interest arose out of a section 27 referral from SAPS with regards to the unlawful awarding of a tender to his company, Medicare 24, and allegations of collusion and corruption with Matlala and some SAPS officials. IDAC did get cyber search warrants for the cell phones and electronic devices of Matlala. These were presented to IDAC by a Lieutenant Colonel Khumalo. The data was downloaded in his presence and he left with the devices.”

IDAC received cyber search warrants for Matlala's cellphones and electronic devices presented by Lieutenant Colonel Khumalo to investigate the tender matter.

“IDAC did get cyber search warrants for the cellphones and electronic devices of Matlala. These were presented to IDAC by a Lieutenant Colonel Khumalo. The data was downloaded in his presence and he left with the devices.”

IDAC is not involved in any investigation related to Molefe but is involved regarding Vusimusi 'Cat' Matlala concerning allegations of collusion, corruption, and unlawful awarding of a tender to his company, Medicare 24.

“IDAC is not involved in any investigation relating to Molefe. With regards to Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala (Matlala) IDAC's only interest arose out of a section 27 referral from SAPS with regards to the unlawful awarding of a tender to his company, Medicare 24, and allegations of collusion and corruption with Matlala and some SAPS officials.”

IDAC sought involvement in matters involving syndicates in Gauteng which General Mkhwanazi testified about.

“Mkhwanazi also testified, that is General Mkhwanazi, also testified IDAC sought to get involved in matters involving syndicates in Gauteng.”

Previous investigations into senior police officials do not impact the current matter involving the arrest of General Khumalo.

“No, it was just merely to indicate that there were other matters of also senior police officials within the SAPS environment.”

Section 27 referral related to Matlala was entirely based on allegations of irregular awarding of a contract to Medicare 24 and comes from a different source than other referrals discussed related to Mr Adams.

“It is a section 27 referral entirely based only on allegations against Matlala, irregular awarding of a contract, Medicare 24, and it is from someone completely different and does not relate to the one we have been discussing or the one we have been discussing about Mr Adams.”

The section 27 referral against Matlala is entirely separate from other referrals, including one relating to Mr. Adams.

“It is a section 27 referral entirely based only on allegations against Matlala, irregular awarding of a contract, Medicare 24, and it is from someone completely different and does not relate to the one we have been discussing or the one we have been discussing about Mr Adams.”

In past cases involving allegations of malfeasance, fraud, and corruption implicating SAPS top brass, convictions were secured, including a prosecution involving Major General Solly Lazarus, CFO of Crime Intelligence, where the prosecutor was involved.

““26. The point to all of this is that there is nothing new with sound allegations of malfeasance, fraud, and corruption, implicating the top brass in the SAPS. Not only has it happened in the past, when some of those cases were presented to the Courts, we secured convictions. ... we also had another matter where the CFO of Crime Intelligence, Major General Solly Lazarus, had been charged and prosecuted. I was one of the prosecutors on that matter, but halfway through, I was gone to a different office, but he was also convicted.”

There are current IDAC matters involving General Phahlane and others, based on section 27 referrals from SAPS, which are either part-heard or set down for trial but not yet finalized.

“The ones in IDAC currently are matters that are either part heard or matters set down for trial. They are not finalised yet.”

Lieutenant-General Khumalo's arrest and co-accused preceded a death threat received directly on the cell phone of an NPA prosecutor involved in the investigations.

“I received a death threat directly on my cell phone. I read: “Mrs IDAC, you and your guy Chabalala, Perumal, Padayachee, and Belochana have went too far. You are going to wish you did not … with us, get body bags ready.” In my long career as a prosecutor, this is the first time that I received a death threat.”

Advocate Johnson received a death threat message on his cellphone following the arrest of Lieutenant-General Khumalo and co-accused, which stated that individuals including members of IDAC had 'went too far' and were going to 'wish you did not ...' with a threat to have body bags ready. This was the first death threat he had received in his long career as a prosecutor.

“I received a death threat directly on my cell phone. I read: “Mrs IDAC, you and your guy Chabalala, Perumal, Padayachee, and Belochan have went too far. You are going to wish you did not … with us, get body bags ready.” ... In my long career as a prosecutor, this is the first time that I received a death threat.”

The death threat was escalated to the Risk and Security Division of the NPA who followed up, but the threatening telephone could not be traced as it used an unregistered SIM card, a so-called ‘burner phone’.

“The matter was escalated to the Risk and Security Division of the NPA. They did follow up on that message. It was one of those phones that did not have a registered SIM card, so it sent a message and you could not then go ahead and trace the user of the telephone.”

The death threat led to the involvement of the Risk and Security Division of the NPA, though tracing the source was hindered by the use of a burner phone without a registered SIM card.

“The matter was escalated to the Risk and security Division of the NPA. They did follow up on that message. It was one of those phones that did not have a registered SIM card, so it sent a message and you could not then go ahead and trace the user of the telephone.”

Someone accosted the daughter of the prosecutor involved at their home in Tourgate for the first time in 20 years, shortly before the receipt of the death threat.

“What had happened is someone accosted my daughter and I at our gate. And we had lived there for almost 20 years and this had happened for the first time four days before.”

Someone accosted Advocate Johnson's daughter at their residential estate four days before a death threat was received, and the person spoke to him in Zulu immediately, which caused alarm because the person then asked for a lawyer and eventually left. This event is possibly connected to the death threat and might be linked to a subject of the Commission.

“... what had happened is someone accosted my daughter and I at our gate. We had lived there for almost 20 years and this had happened for the first time four days before. And I think the only reason it alarmed me was when the person walked up to the gate, he spoke to me immediately in Zulu. ... And then he said in English, I want a lawyer. ... A and also what I did not put in the affidavit is, at the time it did not seem related, but ... it might be a person who is also a subject at the Commission.”

Advocate Andrea Johnson confirms that the threats against her have affected her entire household.

“It has affected my entire household”

Measures had been put in place to take care of Advocate Andrea Johnson and her family due to validated threats against her.

“the measures had been put in place to take care of me and my family”

Measures had been put in place to take care of Advocate Andrea Johnson and her family, and her colleagues, including the prosecutor Chabalala, investigator Perumal Padayachee and investigator Belochana.

“the measures had been put in place to take care of me and my family , my colleagues , that were mentioned in this . One is a your guy , Chabalala is a prosecutor , Perumal Padayachee and Belochana are investigators .”

Advocate Andrea Johnson appeared with legal representation during her testimony and is willing to answer questions while present.

“You appear here today with legal representation , do you not ? Correct . Commissioners , I would like to deal with whatever I can whilst I am here .”

Advocate Andrea Johnson intends to expand on issues if leave to testify is granted and has responded to a subpoena by presenting herself before the commission.

“As I indicate somewhere towards the end of this affidavit , I intend to apply for leave to testify before this Commission . If leave is so granted , I will get an opportunity to expand on the issues to which reference is made above . Now , I am not aware of your application for leave to testify , but you were served with a subpoena and you have responded to the subpoena and presented yourself .”

Advocate Andrea Johnson has received different notices regarding matters flowing from her statement and has been legally represented during evidence giving.

“You have been provided with notice , it might be debatable whether timeously or , but notice has been provided to you , different notices have been provided to you regarding matters flowing from your statement .”

Advocate Andrea Johnson clarified that the chargesheet attached to her affidavit was the version as at October 2025 when the statement was deposed, not necessarily the current chargesheet, which could have been amended after June 26th arrest.

“I just want to clarify that this is what I have . And I am hoping that there is not something different before the Commission , to clarify this is what I had and what I attach .”

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

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

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

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

The subpoena served on 4 July 2026 required testimony about allegations including IDAC operating outside its mandate, pursuing politically motivated criminal cases, and interference in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

“On 4 July 2026, I was served with a subpoena in terms of section 32 of the Commission's Act 8 of 1947, requiring me to appear personally before the Commission on Monday 3 July 2026 to give evidence and to be questioned about... matters arising from the evidence of Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi ... Whether criminal syndicates, organised criminal groups, politically connected persons, or other unlawful actors have infiltrated... SAPS, NPA, Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, Crime Intelligence, IPID... The factual and evidentiary basis for any allegations attributed to me...”

IDAC allegedly operates outside its mandate as set in section 7(1)(A) of the NPA Act as amended.

“That IDAC allegedly and unlawfully operates outside its mandate in terms of section 71A of the NPA Act as amended”

Advocate Andrea Johnson was appointed to her position as Investigating Director by President Cyril Ramaphosa effective from 1 March 2022 under the NPA Act.

“I was appointed to this position by President Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa with effect from 1 March 022 in terms of section 13 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the NPA Act”

IDAC allegedly pursued a criminal case against Lieutenant-General Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence to further political interference in SAPS.

“That IDAC allegedly pursued a criminal case against Lieutenant-General Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence in the furtherance of ongoing political interference in SAPS”

IDAC allegedly operates outside its mandate per section 7(1)(A) of the NPA Act as amended.

“That IDAC allegedly and unlawfully operates outside its mandate in terms of section 7 (1) (A) of the NPA Act as amended.”

The subpoena served on 4 July 2026 required appearance to give evidence on issues arising from Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's testimony on political interference and criminal syndicates in SAPS and related bodies.

“On 4 July 2026, I was served with a subpoena in terms of section 32 of the Commission's Act 8 of 1947, requiring me to appear personally before the Commission on Monday 3 July 2026 to give evidence and to be questioned about ... matters arising from the evidence of Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi before the Commission ... Political interference ... criminal syndicates... SAPS...NPA...Crime Intelligence...IPID ...”

IDAC allegedly pursued a criminal case against Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence to further ongoing political interference in SAPS.

“That IDAC allegedly pursued a criminal case against Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence in the furtherance of ongoing political interference in SAPS.”

IDAC states it strictly operates within its mandate and considers matters referred arising from state capture and commissions such as the Justice Mpatia and Justice Nugent Commissions.

“8. The IDAC operates strictly within its mandate. That mandate is set out in section 7 (1) (A) of the NPA Act as amended. It also considers matters referred to it arising from the state capture, the Commissions that were colloquially known as the Justice Mpatia and Justice Nugent Commissions, and any other matter referred to it by the National Director of Public Prosecutions. IDAC has not dealt with matters outside its mandate.”

The investigation and prosecution of Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence have at all times been dealt with through ordinary prosecutorial processes within IDAC and NPA, and the matter is presently before a court of law.

“The investigation and prosecution have at all material times been dealt with through ordinary prosecutorial processes applicable within IDAC and the NPA. The matter is presently before a court of law.”

IDAC denies allegations of pursuing criminal cases against Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo and other Crime Intelligence officials for political purposes or political interference in SAPS.

“11. I deny these allegations. I expand on this denial as follows here under 1. 1D A C has a prima facie criminal case against Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence. That matter was not pursued for any political purpose at the instance of any political actor or to advance any form of political interference within SAPS.”

IDAC denies allegations that it operated outside its mandate and that the criminal case against Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo was politically motivated.

“11. I deny these allegations. I expand on this denial as follows here under 1.1 IDAC has a prima facie criminal case against Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence. That matter was not pursued for any political purpose at the instance of any political actor or to advance any form of political interference within SAPS.”

There exists a process for accused persons to make representations to prosecutors and the National Director of Public Prosecutions regarding prosecutions, and the current case against Lieutenant-General Dumisani Khumalo is undergoing that process.

“... accused persons can make representations based on what is disclosed to them in terms of the docket plus the charge sheet... those representations are first made through the prosecutors for the consideration either by DPP... if their representations are unsuccessful, they then have the further recourse to make representations to the Office of the National Director.”

Advocate Johnson asserts that he has not been directed, encouraged, permitted or participated in any politically motivated prosecution or investigation against Lieutenant Colonel Khumalo or any crime intelligence official.

“I have not been directed, encouraged, permitted or participated in any politically motivated prosecution or investigation against Lieutenant Colonel Khumalo or any crime intelligence official”

Advocate Johnson explains that prosecution teams independently evaluate evidence and make prosecution decisions, performing oversight but not adjudication.

“Prosecutors independently evaluate the evidence and make prosecution decisions. I perform an oversight function and am not involved in adjudicating the evidence in this and other matters.”

Advocate Johnson denies being directed, encouraged, permitted or participating in any politically motivated prosecution or investigation against Lieutenant Colonel Khumalo or any crime intelligence official.

“I have not been directed, encouraged, permitted or participated in any politically motivated prosecution or investigation against Lieutenant Colonel Khumalo or any crime intelligence official.”

Advocate Johnson explains that the prosecution team adjudicates representations submitted by the accused based on the docket and charge sheet and that this process is ongoing.

“the prosecution team is adjudicating those representations based on the docket and the charge sheet. I do not know what the representations purport to allege. This process is still ongoing”

Advocate Johnson has found an email from the National Director of Public Prosecutions to himself stating that there is a review to be held and some representations have been dealt with by someone, and on that basis there was a request to be removed from the matter.

“I did find that email. I just have to make it available to Advocate Sello where the NDPP then adds bits to that email. And it is on that basis. There is the representations that have been dealt with by someone. The National Director in the email also says, Advocate Sello, that there is a review to be held. And so my having asked to be removed and being released...”

Advocate Johnson is not removed from office but from the matter in respect of specific issues related to the prosecution.

“Removed, not from office. Not from office, but from the matter. Removed in relation to or in respect of specific matters”

Advocate Johnson confirms that the National Director removed Lieutenant Colonel Khumalo from the specific matter but not from office, and that a review is to be held.

“Not from office, but from the matter. The National Director in the email also says, Advocate Sello, that there is a review to be held. And so my having asked to be removed and being released...”

Advocate Johnson states the matter concerning Lieutenant Colonel Khumalo is presently before a criminal court trial, with representations under consideration by the prosecution team and ongoing processes.

“The matter is presently before a court of law. That is a criminal trial. In those circumstances and because representations submitted by the accused are under consideration by the prosecution team, it would be inappropriate for me in this affidavit to address the merits. This process is still ongoing.”

Advocate Johnson clarifies he is not invoking the subjudice rule to refuse to answer questions but is concerned his testimony might adversely influence ongoing matters.

“I think it is not the not wanting to testify... I do not want that later on that which I have said has adversely influenced those matters given their current status.”

Advocate Johnson does not want to unduly influence ongoing matters by his testimony, given his removal from the matter due to controversies surrounding his own involvement.

“I do not want to have anything that might unduly influence those matters, given I asked to be removed because of the controversies around myself in dealing with these matters”

Advocate Johnson clarifies he is not invoking the subjudice rule to refuse to testify but is conscious of not wanting his testimony to influence ongoing legal processes.

“I think it is not the not wanting to testify, if I could please be clear about that. It is I do not want that it is later on that what I have said has adversely influenced those matters given their current status”

Advocate Johnson states he does not want his statements at the Commission to unduly influence ongoing matters due to his removal from dealing with them.

“I do not want to have anything that might unduly influence those matters, given I asked to be removed because of the controversies around myself in dealing with these matters.”

Advocates Johnson and Khumalo testified in the Ad Hoc Committee late last year in relation to the same issues.

“you testified in the Ad Hoc Committee sometime late last year? That is correct, sir. And you testified in relation to the same issue? Yes”

Advocate Khumalo states it would be unusual for Advocate Johnson to be comfortable answering subjudice issues before the Ad Hoc Committee but not now before this Commission due to the change in the nature of the forum and applicable powers.

“The attitude to the same questions would change. I would find that strange, because the same risk would arise if you answered these questions before the Ad Hoc Committee.”

Advocate Johnson confirms he testified in the Ad Hoc Committees last year on the same issues as raised here regarding the subjudice rule.

“That is correct, sir.”

Advocate Johnson indicates he raised the subjudice rule issue in the Ad Hoc Committee but answered the question or it was overruled.

“Did we raise the subjudice and it was overruled or I answered the question.”

The Chairperson clarifies that Ms Sello is not invoking the subjudice shield and not refusing to answer on that ground.

“I understand you are not invoking the subjudice shield. You are not saying you will not answer because of that”

Advocate Johnson indicates that facts about what happened in 2024 do not change because of representations or judicial matters and should remain valid regardless of ongoing processes.

“Facts do not change because they are representations. If we are looking at what happened in 2024, those are facts... those facts remain, unless somebody changes them as they go along. But if they are what they are, and they have always been what they are, that should not be an issue”

Advocate Sello states that Advocate Johnson is not invoking the subjudice shield and is not refusing to answer questions because of that.

“You are not invoking the subjudice shield. You are not saying you will not answer because of that.”

Advocate Johnson agrees that facts do not change based on whether matters are representations or court cases, and that historical facts remain facts independent of legal processes.

“Facts do not change because they are representations.”

Advocate Baloyi states that Advocate Johnson is expressing difficulty now that he is no longer involved with these matters, and he should not speak in a way that might influence decisions that will eventually be made by the court or other decision-makers regarding the representations.

“You are expressing a difficulty that now that you are no longer seized with these matters, you should not speak in a way that may appear to influence a decision that will eventually be made either by the Court or whoever makes decisions on these representations”

Advocate Baloyi clarifies that Advocate Johnson is expressing difficulty speaking about matters due to not being involved anymore but not invoking the subjudice rule.

“You are expressing a difficulty that now that you are no longer seized with these matters, you should not speak in a way that may appear to influence a decision to be made either by the Court or whoever makes decision.”

The representations submitted by the accused regarding a matter before the court are under consideration by the prosecution team and are based on disclosed documents.

“You testified that those representations submitted by the accused are under consideration by the prosecution team and that they are based on disclosed documents.”

On Friday prior to the hearing, the accused, Brigadier Mokwele, submitted an additional document to the National Director and Advocate Bell, which references evidence of Mr Padayachee relevant to completing representations.

“On Friday, the Friday that passed, the accused, Brigadier Mokwele, did submit in writing, for the attention of the National Director, as well as Advocate Bell, who now oversees these matters, an additional document wherein her legal team alludes to the evidence of Mr Padayachee especially in relation to aspects elicited during the examination at the Commission on the section 27, and makes it clear that these cannot be ignored for purposes of completing the representations.”

The accused, Brigadier Mokwele, submitted an additional document for the attention of the National Director and Advocate Bell, which alludes to the evidence of Colonel Padayachee and indicates that the evidence cannot be ignored for purposes of completing the representations.

“on Friday, the Friday that passed, the accused, Brigadier Mokwele, did submit in writing, for the attention of the National Director, as well as Advocate Bell, who now oversees these matters, an additional document wherein her legal team alludes to the evidence of Mr Padayachee ... and makes it clear that these cannot be ignored for purposes of completing the representations”

The section 27 referral made by Colonel Padayachee was not part of the formal docket given to the accused and was only dealt with in this Commission.

“As I understand it, and this is what we engage Colonel Padayachee on, the section 27 referral was not part of the docket. The entire docket has been disclosed to the accused, but the section 27 referral is not a part of that docket. It only became, it was only dealt with here, and was submitted to this Commission.”

The section 27 referral by Colonel Padayachee was not part of the docket but was only submitted to the Commission and not disclosed to the accused as part of the docket.

“the section 27 referral was not part of the docket. The entire docket has been disclosed to the accused, but the section 27 referral is not a part of that docket. It only became, it was only dealt with here, and was submitted to this Commission”

Advocate Johnson affirmed that the investigation had sufficient evidence to conclude reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution and formulation of charges against Lieutenant Khumalo and co-accused.

“The investigation has sufficient evidence to establish the two factors ... the investigation unearthed sufficient evidence to conclude ... That there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution; and formulation of the charges against Lieutenant Khumalo and his co-accused ... I am informed through the team to myself here in 24 that there is sufficient information, sufficient evidence.”

Advocate Johnson stated that he has no insight into the dockets or the evidence contained in them, but he receives briefings and engages with the investigation team and is able to give feedback on the process.

“I have no insight into the dockets or the evidence contained in them ... I am giving you the feedback of what happened in that process ... It is not me who does receipt of the dockets ... It is me giving you the feedback of what happened in that process ... I get briefings, we have an engagement, and from there I am able to take it forward”

Advocate Johnson states that upon receipt of the dockets, an investigation was conducted and it unearthed sufficient evidence to conclude that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution of Lieutenant Khumalo and his co-accused.

“Following upon receipts of the dockets, the information contained therein was analysed. Thereafter, an investigation was undertaken. The investigation unearthed sufficient evidence to conclude: that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution; and formulation of the charges against Lieutenant Khumalo and his co-accused.”

Advocate Johnson prepared a prosecution memorandum and draft charge sheet after the investigation, which were informed by the evidence unearthed in the investigation.

“then you prepare a prosecution memorandum and a draft charge sheet ... I expect to find that in your prosecution memorandum ... it must be a very informed memorandum.”

Advocate Johnson receives briefings and engagements with the investigation team which provide him with sufficient insight into the evidence and the docket for purposes of his prosecution work.

“I get briefings, we have an engagement, and from there I am able to take it forward. Level of insight, yes. That is correct, Chair.”

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) concurred with the decision to prosecute made by Advocate Johnson, indicating that he made the prosecution decision and the DPP agreed with it.

“Remember that letter I referred you to from the DPP, where they say they concur with your decision to prosecute? What they seem to be saying is that you made the decision to prosecute, they agree with you ... That letter said you made a decision, they concur with your decision.”

The decision to prosecute was made by Advocate Johnson and concurred with by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

“Remember that letter I referred you to from the DPP, where they say they concur with your decision to prosecute? What they seem to be saying is that you made the decision to prosecute, they agree with you.”

Advocate Johnson as the Head of Office makes the prosecution decision and communicates that decision to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

“As the Head of Office, I communicate the decision. And to communicate the decision, Commissioner Khumalo, I must have reconciled myself with that decision.”

There are two perspectives on prosecution decisions: one based on reviewing all facts to decide on prosecution, and a second where a charge sheet is prepared and the decision to prosecute is made by the team.

“One is to say, we have investigated this case. These are all the facts. Please look at all the facts and decide whether this person should be prosecuted or not. That is one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that you say, we have conducted an investigation. We have prepared a charge sheet. I am satisfied that there is a prima facie case. I have made a decision to prosecute.”

ADV Johnson states that as the Head of Office, he sends memorandums capturing the essence of charges, persons to be charged, and makes decisions that are communicated to the DPP office.

“As the I D, I sent the memorandum . We captured the essence of the charges , who is to be charged, where the matter is to be enrolled , and what it is . The document comes from me ... I communicate the decision”

ADV Johnson confirms he conveys to the DPP office that he has made a decision to prosecute a case and that it is his decision conveyed.

“From you , do you convey to the D P P that you have made a decision to prosecute , that this case should be prosecuted ? ... Yes . ... Is that the decision you make ? ... Yes . ... That is what you communicate ? ... That is what is communicated .”

Advocate Johnson confirms that the decision to prosecute is his decision and that he communicates it to the DPP Office.

“From you, do you convey to the DPP that you have made a decision to prosecute, that this case should be prosecuted? Yes. Is that the decision you make? Yes. And that is what you communicate? That is what is communicated.”

ADV Johnson confirms that the DPP is concurring with his decision to charge, as stated in the prosecution memo.

“And I concur with your decision to charge them on the offences set out in the charge sheet . ... Yes, so what the DPP is concurring with is your decision to charge them . ... As communicated in the prosecution memo .”

The DPP concurs with Advocate Johnson's decision to charge as set out in the chargesheet.

“And I concur with your decision to charge them on the offences set out in the charge sheet. Yes, so what the DPP is concurring with is your decision to charge them.”

Prosecutors independently evaluate evidence and make prosecution decisions, but the prosecution decision communicated to the DPP is ultimately Advocate Johnson's decision.

“Prosecutors independently evaluate the evidence and make prosecution decisions... Once they have presented the evidence, Commissioners, more often than not, it is an oral briefing. They will then put together a draft prosecution memo. I then have to go through that memo, see if I agree with what is in there, and therefore endorse the prosecution decision, which then becomes my decision, which is conveyed...”

Advocate Johnson denies all allegations of interfering in criminal investigations or prosecutions and describes those allegations as vague and unsupported by particulars.

“I deny any allegation that I interfered in criminal investigations or prosecutions. This allegation is in any event vague and unsupported by particulars...”

ADV Johnson claims that IDAC operates on a prosecution-led investigative methodology where investigators present evidence to prosecutors who then decide whether to prosecute; this decision is confirmed by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP).

“IDAC operates on a prosecution - led investigative methodology that I head . Investigators conduct investigations and present evidence to prosecutors in their teams . Prosecutors then evaluate the facts and evidence and decide whether to prosecute . That decision is confirmed by the DDPP is the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions ...”

ADV Johnson denies all allegations that he interfered in criminal investigations or prosecutions, stating the allegations are vague and unsupported.

“I deny any allegation that I interfered in criminal investigations or prosecutions . This allegation is in any event vague and unsupported by particulars .”

The investigative and prosecutorial process is led by IDAC, with investigators conducting investigations and prosecutors presenting evidence and making decisions to prosecute confirmed by senior management including the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions.

“IDAC operates on a prosecution-led investigative methodology that I head. Investigators conduct investigations and present evidence to prosecutors in their teams. Prosecutors then evaluate the facts and evidence and decide whether to prosecute. That decision is confirmed by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions... Matters are presented to the Investigating Director and senior managers before arrest as part of oversight function.”

Advocate Johnson states he has not instructed or influenced any investigator or prosecutor to act contrary to evidence, law, or prosecutorial policy.

“I have not instructed, pressured, induced, prevented, delayed or otherwise influenced any investigator or prosecutor to act other than in accordance with the evidence, the law and applicable prosecutorial policy.”

ADV Johnson states he has not instructed, pressured, induced, prevented, delayed or otherwise influenced any investigator or prosecutor to act otherwise than in accordance with evidence, law and prosecutorial policy.

“I have not instructed , pressured , induced , prevented , delayed or otherwise influenced any investigator or prosecutor to act other than in accordance with the evidence , the law and the applicable prosecutorial policy .”

ADV Johnson describes his oversight function wherein teams preparing for arrests must present all necessary documents and evidence to him and senior managers who then evaluate if all evidential and operational requirements are fulfilled before endorsing the arrest.

“When teams are ready to execute arrests , it becomes important to determine that they have done , they have all the necessary documents , that they have fulfilled the evidential burden and what operational and / or resource support they might require . So when they make this presentation to the I D and senior managers ...”

Advocate Johnson's oversight function is to ensure that teams ready to execute arrests have all necessary documents and have fulfilled evidential burdens, as well as operational and resource support, by reviewing presentations to the Investigating Director and senior managers including senior investigators and senior prosecutors.

“When teams are ready to execute arrests, it becomes important to determine that they have done, they have all the necessary documents, that they have fulfilled the evidential burden and what operational and/or resource support they might require... senior managers there, Commissioners could include senior investigators, other senior prosecutors... The team preparing to conduct an operation must prepare to people that are not in their team.”

Advocate Sello SC says he has not instructed or influenced any investigator or prosecutor other than in accordance with evidence, law, and policy.

“y o u s a y y o u h a v e n o t i n s t r u c t e d o r o t h e r w i s e i n f l u e n c e d a n y i n v e s t i g a t o r o r p r o s e c u t o r t o a c t o t h e r t h a n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e l a w, t h e a p p l i c a b l e p r o s e c u t o r i a l p o l i c y.”

Investigative teams present evidence linked to persons and allegations in briefing sessions including plans for arrests and searches.

“And when they present, they would make a PowerPoint presentation, sometimes some of them, them being the lawyers there, they would want to speak off the cuff, but they would give you a briefing of the evidence, how persons are linked to the allegations”

The briefing team presents evidence linking persons to allegations and indicates intentions to arrest, search, and resources required.

“A n d w h e n t h e y p r e s e n t , t h e y w o u l d m a k e a P o w e r P o i n t p r e s e n t a t i o n , s o m e t i m e s s o m e o f t h e m , t h e m b e i n g t h e l a w y e r s t h e r e , t h e y w o u l d w a n t t o s p e a k o ff t h e c u f f , b u t t h e y w o u l d g i v e y o u a b r i e f i n g o f t h e e v i d e n c e , h o w p e r s o n s a r e l i n k e d t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s , w h i c h p e r s o n s a r e l i n k e d t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s , a b r i e f s u m m a r y o f w h a t e v i d e n c e t h e y r e l y o n , a n d t h e n t o i n d i c a t e w h o i t i s t h e y i n t e n d t o a r r e s t . D o t h e y i n t e n d t o s e a r c h ? D o t h e y h a v e a r r e s t w a r r a n t s ? D o t h e y h a v e s e a r c h w a r r a n t s ? A r e t h e y g o i n g t o b e j u s t , a n d f o r g i v e m y l a n g u a g e , o r d i n a r y s e a r c h e r s , o r a r e t h e y g o i n g t o b e c y b e r s e a r c h e r s ? W h e r e t h e s e a r e g o i n g t o t a k e p l a c e ?”

No undue influence is exerted by the Investigating Director on investigators or prosecutors to act outside evidence, law, or prosecutorial policy.

“you say you have not instructed or otherwise influenced any investigator or prosecutor to act other than in accordance with the evidence, the law, the applicable prosecutorial policy”

Investigating Director cannot seek to influence investigations, but can engage in presentations and ask questions to clarify evidence.

“I t i s n o t t o s e e k t o i n f l u e n c e . In t h o s e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , m y s e l f a n d w h o m e v e r t h e o t h e r m a n a g e r s a r e t h a t a r e p r e s e n t , a r e a l l o w e d t o e n g a g e w i t h t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n . S o m e t i m e s i t m a y n o t b e a s c l e a r h o w a p e r s o n i s l i n k e d . T h e r e m i g h t b e q u e s t i o n s a r o u n d a w i t n e s s . W h y d o y o u h a v e a 2 0 4 w i t n e s s ? W h a t d o y o u h a v e t h a t c o r r o b o r a t e s ?”

The Investigating Director and other senior managers engage with presentation teams to clarify evidence and question witnesses during briefing sessions.

“In those presentations, myself and whomever the other managers are that are present, are allowed to engage with the presentation. Sometimes it may not be as clear how a person is linked. There might be questions around a witness”

Within team discussions on investigations, disagreement and debate are allowed including decisions not to proceed with certain actions like arrests.

“In that exchange where you say there is consultation and discussions and debate , do you have the – are you able to say, I disagree and so it will not happen?”

If issues are not addressed after being returned for correction, matter does not move forward.

“And if they are not addressed , then that is a different discussion because not having addressed does not take the matter forward .”

If anomalies arise in investigations or conclusions, there is scope for oversight function to draw attention and get redress.

“S o i f t h e r e a r e g l a r i n g a n o m a l i e s i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d p u r s u a n t t o i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e r e i s s c o p e i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f y o u r o v e r s i g h t f u n c t i o n t o d r a w a t t e n t i o n t o t h a t a n d i t g e t s r e d r e s s e d .”

Investigating Director is not always present but senior managers led by Head of Operations, Mr Sesoko, conduct similar operational discussions and planning.

“Even i f t h e I n v e s t i g a t i n g D i r e c t o r i s n o t i n t h e o ff i c e , i t d o e s n o t m e a n t h e s e o p e r a t i o n s d o n o t h a p p e n . T h e r e a r e o t h e r s e n i o r p e r s o n s . T h e H e a d o f O p e r a t i o n s , M r S e s o k o , i s t h e r e t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r s e n i o r m a n a g e r s , a n d t h e y w o u l d c o n v e n e i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n .”

Even if the Investigating Director is absent, operations continue led by heads of operations and senior managers.

“Even if the Investigating Director is not in the office, it does not mean these operations do not happen. There are other senior persons. The Head of Operations, Mr Sesoko, is there together with other senior managers”

If glaring anomalies appear in investigations or conclusions, the oversight function can intervene and seek redress.

“If there are glaring anomalies in the investigation or conclusions reached pursuant to investigation , there is scope in the exercise of your oversight function to draw attention to that and it gets redressed”

If issues are not addressed after oversight intervention, the matter is sent back for addressing; lack of resolution stops progress.

“And to send the matter back for those to be addressed. And if they are not addressed , then that is a different discussion because not having addressed does not take the matter forward”

The Investigating Director can express disagreement about actions such as making an arrest and the reasons behind securing a person's attendance in court.

“I am able to make my feelings known ... But a part from that , there have been times when I have disagreed, simply because I think the purpose of the exercise must be what is the best way to secure the attendance of a person in court”

In investigation process, it is preferred to call a person to hand themselves over rather than execute a warrant invasively at their home or business, considering family and privacy.

“...you call them and ask them to hand themselves over, and then you do that processing. Those are the ones that are preferred , so as not to be invasive in terms of their space. Sometimes investigators think a bit differently, Commissioner Baloyi, but I am able to – and there is a lot of other considerations, especially where people have families.”

Legal principles guide investigators to prefer subpoenas over arrest warrants to avoid invasive executions when securing attendance in court, especially where families are involved.

“[p122 #1 UNATTRIBUTED]”

Final decisions on whether to arrest or summon an accused person lie with a team beyond the Investigating Director, including lead prosecutors, lead investigators, and heads of operations.

“When myself and those managers who have been briefed leave the room, you have a lead prosecutor and lead investigator, and they also have the benefit of the two chief criminal investigators, as well as Mr Sesoko, who is the head of operations, and they will deliberate on what we have suggested , and they take it on board and make the final decision because the execution is theirs, not the ID”

The Investigating Director and senior managers make suggestions, but the final decision on arrests is not theirs and rests with another team, possibly at IDAC.

“[p123 #6 ADV SELLO SC] And we will come back to this just so I understand. Specifically, the aspect Commissioner Baloyi just engaged you on , whether or not an accused person is arrested or someone took what you say , it is not your final decision . It is not yours.”

Investigating Director has no power to overturn arrest decisions made by the other decision-making team.

“So where that team has made that decision , you have no power to overturn it as the ID”

The Investigating Directorate team has the authority to make final decisions on arrests and summons, which cannot be overturned by the Head of Institution.

“S o w h e r e t h a t t e a m h a s m a d e t h a t d e c i s i o n , y o u h a v e n o p o w e r t o o v e r t u r n i t a s t h e I D .”

Advocate Johnson confirms that he cannot overrule final arrest or summons decisions made by other teams; the final decision lies with the team, not him.

“S o o u t o f t h a t p r o c e s s , t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n i s n o t y o u r s .”

Final decision on arrests and summons lies with a team within the Investigating Directorate, not the Head of Institution.

“I t i s n o t m i n e .”

Advocate Sello SC clarifies that the final decision on arrest or summons is not made by the Head of Institution but lies within the Investigating Directorate team.

“I t l i e s s o m e w h e r e e l s e w i t h i n I D A C .”

While the Head of Institution (ADV JOHNSON) can make input in decision-making, the final decision on arrests and summons rests with the lead prosecutor, lead investigator and operations team, not with the Head of Institution.

“A l o t o f t h e t i m e s , t h e i n p u t i s t a k e n o n b o a r d . W h e n m y s e l f a n d t h o s e m a n a g e r s w h o h a v e b e e n b r i e f e d l e a v e t h e r o o m , y o u h a v e a l e a d p r o s e c u t o r a n d l e a d i n v e s t i g a t o r, a n d t h e y a l s o h a v e t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e t w o c h i e f c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s , a s w e l l a s M r S e s o k o , w h o i s t h e h e a d o f o p e r a t i o n s , a n d t h e y w i l l d e l i b e r a t e o n w h a t w e h a v e s u g g e s t e d , a n d t h e y t a k e i t o n b o a r d a n d m a k e t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n b e c a u s e t h e e x e c u t i o n i s t h e i r s , n o t t h e I D .”

Advocate Johnson states they have not exercised power to overturn decisions but have made suggestions which are often taken on board by the team executing investigations.

“We h a v e n o t e x e r c i s e d p o w e r s t o o v e r t u r n . We h a v e m a d e s u g g e s t i o n s , a n d a l m o s t i n v a r i a b l y, m a n y o f t h o s e s u g g e s t i o n s h a v e b e e n t a k e n o n b o a r d .”

Advocate Johnson states he engages and makes suggestions but cannot take decisions or issue warrants or subpoenas.

“I engage them, and I make suggestions. I cannot take the decision for them. I can make a suggestion, not a warrant, a subpoena.”

There is uncertainty or lack of clarity about whether the Investigating Director has the legal power to overturn decisions.

“Do you have that power as a matter of fact and law, or you do not? Whether you have exercised it or not is neither here nor there for the moment. Do you understand yourself to have such a power?”

No powers to overturn arrest decisions have been exercised by the Investigating Director; however, suggestions are made and often taken on board.

“[p124 #2 ADV JOHNSON]”

Advocate Johnson states he engages with decisions but does not have the power to override decisions such as issuing subpoenas.

“I have not exercised such a power to override.”

Advocate Johnson denies having the power to override decisions made by others.

“I have not exercised such a power to override.”

Advocate Johnson denies knowledge of the existence of a 'Khan-IDAC cabal' within SAPS or IDAC and denies authorizing or facilitating any unlawful association involving General Khan.

“I have no knowledge of the existence of a Khan-IDAC cabal in SAPS. I also have no knowledge of a Khan-IDAC cabal within the IDAC. It follows that if such a cabal exists, I am not party to it. I have not authorised, encouraged, or facilitated its existence, nor have I benefited from any unlawful association involving General Khan, IDAC, SAPS officials, or any other person. To the extent that Mr Thulani Shongwe's evidence suggests otherwise, I deny that suggestion.”

Advocate Johnson denies knowledge of any Khan-IDAC cabal in SAPS or within IDAC and denies authorising, encouraging or benefiting from such unlawful associations.

“I have no knowledge of the existence of a Khan-IDAC cabal in SAPS. I also have no knowledge of a Khan-IDAC cabal within the IDAC. It follows that if such a cabal exists, I am not party to it. I have not authorised, encouraged, or facilitated its existence, nor have I benefited from any unlawful association involving General Khan, IDAC, SAPS officials, or any other person.”

Advocate Johnson knows Major General Khan from Crime Intelligence Head Office and had engaged with him in meetings prior to becoming Investigating Director in March 2022.

“I know Major General Khan, as a General based at Crime Intelligence Head Office. Before I became the Investigating Director in March, 2022, I engaged with him in meetings with other stakeholders, attended NAC joints or other SAPS meetings at which he was present and to which I had been invited by relevant Component Heads, Deputy National Commissioners or Divisional Commissioners.”

Advocate Johnson later encountered General Khan at a public service workshop where he expressed concern about media reports implicating Khan in the Murray murders and stated that if evidence of criminality were brought to IDAC, it would be dealt with by law.

“I later encountered General Khan at a public service Commission or Department of Public Service and Administration Workshop. I asked to speak to him and told him that the media reports about his alleged involvement with persons linked to the Murray murders were concerning. I further stated that if evidence of criminality by him were brought to IDAC, it would be dealt with in accordance with the law.”

Advocate Johnson informed the Murray family member that IDAC could not assist but explained how they could escalate concerns to SAPS management.

“I informed him that IDAC could not assist but explained how he could escalate his concerns about the investigation to SAPS management.”

In late 2024, media reports emerged concerning General Khan's alleged involvement with persons linked to the Murray murders, causing concern to Advocate Johnson.

“In late 2024, media reports emerged concerning General Khan's alleged involvement with persons allegedly linked to the Murray murders. Those reports concerned me because I had previously met with one of the Murrays who wanted to know whether IDAC could assist with the investigation.”

Advocate Johnson states that after this engagement, he had very limited contact with General Khan and no contact for approximately one and a half years, and describes the allegations regarding disclosure to Khan and SAPS as vague and unsupported.

“After the engagement referred to above, I had very limited contact with General Khan and I have had no contact with him for approximately the past year and a half. The allegation referred to above is also vague and unsupported by particulars. No particulars have been provided as to whom made the allegations, which docket is implicated, when or where the alleged disclosure occurred, how the docket was allegedly disclosed, or what information was allegedly conveyed.”

Advocate Johnson later encountered General Khan at a public service commission or department workshop and expressed his concerns about media reports linking Khan to persons associated with the Murray murders.

“I later encountered General Khan at a public service commission or Department of Public Service and Administration Workshop. I asked to speak to him and told him that the media reports about his alleged involvement with persons linked to the Murray murders were concerning.”

Advocate Johnson informed the Murray family member that IDAC could not assist with the investigation but explained how to escalate concerns to SAPS management.

“I informed him that IDAC could not assist but explained how he could escalate his concerns about the investigation to SAPS management.”

Advocate Johnson says media reports concerning General Khan's alleged involvement with persons linked to the Murray murders emerged in late 2024, causing concern due to a prior meeting with one of the Murrays who requested IDAC assistance.

“In late 2024, media reports emerged concerning General Khan's alleged involvement with persons allegedly linked to the Murray murders. Those reports concerned me because I had previously met with one of the Murrays who wanted to know whether IDAC could assist with the investigation.”

Advocate Johnson describes his professional and personal relationship with Major General Khan began prior to March 2022 and involved meetings with stakeholders and social engagements.

“I knew Major General Khan, as a General based at Crime Intelligence Head Office. Before I became the Investigating Director in March, 2022, I engaged with him in meetings with others stakeholders, attended NAC joints or other SAPS meetings at which he was present and to which I had been invited by relevant Component Heads, Deputy National Commissioners or Divisional Commissioners.”

Advocate Johnson states that the allegation against him is serious given his high position and that he would expect particularity to accompany any such allegation for meaningful engagement.

“This is a serious allegation to make against a person holding a high position of responsibility as I do, so that I would justifiably have expected particularity to accompany the allegations for any meaningful engagement with them.”

Advocate Johnson expresses willingness to answer questions arising from the affidavit or other matters, subject to reasonable notice, access to evidential material, and legal representation.

“Should I be required to answer questions arising from this affidavit or any other matters in respect of which it is determined that I may assist the Commission, I am willing to make myself available, subject to reasonable notice, access to sufficient evidential material to which I am required to respond and my rights to legal representation.”

Advocate Johnson expresses willingness to answer questions arising from the affidavit or any matters, subject to reasonable notice, evidential access, and legal representation rights.

“Should I be required to answer questions arising from this affidavit or any other matters in respect of which it is determined that I may assist the Commission, I am willing to make myself available, subject to reasonable notice, access to sufficient evidential material to which I am required to respond and my rights to legal representation.”

After that engagement, Advocate Johnson had very limited contact with General Khan and none for about a year and a half as of 2026, also stating that the serious allegation against him is vague and unsupported without particulars.

“After the engagement referred to above, I had very limited contact with General Khan and I have had no contact with him for approximately the past year and a half. The allegation referred to above is also vague and unsupported by particulars. No particulars have been provided as to whom made the allegations, which docket is implicated, when or where the alleged disclosure occurred, how the docket was allegedly disclosed, or what information was allegedly conveyed.”

Before becoming Investigating Director in March 2022, Advocate Johnson had a professional relationship with General Khan consisting of meetings and engagements with other stakeholders.

“Before I became the Investigating Director in March, I engaged with him in meetings with other stakeholders.”

Advocate Johnson confirms having both a professional and personal relationship with General Khan.

“Yes, I did.”