Hearing day 145

Prosecutors have the power to institute and conduct criminal proceedings for the State, derived from section 20 of the NPA Act.

“All prosecutors have the power to institute and conduct criminal proceedings for and on behalf of the State, and so those powers find themselves in section 20 of the NPA Act.”

There are no adhoc investigative teams at IDAC; all teams are permanent and handle different matters, but people from different teams can be taken to form a team to deal with a specific matter.

“In terms of the teams, there are not adhoc teams. There are teams across the board dealing with different matters. However, what you can do is take people from different teams to constitute a team to deal with a specific matter.”

Investigators' powers are derived from section 29(A) of the NPA Act and include investigative powers subject to control and direction of the Head of Investigating Directorate.

“...the powers are derived from section 29 of the NPA Act... gives investigators powers to deal with aspects of investigations subject to the control and direction of the head of the Investigating Directorate...”

Investigators under subsection (2) of section 29 of the NPA Act have the same powers as a peace officer or police official under the Criminal Procedure Act.

“An investigator under subsection (2) has the same powers as a peace officer or a police official as provided for in the Criminal Procedure Act...”

The IDAC investigation team that culminated in the arrest of General Khumalo and others was constituted from a group of prosecutors and investigators with designated leadership roles.

“In the investigation conducted by IDAC that culminated in the arrest of General Khumalo and others... the matter was allocated to a group of prosecutors... led by Advocate Ramsamy and Advocate Joy Hlatshwayo.”

Investigators exercise their powers subject to the control and direction of the prosecutor; they are not free agents making independent decisions.

“Investigators exercise their powers subject to your control and direction. They are not free agents who go about making decisions... It is subject to your control and direction.”

Chief Investigator Perumal helped lead and coordinate the team of investigators under the leadership and guidance of the prosecutors.

“Mr Perumal is a chief investigator and would have helped lead and coordinate the team of investigators, obviously under the leadership and guide of the prosecutors.”

Advocate Joy Hlatshwayo was the lead prosecutor who went to court on the Mokwelematter, while Advocate Ramsamy led the first matter involving General Lushaba and others; they also worked together at court when necessary.

“Advocate Joy Hlatshwayo is the one who went to court on the Mokwelematter. Advocate Ramsamy would have been the one who went to court on the first matter, which was with General Lushaba and others. But they would go to court together...”

Mr Tlale was the project manager for the investigation team that conducted the investigation culminating in the arrest of General Khumalo and others.

“In all the matters, we do have a project manager, and in this instance, the project manager was Mr Tlale.”

The investigation team had Mr Rapetsu, Mr Padayachee, and Mr Wessels as investigators with Mr Wessels acting as the chief financial investigator.

“We had Mr Rapetsu, who is also an investigator. We had Mr Padayachee as an investigator. We had Mr Wessels as the chief financial investigator.”

Mr Mlambo is an investigator and part of the team dealing with various taskings given to him, not limited to the Lushaba or Mokwele matters.

“Mr Mlambo as part of that team would have dealt with whatever taskings they gave him. Not necessarily only Lushaba and or only the Mokwelematter.”

Mr Manilall was the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions leading all the teams at the start of the matter.

“Mr Manilall, who is, as I indicated yesterday, Chair, all the teams are led by Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions, and that would have been Mr Manilall.”

Because Mr Manilall was busy with the Transnet matter in court, Advocate Peter Serunye, a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP), accompanied the prosecutors to court on an informal basis.

“because Mr Manilall was busy in court, I think with the Transnet matter, on an informal basis, we did have Advocate Peter Serunye, who would accompany the prosecutors to court”

Mr Manilall is a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP).

“He is a DDPP, yes, ma'am.”

Mr Bellochun was mentioned in relation to the matter because he went to inform General Khumalo at Otia about an arrest warrant.

“he was the person who had gone to Otia [ ? ] to inform General Khumalo that there was a warrant of arrest”

Different people can form part of the execution teams for arrests and/or searches, and they must be put on the application for a warrant.

“So when they execute arrests and/or search and seizures, different people can form part of the execution teams. They must be put on to the application for the warrant of arrest or for the search warrant.”

The names given earlier were names of the team shortly after receiving the section 27 referral and preliminary investigation authorized; some persons were added later for a full investigation under section 28(1) of the NPA Act.

“the names that I gave you were the names of the teams shortly after we had received the section 27 referral and we had the preliminary investigation authorised. As the investigation progressed and just before the arrests, there was an application for a section 28(1) full investigation in terms of the NPA Act.”

Mr Bellochun did not become part of the investigation team; he only informed General Khumalo about the warrant for arrest at the airport.

“No, he did not become part of this investigation team. He is not of the people designated to the ...”

Advocate Manilall, Ramsamy, Hlatshwayo, Perumal, Padayachee, Wessels, Mlambo, Eals, and Mbalo were part of the investigation team at different stages.

“It is on my document that it is Manilall, Ramsamy, Hlatshwayo, Perumal, Padayachee, Wessels, Mr Mlambo, Mr Eals, and Mr Mbalo.”

Members designated as investigators executed the warrants as part of their role, meaning their normal role included executing warrants of arrest.

“Because that is their designation, Chair.”

The section 28 investigation had commenced by the time relevant arrests occurred, which happened mid-year before June 2025.

“after the section 28 investigation had commenced”

Advocate Johnson does not personally know the exact timing of when someone saw the section 27 affidavit but stated he will verify and come back with an exact answer.

“I do not know that there is a decision who to give and who not to give ... I think it is a question that you must verify and come back to us with a specific period.”

The investigative team is led by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, namely Mr Manilall, who coordinates the prosecution led methodology and decides on evidence collection coordination and distribution of section 27 referrals.

“It is the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions who leads the team ... Mr Manilall ... role is ... to coordinate and direct the evidence ... So obviously ... it is the team leader who should distribute all the documents ... Advoc ate Manilall, yes ...”

Chief Criminal Investigator Dylan Perumal is part of the team but not the overall leader, though investigators look to him for operational guidance.

“having the chief criminal investigator in the team, they look to him as the leader of the investigations ... they engage with him ...”

Decisions on whether an investigator such as Colonel Padayachee will have the section 27 affidavit is made by the team leader, identified as Mr Manilall.

“who decides that Colonel Padayachee as the lead investigator will or will not have the section 27 affidavit ... team leader here ... is Mr Manilall ...”

Mr Manilall together with Mr Sesoko and Advocate Johnson review documents before passing to the team leader for decision making on section 27 affidavit distribution.

“once the document is after Mr Sesoko and myself have gone through it and we decide falls within the mandate, we give it to the team leader ...”

Documents relevant to preliminary investigation authorisation and section 28 application were requested under subpoena but have not yet been made available to the Commission.

“those are part of the documents that we had requested in terms of the subpoena issued, but we unfortunately do not have at hand ...”

The application for a section 28(1) investigation was made on 30 May 2025.

“It would have been 30 May 2025.”

The preliminary investigation authorisation was given on 6 December 2024.

“6 December.”

The letter from Mr Nkabinde's office referred a complaint by Mr Fadiel Adams, a member of Parliament, and concluded by advising Mr Adams to await a decision from the Minister's office.

“this letter ... complained by Mr Adams, a member of Parliament ... Honourable Fadiel Adams was advised by this office to await your decision in this regard”

A letter dated 11 November 2024 from the Office of the Minister of Police, signed by Chief of Staff Minister of Police Mr Nkabinde, was addressed to the Investigating Directorate requesting a referral and investigation under section 27 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act.

“it is dated 11 November 2024 ... it is a letter signed by, it would appear, the Chief of Staff Minister of Police, Mr Nkabinde, and it is directed to the Investigating Directorate ... shows as a heading referral and request for investigation in terms of section 27 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act”

Upon receipt of the letter, it was hand delivered without any attachments and no response acknowledging the letter was found.

“This letter came to us by hand and it did not have any attachments to it ... we do not have a response to the Ministry acknowledging receipt to this letter”

ADV Johnson did not act on the letter because there were no attachments to enable action.

“I could not act on this letter because there were no attachments to it”

ADV Johnson acknowledges receipt of the letter but did not take further action beyond that.

“All you did was to acknowledge receipt to the letter.”

The letter was followed by an envelope containing a section 27 referral a few days later.

“A few days later, by way of envelope, we get the section 27.”

ADV Johnson could not remember what steps were taken after acknowledging receipt of the letter and is unsure if he asked for attachments to be sent.

“I honestly cannot remember. I have to cast my mind back... I am not sure that I asked and indicated that there was nothing attached to this letter”

There is no draft or copy of an acknowledgment letter of receipt available in internal computer records, suggesting it may have been deleted.

“The answer you have just given now creates an impression that a draft of this letter was deleted ... That is why it is not available...”

ADV Johnson agreed and confirmed that if such a drafted letter existed, it would have been signed and sent to the Minister's Office.

“And if you are happy with it, you would have appended your signature and it would have gone to the Minister’s Office.”

ADV Johnson said they attempted to look for a response to the letter and will try again before lunch, including checking email correspondence between him and his PA.

“I will ask the PA to look for her again... I will ask the IT perhaps ... to check through the email correspondence of both myself and my PA ... to give the Commission a full account.”

ADV Baloyi clarified that the letter did not contain a copy of an affidavit but only a copy of written correspondence addressed to the Minister by Mr Adams.

“this letter does not say here is a copy of an affidavit. It says a copy of a written correspondence addressed to the Minister.”

ADV Johnson confirmed that sometimes he would type, print, sign a letter, and hand the hard copy to his PA for distribution.

“there are times as well ... where I would type a document, print it myself, sign it, and then hand her the hard copy to distribute.”

ADV Johnson confirmed that correspondence between him and his PA would be in their respective email inboxes and sent items.

“If you sent to her, it will be on your sent items and then in her inbox. If she drafted it and sent it to you, it is in her sent items and in your inbox.”

ADV Johnson agreed it is unlikely that a draft letter would disappear from both his and his PA's email systems.

“It is unlikely that it would disappear on both ends ...”

Mr Adams would have had to be contacted by IDAC to prepare a section 27 affidavit, and likely Chief Criminal Investigator Perumal was the one who contacted him.

“Mr Adams would have had to be contacted by IDAC .10... that it would have had to have been Chief Criminal Investigator Perumal .20”

The referral process on a section 27 affidavit involves discussion between advocates and then referral to the team and project manager who work through the document.

“...you get a section 27 , you then discuss it , you take a view, you then discuss it with Mr Sesoko , you give it to him to then take his own view, the two of you agree something , and after you have agreed that there is an offence in this referral , you then refer it to the team .”

There were standing project managers in the office assigned to teams, so a project manager is already appointed when a matter is allocated to a team.

“There are four project managers in the office, and when you allocate a matter to a team, that team already has an existing project manager.”

Chief Perumal would contact Mr Adams following receipt of a letter (MK16) as instructed by the intake committee, even though no section 27 had yet been referred.

“You then instructed Chief Perumal to be in contact with Mr Adams to obtain section 27 affidavit . That is correct.”

IDAC did not initially have the section 27 affidavit but solicited it from Mr Adams after receiving the letter from the Minister of Police addressed to Mr Adams.

“When you look at the 7 , we did not take the 27 . They would have contacted him and I guess this is what we got ... what we got was a 27 dated the 21st of November 2024 .”

ADV Johnson instructed Chief Perumal to contact Mr Adams directly to obtain the section 27 affidavit.

“It is yours , it is yours , it is yours , Advocate Johnson . You are the one who gave an instruction to Chief Perumal to contact Mr Adams .”

Advocate Johnson admitted that it is not appropriate for IDAC to solicit complaints from the public without a formal referral; therefore, upon receiving a letter from the Minister, he instructed Mr Perumal to engage Mr Adams and obtain a section 27 affidavit to cure the absence of an official referral.

“No, we are not supposed to solicit. And that is why I am saying the engage – I tell Mr Perumal to engage Mr Adams. I do not know if this was a prepared affidavit already. It was to say to him, we received a letter from the Minister, we are engaging you.”

There was no prepared section 27 affidavit at the time of the Minister's referral dated 11 November 2024; the affidavit was dated later on 21 November 2024, indicating a cure of the referral deficiency as the Minister's letter does not constitute a valid section 27 referral to IDAC.

“That is not a fact. Look at that affidavit. It is dated 21 November 2024. And the Minister's letter is the 11th of November 2024. So there was no prepared affidavit.”

Referral to IDAC was made only by the Minister's Office and IDAC decided to engage Mr Adams to obtain a section 27 affidavit after recognizing the Minister's letter alone was insufficient to trigger IDAC's investigative mandate.

“So the upshot of all of this is that the referral to IDAC was by the Minister’s Office. And following that referral, IDAC then made a decision to engage with Mr Adams to obtain an affidavit from him.”

Section 27 of an unspecified Act requires a complaint to be made on an affidavit or affirm declaration to the Head of the Investigating Directorate to initiate investigation.

“If any person has reasonable grounds to suspect that a specified offence has been or is being committed or that an attempt has been or is being made to commit such an offence, he/she may report the matter in question to the Head of the ID, Investigating Directorate, by means of an affidavit or affirm declaration.”

Because the Minister's letter was not a section 27 referral, IDAC required a proper section 27 affidavit from Mr Adams to cure this defect before proceeding with investigation.

“So because you read the Minister's letter and you saw the difficulty that it would not trigger your power to investigate, you contact Mr Adams through Mr Perumal to cure that problem and to provide a section 27 affidavit.”

Mr Adams claimed his opened cases' dockets were intercepted and that the Gauteng Police Department was interfering in investigative processes following a similar modus operandi to the Western Cape Police.

“I was told that the dockets were intercepted. However, I have also been notified that the Gauteng Police Department has followed the same modus operandi as the Western Cape and is interfering in the investigative process.”

Emails dated 283 and 284 in the record (MK15) were specifically referred to as the complaint from Mr Adams to the Minister of Police, describing opened cases and intercepted dockets and requesting a report to be filed by 4 November 2024.

“... And from Mr Adams. If you look overleaf at 284, ... hastily ask for the Minister to intervene and ensure the integrity of investigative processes. ... if you go back to 283, then we see communication from Mr Nkabinde to Major General Sebola, referring this complaint and requesting a report be filed with the Minister or the Minister's Office by Monday, the 4th of November. ...”

Mr Adams, via email communications dated early November 2024, expressed concern about interference in investigative processes by the Gauteng Police Department and Western Cape Police, and urgently requested Ministerial intervention to ensure integrity of investigations concerning opened cases and intercepted dockets.

“I urgently and humbly ask for the Minister to intervene and ensure the integrity of investigative processes maintained to ensure a fair and just outcome.”

Mr Adams' mandate from IDAC is to investigate serious, high-profile, or complex corruption and related offences as set out in section 7(a) of the NPA Act, but some documents attached to the Minister's letter do not trigger IDAC's mandate.

“You set out your section 7(a) of the NPA Act. You do so at paragraph 8, page 3 of your first statement and you quote the Act that your mandate is to investigate serious, high-profile or complex corruption, commercial and financial cases. ... If this was the document that was attached, it does not trigger.”

There are two possibilities regarding the triggering of IDAC's mandate: either the documents attached contained allegations of interference in investigative processes which might have triggered IDAC's mandate, or they did not; however, Advocate Johnson could not recall the documents sufficiently to confirm they triggered the mandate.

“So there is the two possibilities. ... The only time that it would have triggered anything: "However, I have been notified that the... [indistinct] interfering in the investigative process." ... I can honestly tell you I cannot recall this document, so it cannot have triggered IDAC's mandate.”

The Chairperson critiques the vagueness of the allegations shared with General Khan and suggests the lack of specific details weakens the complaint.

“You had, in respect of that issue, the ability to say this is vague, it does not say when, it does not say by whom, it does not say, and you went on and on to demonstrate that it was vague. That same thought process by you ought to have applied here as well. The officer requests the Investigating Director to consider investigating the same but the letter says nothing.”

Allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams are deemed quite sensitive and contain allegations of criminal conduct, leading the officer to request the Investigating Director to consider investigating them.

“Due to the nature of the allegations made by the Honourable Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive and which contains allegations of criminal conduct, the officer requests the Investigating Director to consider investigating the same.”

There are allegations of criminal conduct made by Honourable Fadiel Adams that are deemed quite sensitive and an investigating director was requested to consider investigating the same.

“due to the nature of the allegations made by the Honourable Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive and which contains allegations of criminal conduct, the officer requests the Investigating Director to consider investigating the same”

Chairperson emphasizes the prosecution function should be exercised without fear, favor, or prejudice as stated in section 32 of the NPA Act, including the oath of prosecutors.

“Section 32 of the NPA Act states how you are to carry out your functions ... without fear, favour or prejudice ... the oath of prosecutors is actually set out there.”

Advocate Johnson acknowledges that the letter referring to the docket says nothing and does not make any allegations.

“It may say nothing in there, it refers to the dockets. It does not make out any allegations.”

There was a discussion whether the content of a Minister's letter said anything substantive or made any allegations, with the consensus it said nothing and made no allegations.

“the letter ... says nothing ... it does not make out any allegations”

The Chairperson questions ADV Johnson why he did not write back to the Ministry to clarify there was no section 27 referral and thus no action was possible, suggesting fear of the Minister as a possible reason.

“what stopped you from writing back to the Ministry and saying we do not have a section 27 referral, therefore we cannot do anything about this? ... Were you fearful of the Minister?”

The Chairperson questions why Advocate Johnson did not write back to the Ministry to confirm that there was no section 27 referral and therefore no action could be taken, despite accepting there was nothing in the Minister's letter.

“If you accept ... there was nothing whatsoever in the Minister's letter, what stopped you from writing back to the Ministry and saying we do not have a section 27 referral, therefore we cannot do anything about this?”

Advocate Johnson denies fear of the Minister as a motivation for not writing back to the Ministry.

“Not at all, and ...”

ADV Johnson denies being fearful of the Minister in relation to not writing the letter back to clarify no section 27 referral.

“Not at all”

A letter from Mr Nkabinde contained allegations implicating senior members of the SAPS and requested the Investigating Director to consider investigating alleged criminal misconduct by Honourable Fadiel Adams.

“a letter from Mr Nkabinde ... Allegations contained therein implicate very senior members of the SAPS and are reviewed in a serious light ... due to the nature of the allegations made by Fadiel Adams, Honourable Fadiel Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive and which contains allegations of criminal misconduct, this officer requests the Investigating Director to consider investigating the same.”

Advocate Baloyi propositions that the letter from Mr Nkabinde says nothing and it is proposed that Chief Perumal should speak to Mr Adams directly, implying there were allegations of interception of dockets and possibly corruption.

“I want to make a proposition ... that when you look at the letter from Mr Nkabinde, as you agree, it says nothing ... for you to instruct Chief Perumal to speak to Mr Adams ... the emails speak to corruption of sorts ... allegations of interception of dockets.”

Chairperson suggests the Minister's letter was unlikely to state that nothing could be done absent a section 27 referral, and this conflicts with instructions from the Minister to Mr Perumal to follow up with Mr Adams.

“That letter ... is not likely to have said what I am suggesting you ought to have done ... because that would have been at odds with you instructing Mr Perumal to follow up with Mr Adams.”

ADV Johnson accepted he could not have written a letter to the Minister saying nothing could be done without a section 27 referral.

“you accepted that you could not possibly have written a letter to the Minister saying there is nothing we can do in the absence of a section 27 referral.”

ADV Johnson states his instruction to Mr Perumal was to follow up and find out if there was a section 27 referral.

“That is all because there is a reference to a section 27. There is no section 27. Mr Perumal, to contact Mr Adams to find out if there is a 27 or to get a 27.”

ADV Johnson admits he did not previously say that his instruction to Mr Perumal was to find out if there was a section 27 referral and states there is no such referral.

“There is no section 27 . Mr Perumal, to contact Mr Adams to find out if there is a 27 or to get a 27. No, Chair, I did not say that before.”

The Minister's letter constituted a section 27 referral for investigation under the NPAAct, making it an official request for investigation.

“So as far as the Minister was concerned, his letter was the section 27 referral”

Advocate Johnson admits that he has not previously stated his instruction to Mr Perumal was to find out if a section 27 referral existed.

“No, Chair, I did not say that before.”

The Ministry is purportedly referring a matter under section 27 and Mr Nkabinde is the person actually purporting to refer the complaint.

“it is the Ministry that is referring and purporting to refer in terms of section 27. And if you were going to ask for a section 27 affidavit, it is from Mr Nkabinde that you ask for because he is the one that is purporting to refer”

The Minister's letter constitutes a referral and request for investigation under section 27 as far as the Minister is concerned.

“as far as the Minister is concerned, his letter was the section 27 referral”

Nothing in the Minister's letter actually directs the investigation request to Mr Adams but rather it is Mr Nkabinde who is the referrer of the Section 27 affidavit.

“nothing in this letter leads you to Mr Adams... if you were going to ask for a section 27 affidavit, it is from Mr Nkabinde that you ask for because he is the one that is purporting to refer”

Mr Nkabinde is the one asking the investigating body to investigate; Mr Adams has not communicated such a request.

“Mr Nkabinde is asking you to investigate. Mr Adams is not asking you to investigate. He has not communicated with you.”

The complaint is laid with Mr Nkabinde, who claims lodging a section 27 complaint, and there is no business to go to Mr Adams for a section 27 affidavit based on this letter.

“The complaint has been laid with them, and Nkabinde says I am lodging a section 27 complaint... you have no business to go to Mr Adams for a section 27 affidavit”

Mr Adams did not communicate any request for investigation to the party being addressed, the Ministry is the one requesting investigation under section 27.

“Mr Adams is not asking you to investigate. He has not communicated with you... It is Mr Nkabinde, he raises his complaint with the Minister. That is what he”

Based on the letter, there is no basis to approach Mr Adams for a section 27 affidavit, rather the request must go to Mr Nkabinde.

“you have no business, at least on the basis of this letter, to go to Mr Adams for a section 27 affidavit. You go to Mr Nkabinde for a section 27 affidavit”

The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges a complaint described as a section 27 complaint but the reference to Mr Adams is only to note that the Minister received a complaint from Mr Adams.

“The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges with you a complaint and he calls it a section 27 complaint. The only reference he makes to Mr Adams is to say... the Minister has received a complaint from Mr Adams”

Mr Adams writes to the Minister's Office expressing unhappiness about four dockets and asks the Minister's Office to intervene; the Minister's Office then chooses which investigative body to assign the complaint to.

“So Mr Adams writes to the Minister's Office. He is unhappy about the four dockets and he asks the Minister's Office to intervene... The Minister's Office has at least three choices...”

The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges with the investigating body a complaint described as a section 27 complaint, but the reference to Mr Adams is only that the Minister has received a complaint from Mr Adams and is referring it for investigation under section 27.

“The Minister's Chief of Staff lodges with you a complaint and he calls it a section 27 complaint... the only reference he makes to Mr Adams is to say the Minister has received a complaint from Mr Adams, please investigate and I refer this to you in terms of section 27”

The Minister's Office picks IDAC to investigate a matter referred under section 27 of the NPA Act, not Mr Adams who did not choose IDAC.

“It is not Mr Adams who says I choose IDAC. It is the Minister’s Office, based on what we see in this letter... The Minister’s Office then picks one and they say we pick IDAC and we will do a referral to IDAC in terms of section 27 of the NPA Act.”

The Minister's Office requests Advocate Johnson to investigate the matter concerning Mr Adams' complaint.

“this office, that is the Minister’s Office, this office requests Advocate Johnson to consider investigating the matter”

The Minister's Office decides to refer the matter to IDAC for investigation in terms of section 27 of the NPAAct; this choice is made by the Minister's Office, not Mr Adams.

“The Minister’s Office then picks one and they say we pick IDAC, and we will do a referral to IDAC in terms of section 27”

The Minister’s Office finds the allegations from Mr Adams’ correspondence to be quite sensitive and containing allegations of criminal misconduct, and requests Advocate Johnson to consider investigating the matter.

“The Minister’s Office... regard them as quite sensitive... and they contain allegations of criminal misconduct... this office requests Advocate Johnson to consider investigating the matter”

The complaint by Mr Adams to the Minister's Office is treated as quite sensitive and contains allegations of criminal misconduct.

“the allegations in the correspondence by Mr Adams, they regard them as quite sensitive... They contain allegations of criminal misconduct”

The request to investigate sent to IDAC by the Minister's Office was limited only to the alleged interception of the dockets, not the content or other allegations in the dockets.

“What the Minister’s Office requested IDAC to investigate is the alleged interception of the dockets... not the allegations set out in the respective dockets”

The request to investigate by the Minister’s Office to IDAC concerns alleged interception of dockets, not the content of the dockets themselves.

“what the Minister’s Officer requested IDAC to investigate is the alleged interception of the dockets. That is it. Not the allegations set out in the respective dockets”

There is a seeming parallel investigation initiated by IDAC attached to Mr Adams' complaint, which goes beyond the interception issue and includes claims of siphoning money and cover-ups.

“there is Mr Adams' complaint of interference, and then there seemingly is a parallel investigation attached to that complaint initiated by IDAC”

Mr Perumal was instructed to obtain a Section 27 affidavit from Mr Adams after receipt of the Minister's Office communication, regardless of annexures.

“you then instructed Mr Perumal to obtain a Section 27 affidavit from Mr Adams”

As of 11 November, the only complainant was the Minister's Office complaining about interception of dockets, which did not concern the contents but only the act of interception.

“The only complainant as of 11 November was the office of the Minister, and that complaint concerned interception of dockets... not the contents of the dockets. It is only the act of interception”

The Minister's Office is the sole complainant as of 11 November regarding interception of dockets, which does not concern the contents but only the act of interception.

“The only complainant as of 11 November was the office of the Minister, and that complaint concerned interception of dockets”

There exists a section 27 referral dated 21 November signed in the Western Cape compiled by Mr Adams without IDAC involvement, which contains detailed allegations.

“Accordingly, there is a 27 dated 21 November, signed in the Western Cape, that was compiled by Mr Adams, without IDAC, which he sent and which has the detail it has”

The concerns of the Minister's Office complaint is limited to the act of interception of dockets and not their contents.

“that complaint itself does not concern itself with the contents of the dockets. It is only the act of interception”

Mr Adams had opened dockets containing allegations, but IDAC told him they cannot assist without a Section 27 referral, leading to the creation of a Section 27 dated 21 November compiled by Mr Adams and sent without IDAC.

“Mr Adams said, I have dockets opened already that make out allegations... he told him to see a legal person and look at Section 7... accordingly, there is a 27 dated 21 November, signed in the Western Cape, compiled by Mr Adams, without IDAC, which he sent and which has the detail it has”

Allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams are quite sensitive and contain allegations of criminal misconduct, prompting the Minister's office to request the Investigating Director to consider the matter.

“Due to the nature of the allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive, and which contains allegations of criminal misconduct, this officer requests the Investigating Director to consider the same.”

The Minister's office, on 11 November, communicated that the allegations implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service and reviewed them seriously in relation to case dockets registered under certain CAS numbers.

“The Minister says: “The allegations contained therein implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service and viewed in a serious light, and case dockets were registered as per the following CAS ... ””

The allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams are quite sensitive and contain allegations of criminal misconduct, prompting the Minister's office to request the Investigating Director to consider the matter.

“Due to the nature of the allegations made by Honourable Fadiel Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive, and which contains allegations of criminal misconduct, this officer requests the Investigating Director to consider the same.”

The Minister said the allegations in the dockets implicate very senior members of SAPS and these are viewed in a serious light, and case dockets were registered using CAS numbers.

“The Minister says: “The allegations contained therein implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service and viewed in a serious light, and case dockets were registered as per the following CAS ...”

The Minister's office communicated to Advocate Sello SC on 11 November terms of annexure MK16 about allegations implicating very senior members of the South African Police Service (SAPS) in a serious light, including case dockets registered with specific CAS numbers.

“That is what was communicated to you by the Minister's office on the 11th of November in terms of annexure MK16.”

Advocate Johnson reads the Minister's statement as indicating that the allegations implicate very senior SAPS members contained in the dockets.

“I read that the allegations contained therein, in these dockets, in the docket implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service.”

The correspondence from Mr Adams to the Minister implicates very senior SAPS members and suggests these members intercepted the dockets.

“The allegations contained in the correspondence from Mr Adams to the Minister implicate very senior members of the South African Police, and the implication is that they intercepted the dockets.”

If the Minister's letter is read as stating that the allegations are reviewed in a serious light and are quite sensitive, the Minister's office must have seen the dockets to make such an expression of view.

“But if your reading of this letter is correct, then the Minister's office must have seen the dockets. Otherwise, they are not in a position to express a view that the allegations are viewed in a serious light, and that they are quite sensitive, what is contained therein, if it ...”

The allegations contained in the correspondence from Mr. Adams to the Minister implicate very senior members of the South African Police, and it is implied that they intercepted the dockets.

“the allegations contained in the correspondence from Mr Adams to the Minister implicate very senior members of the South African Police, and the implication is that they intercepted the dockets.”

Advocate Johnson is not saying the Minister or Mr Nkabinde saw the contents of the dockets, but referred to Mr Adams who is said to have made serious allegations implicating senior SAPS members, with case dockets registered with CAS numbers.

“I am not saying they saw the contents of the dockets. They referred to Mr Adams, and they say the allegations contained by Mr Adams implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service, and are viewed in a serious light, and case dockets were registered as per the following CAS numbers.”

The Minister's office must have seen the dockets to express the view that the allegations are reviewed in a serious light and are quite sensitive.

“the Minister's office must have seen these dockets, for your reading to be correct, it must be so.”

The Minister has been given written correspondence by Mr Adams, which is attached to the Minister's letter, and in that correspondence, Mr Adams makes serious allegations implicating senior SAPS officers.

“What we know from this letter is the Minister has been given correspondence by Adams. That is what that letter says. There is correspondence from Mr Adams.”

There is correspondence from Mr Adams to the Minister, containing serious allegations implicating senior members of the South African Police, attached to the Minister's letter.

“What we know from this letter is the Minister has been given correspondence by Adams. That is what that letter says. There is correspondence from Mr Adams.”

Minister must have seen the dockets to have the reading ascribed to the letter as correct.

“The Minister must have seen these dockets, for your reading to be correct, it must be so.”

The allegations implicate senior members of the South African Police, and the phrase 'contained therein' sensibly refers to the attached correspondence.

“the ‘contained therein’ refers or must refer to the attached correspondence. That is a sensibler reading, otherwise why does he mention that letter to you?”

The first and second paragraphs of the Minister's letter sensibly refer to the attached correspondence from Mr Adams that implicates senior SAPS members in serious matters.

“A sensible reading of this first paragraph and the second paragraph is, the 'contained therein' refers or must refer to the attached correspondence. That is a sensible reading, otherwise why does he mention that letter to you?”

The allegations referred to in the Minister's letter about implicating senior SAPS officers are serious and sensitive, and would logically require the Minister to have had a conversation with Mr Adams about the dockets to know their content.

“More importantly and seriously, it works only if you say that the Minister must have had a conversation with Mr Adams about these dockets, to know that matter contained therein, in those dockets, is sensitive and it implicates senior police officers and who are those senior police officers.”

Advocate Johnson agrees that referring to a copy of written correspondence by Fadiel Adams which sets out serious allegations contained in the letter explains why there is reference to the dockets, but emphasizes that the written correspondence would have set out the serious allegations.

“I agree with the reading of a copy of a written correspondence, which would have set out those serious allegations as contained and therefore the reference to the dockets because he refers to the dockets, but that the written correspondence would have set out those serious allegations.”

There was serious correspondence dated 1 November 2024 addressed to the Minister containing allegations that case dockets were intercepted, implicating senior police officers who interfered in the investigative process without notification to Gauteng.

“That email of 1 November 2024 at A21, that is the correspondence addressed to the Minister ... Then he implicates senior officers because he then says they interfered in the investigative process and he was not notified that Gauteng is following the same process. And the request to the Minister is: “I urgently and humbly ask the Minister to intervene to ensure the integrity of the investigative process is maintained.””

Mr Adams alleged interception of dockets and implicated senior officers for interfering in the investigative process without notifying Gauteng authorities.

“The serious allegations implicating senior officers are contained there ... Then he implicates senior officers because he then says they interfered in the investigative process and he was not notified that Gauteng is following the same process.”

The referral to IDAC by the Minister was about allegations implicating senior officers, not taking over dockets opened in Orlando and Western Cape.

“This is the request that gives rise to the referral to IDAC. And that was Advocate Sello's point, that the referral to IDAC was about these allegations implicating senior officers. Not for IDAC to go take over the dockets that were opened in Orlando and the Western Cape and investigate those underlying allegations in those dockets.”

The referral to IDAC was about allegations implicating senior officers, not to take over investigations of the open dockets opened in Orlando and the Western Cape.

“the referral to IDAC was about these allegations implicating senior officers. Not for IDAC to go take over the dockets that were opened in Orlando and the Western Cape and investigate those underlying allegations in those dockets.”

Advocate Johnson maintains that the Minister's referral and request for investigation per Section 27 deals with serious allegations set out in written correspondence by Fadiel Adams to the Minister and those probably refer to the dockets.

“I still maintain that although you have that email, this letter tells your referral and request for investigation in terms of Section 27. It does talk to copy of written correspondence to the Minister by Fadiel Adams. And therein are serious allegations. And due to the nature of these allegations, they are referring them to those, to the allegations as he makes out in his written correspondence, which must almost invariably, it would seem, refer to the dockets.”

There was a complaint of interception related to Mr Adams' docket that the Commission did not see in the docket, and there is interest in knowing if IDAC pursued that specific complaint or focused on the broader Section 27 referral.

“I did not see that particular investigation in the docket, and I wanted to find out whether IDAC ever pursued that complaint, that specific complaint of interception of Mr Adams' docket, or whether it concentrated more on that part of the Section 27 referral that ... was initiated by IDAC.”

There was a complaint about interception of dockets relating to the Mokwele matter, but it was not seen in the docket; it is unclear if IDAC pursued that specific complaint or focused generally on the Section 27 referral initiated by IDAC.

“I did not see that particular investigation in the docket, and I wanted to find out whether IDAC ever pursued that complaint, that specific complaint of interception of Mr Adams' docket, or whether it concentrated more on that part of the Section 27 referral that, as I suggest, was initiated by IDAC.”

A letter was written to the provincial commissioner of detectives, Major General Khumalo, requesting police dockets to locate whether they were intercepted.

“A letter was written to the provincial commissioner detectives, Major General Khumalo, requesting the dockets.”

A letter was written on 6 December requesting the dockets from Provincial Commissioner of Detectives Major General Khumalo.

“A letter was written to the provincial commissioner detectives, Major General Khumalo, requesting the dockets.”

The dockets were located on 6 December and the finding did not address the complaint of interception of those dockets.

“All on the 6th, because we are looking for the dockets. He is saying the dockets are missing.”

The dockets were found to be with the SAPS Inspectorate headed by General Peter Jacobs, not with the Provincial Commissioner of Detectives Khumalo or the DPCI.

“the dockets actually were with the SAPS Inspectorate, more so the head of the Inspectorate, General Peter Jacobs.”

The provincial commissioner of detectives Major General Khumalo indicated he knew about the dockets but they were not with him and that the dockets could be with the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI), but the dockets were actually with the SAPS Inspectorate headed by General Peter Jacobs.

“General Khumalo ... indicated that he knew about these dockets, but ... these dockets were not with him ... indicated that the dockets could be with the DPCI ... the dockets actually were with the SAPS Inspectorate, more so the head of the Inspectorate, General Peter Jacobs.”

The complaint was that the dockets had been intercepted, but an inquiry found the dockets were accounted for in the SAPS system.

“His complaint is that dockets have been intercepted ... you then inquired and in fact found that they are accounted for in the SAPS system.”

The dockets were found on 6 December 2024 after inquiry following a complaint of possible docket interception.

“The dockets were found on that day [6 December].”

It is not normal practice to ask the SAPS Inspectorate for dockets that are with the Inspectorate themselves.

“Once we determine ... that the dockets are with the Inspectorate, we cannot ask the Inspectorate for the dockets ... It is out of just normal practice.”

To access IDAC (Independent Directorate for Anti-Corruption) dockets, IDAC must have opened an investigation and a Section 28(13) application must be submitted to initiate it.

“In order for us to have access to the dockets, police will not give IDAC dockets if IDAC does not have an investigation. On the 6th of December... the prosecutor, Advocate Ramsamay, is able to submit a Section 28(13) application which initiates an investigation.”

To access police dockets, IDAC must have an investigation initiated by a Section 28(13) application; then IDAC can request the dockets from the Head of Detectives who custodians them.

“Police will not give IDAC dockets if IDAC does not have an investigation. The prosecutor Advocate Ramsamay is able to submit a Section 28(13) application which initiates an investigation. On that basis ... we are able to write now to the Head of Detectives ... custodians of the dockets.”

An email from Mr. Adams to the Office of the Minister dated 21 November 2024 complained about the interception of cases moved from Cape Town Police Station to the office of Provincial Commissioner Western Cape General Patekile.

“After I opened these cases... I was informed that the cases were taken from the Cape Town police station to the office of the Provincial Commissioner Western Cape. I do not trust the Provincial Commissioner General Patekile, and believe that a deliberate attempt is taking place to get rid of the cases I had reported and to protect those against whom I made the cases.”

ADV JOHNSON stated there was no separate investigation into the interception claims against General Patekile by IDAC but acknowledged a search for the dockets stemming from Section 27.

“In all honesty, Counsel, I cannot tell you that there was a separate investigation about that interception.... I know that we sought to find those dockets, and we then in fact found those dockets.”

Mr. Adams sent an email to the Minister's office complaining about interception of cases reported, alleging a deliberate attempt to get rid of those cases and protect those accused.

“After I opened these cases ... I was informed that the cases were taken from the Cape Town police station to the office of the Provincial Commissioner Western Cape. I do not trust the Provincial Commissioner General Patekile, and believe that a deliberate attempt is taking place to get rid of the cases I had reported and to protect those against whom I made the cases.”

There was no separate investigation by IDAC into the claim of interception related to General Patekile, only investigation to find the dockets themselves.

“In all honesty ... I can not tell you that there was a separate investigation about that interception ... we sought to find those dockets, and we then found those dockets.”

ADV JOHNSON explained that investigations in matters of this nature are divided into different legs so he may not be aware of all specific investigations within his office but there is an investigation arising from Section 27.

“When you have matters of this nature... they divide the matters up into different legs of investigations so that they can deal with them differently.... I may not be aware of a specific leg of investigation, but I am aware that there is an investigation or investigations arising out of the Section 27.”

Finding the dockets does not address the complaint of interception; an investigation is still needed.

“Your finding of the dockets surely does not address the complaint of interception? No, it does not. And what I am saying is there must be an investigation.”

Finding the dockets did not address the complaint of interception, which requires a further investigation.

“Your finding of the dockets surely does not address the complaint of interception? No, it does not. And what I am saying is there must be an investigation.”

There are at least six separate investigations relating to a Section 27 referral involving General Lushemba matter, Mokwele matter, and others including Lieutenant-General Khumalo and General Madondo.

“When the prosecutors got the Section 27 referral, Counsel, they broke it up as follows. Started with the General Lushabama matter. Yes. That is the first matter. The Mokwele matter being ... there is a third investigation ... warrants were held over for Lieutenant-General Khumalo and General Madondo ... there are other matters ... five, six ... there would be six.”

The first investigation was the General Lushaba matter, followed by the Mokwele matter, then other matters arising from the Section 27 referral.

“Started with the General Lushaba matter. Yes. That is the first matter. The Mokwele matter being ...”

The investigations were separated according to different categories of offences to avoid misjoinder and difficulties in the docket process.

“So when the matters were broken up, and I think they were broken up, as their prosecutor explained, in terms of the different categories of offences, if you took them all as one, we would have had a lot of issues from misjoinder to ten peoples standing in the dock ... So they took it in terms of the allegations and grouped them accordingly.”

Each major investigation (Lushaba matter, Mokwele matter) has its own separate CAS number.

“I do know that with the Lushaba matter, it is a separate CAS, of course, as is with the Mokwele matter, and that had the other matter been enrolled, it would have also had its own case.”

There are six other matters emanating from the Section 27 affidavit referral.

“I know of four … five, six, there would be six. Six other matters.”

There are multiple separate investigations related to the Section 27 affidavit referral, including the Lushaba matter, the Mokwele matter, and a third investigation involving Lieutenant-General Khumalo and General Madondo.

“There is then a third investigation. That is the one for which the warrants were held over, just for context, in terms of Lieutenant-General Khumalo and General Madondo. And then there are other matters that also emanate from this complaint.”

If a Section 27 affidavit is insufficient, ordinarily the complainant is asked to supplement or amplify it, indicating what the shortcomings are.

“Where a section 27 affidavit is insufficient for any one of a number of reasons, we ordinarily would ask the complainant to supplement or amplify and indicate what the shortcomings are, which parts are short.”

A Section 27 affidavit must contain certain information prescribed by subsections 27A, 27B, and to some extent 27C of the NPA Act.

“Section 27 tells us the affidavit – what the affidavit contemplated therein must contain, correct? ... section 27, sub A, sub B, and to some extent sub C, if there should be other relevant information, dictates what the affidavit should contain.”

Section 27 of the NPA Act requires affidavits to contain specific information with sub-sections A, B, and C, and non-compliance may result in the matter being unable to proceed.

“Section 27. So you do agree section 27, sub A, sub B, and to some extent sub C ... dictates what the affidavit should contain ... whereas a section 27 affidavit is insufficient for any one of a number of reasons, we ordinarily would ask the complainant to supplement or amplify and indicate what the shortcomings are ... If the complainant is unable to amplify any portion or portions that would then fulfil the requirements of section 27, we then have to indicate that we are unable to take the matter because the matter must fulfil certain requirements.”

When an affidavit lacks necessary detail under Section 27, complainants are asked for supplementary affidavits, but if they cannot provide sufficient grounds, the matter is rejected.

“Especially where just from a glance it would seem that they are just missing something ... you ask them and when they amplify you say, okay, it's still falls short ... Meaning, if it is woefully hopeless, you just reject that ...”

If the complainant cannot supply the necessary information to meet Section 27 requirements, the matter cannot proceed.

“If the complainant is unable to amplify any one portion or portions that would then fulfil the requirements of section 27, we then have to indicate that we are unable to take the matter because the matter must fulfil certain requirements.”

If a Section 27 affidavit lacks necessary details, the complainant will be asked to provide a supplementary affidavit.

“You are saying you then ask them for a supplementary affidavit.”

IDAC follows a process of prodding and eliciting information from complainants to ensure Section 27 affidavit requirements are met.

“It is … you have to be mindful of the prodding and trying to elicit something they know they should tell you ...”

If an affidavit suspects money theft but does not specify grounds or evidence, it does not fulfil Section 27 requirements and is insufficient to proceed without supplementation.

“If you are given an affidavit that says, I suspect that money is being stolen ... they do not tell you the grounds on which the suspicion is based ... they have been a non-compliance with B ... what do you do? ... You would then check if they have a source of information ... if it's just 'I suspect' and there is nothing more to it, then it does not fulfil ...”

If an affidavit only contains a suspicion (e.g., money is being stolen) without further particulars, it does not fulfil Section 27 requirements.

“No, if it is just, I suspect, and there is nothing more to it, then it does not fulfil.”

IDAC forces complainants to supplement inadequate affidavits or rejects the matter if requirements cannot be met.

“And when people tell you, I gave you what I have, and there are clearly no grounds in that affidavit, what does IDAC do?”

IDAC does not have mandate to investigate some matters but refers such matters to other agencies such as detectives, DPCI, or SIU, and informs complainants where to approach for recourse.

“whilst this does not comply with IDAC's mandate, you are able to refer this matter to the detectives, we are writing to... We inform the complainant where they can go to, and then we also write to the agency that we are able to send it to”

The complainant is informed where to go, and the referral agency is also notified with what information was received, even if the matter is outside IDAC's mandate.

“We inform the complainant where they can go, and then we also write to the agency that we are able to send it to, together with a copy of whatever information might have been received.”

IDAC cannot investigate matters where suspicions are not substantiated and must refer such matters to other appropriate law enforcement agencies.

“In the event that the suspicions are not substantiated and grounds not advanced by way of example, then IDAC cannot investigate the matter. It would normally refer it to another appropriate law enforcement agency.”

IDAC requires an affidavit that details suspicions held by the referee for investigation under section 27; if suspicions are not substantiated, the matter is referred to another appropriate law enforcement agency.

“the affidavit must spell out the suspicion that the referee holds, and then to advance grounds to support every specific suspicion. IDAC has got the power to request may be substantiation, clarification from the referee, where there are shortcomings with compliance with section 27. In the event that the suspicions are not substantiated and grounds not advanced ... then IDAC cannot investigate the matter. It would normally refer it to another appropriate law enforcement agency.”

Mr Adams has growing concern that senior Crime Intelligence officers, including General Khumalo, General Lushaba, and General Madondo, are involved in systematic capture of the Crime Intelligence division.

“It expresses his growing concern that the Head of Crime Intelligence, General Khumalo, General Lushaba, General Madondo, and other senior Crime Intelligence officers are busy with systematic capture of Crime Intelligence division.”

Mr Adams has a growing concern that General Khumalo, General Lushaba, General Madondo, and other senior Crime Intelligence officers are involved in systematic capture of the Crime Intelligence division.

“it expresses his growing concern that the Head of Crime Intelligence, General Khumalo, General Lushaba, General Madondo, and other senior Crime Intelligence officers are busy with systematic capture of Crime Intelligence division”

Mr Adams suspects manipulation of procurement processes and appointments within Crime Intelligence and Secret Service offices.

“The second suspicion is reflected at paragraph 4 and on my reading, that speaks to two suspicions. The first being manipulation of procurement processes and processes to appoint and promote certain persons within Crime Intelligence. That is at paragraph 4, the first part of paragraph 4. The second part calls for the need to investigate appointments at various Secret Service offices.”

The deponent expresses suspicion that some secret funds are being taken unlawfully from secret funds accounts and given to Police Minister Bheki Cele.

“He expresses a suspicion that some funds are being taken unlawfully from these secret funds account and given to police Minister Bheki Cele.”

The deponent suspects manipulation of procurement processes to appoint and promote certain persons within Crime Intelligence.

“The first being manipulation of procurement processes and processes to appoint and promote certain persons within Crime Intelligence.”

An envelope was slipped under the door of Mr Adams' office containing Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds and vetting documents, which he did not share the contents of.

“He references an envelope, he says, was slipped under the door of his office in Parliament, containing some Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds of Crime Intelligence and vetting documents. So he tells you that I have that, but he does not share the contents of those.”

Some secret funds are being taken unlawfully from the secret funds account and given to former Police Minister Bheki Cele.

“he expresses a suspicion that some funds are being taken unlawfully from the secret funds account and given to police Minister Bheki Cele”

There is suspicion that former Minister Bheki Cele appointed General Khumalo without an interview process and that Khumalo had no prior experience in the relevant role.

“an allegation that the former Minister appointed General Khumalo without an interview process and without Khumalo having worked as a ...”

There is an allegation that former Minister Bheki Cele gave a General Khumalo an appointment without an interview process and without Khumalo having worked as a...

“There is a second leg to it, an allegation that the former Minister appointed General Khumalo without an interview process and without Khumalo having worked as a...”

Money laundering is considered within the context of manipulating procurement processes and unlawful taking of secret funds but not as a stand-alone offence.

“Just to indicate that money laundering is considered, but not as a stand-alone, just within the ambit of those matters.”

Money laundering is suspected through various Secret Service offices, which are likely points for laundering money out of Crime Intelligence.

“there is a suspicion that there is money laundering... the Secret Service offices in the country are likely points to money laundering out of Crime Intelligence”

There is a suspicion of money laundering involving Secret Service offices as extraction points in connection with Crime Intelligence secret funds.

“There is a suspicion that there is money laundering, except that he would like IDAC to investigate whether that laundering happens through various Secret Service offices.”

General Khumalo, General Lushaba, General Madondo and appointees are suspected of siphoning money from secret fund accounts across about 10 secret fund points in the country, which need investigation.

“My suspicion is that General Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo and many of those who they have appointed are actively syphoning money from the secret fund accounts in the country. I understand that there are about 10 secret fund points in the country where monies can be drawn from and all of these extraction points need to be investigated.”

Mr Adams suspects that Generals Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo, and many they have appointed are syphoning money from secret fund accounts across approximately 10 secret fund points.

“My suspicion is that General Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo and many of those who they have appointed are actively syphoning money from these secret fund accounts in the country. I understand that there are about 10 secret fund points in the country where monies can be drawn from and all of these extraction points need to be investigated.”

General Lushaba is charged with housebreaking, defeating and obstructing regarding loss of Crime Intelligence equipment and nondisclosure of secret information.

“Therein he has been charged not just with the housebreaking, but with the defeating and obstructing with regards to the loss of the equipment of Crime Intelligence and the non-disclosure thereof and the fact that there is secret information contained therein.”

General Lushaba has been charged with housebreaking, defeating and obstructing regarding loss of Crime Intelligence equipment and non-disclosure of secret information, a matter currently in court.

“therein he has been charged not just with the housebreaking, but with defeating and obstructing with regards to the loss of the equipment of Crime Intelligence and the non-disclosure thereof and the fact that there is secret information contained therein. So what I am saying is that 6 is the Lushaba matter that is currently in Court.”

The affidavit must comply with the requirements of paragraphs A, B, and C before a decision is taken, even for a preliminary investigation.

“Before a decision is taken, even for a preliminary investigation, that affidavit must fall in, must comply with at least A, B, C.”

General Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo and other senior Crime Intelligence officers were suspected of systematic capture of the Crime Intelligence Division.

“That General Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo and other senior Crime Intelligence officers were busy with the systematic capture of the Crime Intelligence Division.”

General Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo and other senior Crime Intelligence officers are busy with the systematic capture of the Crime Intelligence Division.

“the suspicion is General Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo and others senior Crime Intelligence officers were busy with the systematic capture of the Crime Intelligence Division”

The affidavit discussed is full of suspicions but lacks grounds to support any of the suspicions advanced.

“I am looking at 27 B and my reading of this affidavit is that it is replete with suspicions, but absolutely no grounds to support any of the suspicions advanced.”

An envelope containing Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds and vetting documents was pushed under Mr. Adams' door at Parliament, leading to suspicion regarding General Khumalo and others.

“That suspicion became even clearer when an envelope pushed under his door at Parliament contained Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds of Crime Intelligence and vetting documents.”

Advocate Johnson received information from time to time that led to suspicion about misuse of secret funds and vetting documents pushed under his door at Parliament related to Crime Intelligence procurement.

“he then says in paragraph 3 that that suspicion became even clearer when an envelope pushed under his door at Parliament contained Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds of Crime Intelligence and vetting documents”

Mr. Adams did not provide IDAC with the information that was pushed under his door.

“But you said he did not give IDAC that information which was slipped under his door.”

General Khumalo did not provide IDAC with the information that was slipped under his door regarding Crime Intelligence corruption suspicions.

“he did not give IDAC that information which was slipped under his door”

Information used to open cases and advance suspicion is received by Advocate Johnson from time to time; an affidavit must comply with specified legal criteria (A, B, C) prior to decision or investigation engagement.

“the cases were opened based on information I received from time to time which places the SAPS Crime Intelligence ... He receives information from time to time ... historic affidavit be compliant with at least A , B , C before a decision or engagement”

Section 27 of applicable legal provisions requires that the affidavit specifying suspicions must explicitly detail criteria A, B, and C; these cannot be established at a later stage but must be in the initial affidavit.

“27 says these things must be specified in the 27 affidavit . Because if you read 27 , it says by means of an affidavit or a firm declaration specifying A , B , C . So A , B , C are to be specified in the affidavit . They are not to be established at a later point . So the entry point is the affidavit which specifies A , B , and C”

Advocate Johnson testified that after receiving section 27 and the dockets, IDAC engaged with Mr Adams to cover other grounds and made further statements in January 2025.

“We have the dockets , but when they had the engagement ... The engagements had with him in January of 2025”

The suspicion about systematic capture of Crime Intelligence involves manipulation of procurement and appointment processes to appoint and promote certain members to higher positions.

“I suspect that General Khumalo and some senior officers in Crime Intelligence, including Madondo and Lushaba, were manipulating procurement processes and processes to appoint and promote certain members to higher positions.”

General Khumalo and other senior officers in Crime Intelligence, including Madondo and Lushaba, are suspected of manipulating procurement processes and appointing or promoting certain members to higher positions.

“he says "I suspect that General Khumalo and other senior officers in Crime Intelligence , including Madondo and Lushaba , were manipulating procurement processes and processes to appoint and promote certain members to higher positions."”

Advocate Johnson's suspicion became clearer upon finding an envelope with Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds pushed under his office door at Parliament.

“My suspicion about General Khumalo and others became more clearer when I found an envelope pushed under my office door at Parliament , which contained some Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds of Crime Intelligence and vetting documents.”

Mr. Adams' suspicion became clearer when he found an envelope containing Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds and vetting documents pushed under his office door at Parliament.

“My suspicion about General Khumalo and others became more clearer when I found an envelope pushed under my office door at Parliament, which contained some Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds of Crime Intelligence and vetting documents.”

Advocate Johnson agrees that the assertions about satisfaction of BoF section 27 are factual conclusions rather than facts.

“you agree, you agree? ... those are factual conclusions ... Do you now accept that they are factual conclusions ... You are relying on factual conclusions to say that BoF section 27 has been satisfied?”

Advocate Johnson accepts that the factual conclusions relied upon to satisfy B of section 27 are indeed factual conclusions, but lacks sufficient factual substratum to justify satisfaction under section 27 B in the affidavit.

“I agree ... you are relying on factual conclusions to say that B of section 27 has been satisfied.”

Advocate Johnson agrees that there are no sufficient factual grounds in the affidavit to satisfy section 27B requirements.

“Wherein this affidavit do you find any grounds that can potentially get anywhere close to section 27 B? ... there is nothing more than just what he said here ... I think the question ... is it sufficient for B? ... Yes, you have accepted there was none.”

Advocate Johnson admits that there is no sufficient factual substratum to satisfy B of section 27, indicating lack of grounds in the affidavit supporting those suspicions under B of section 27.

“I have referred to those grounds ... I think the question ... is that sufficient for B?... In terms of the factual basis of it, yes.”

Advocate Johnson admits that his earlier understanding of section 27B was wrong, and he later agreed it was satisfied because the person had knowledge and grounds.

“I have applied my mind differently. ... At the time, yes, I agree that it fulfils that requirement because he had knowledge. He had grounds on which it was based. I can not change that answer.”

Advocate Johnson understood the suspicion in his legal mandate to be subjective, but later accepts the test is objective of a reasonable person.

“You said you believe he had the required suspicion. ... Did I understand correctly ... that the suspicion required has to be viewed subjectively? ... For me, the grounds on which the suspicion is based is a subjective test. ... I am not going back on the argument. ... It is an objective test of the reasonable person.”

Advocate Johnson understood the legal mandate differently before 2022 and states current understanding is not how he understood the mandate since 2022.

“No ... I have been the Director since 2022 ... No [to understanding legal mandate the same].”

Advocate Johnson confirms he has applied his mind differently from before and agrees that the requirement of suspicion under section 27 B is fulfilled as there was knowledge and grounds on which it was based.

“I applied my mind differently ... I agree that it fulfils that requirement because he had knowledge. He had grounds on which it was based.”

Advocate Johnson says that the suspicion test under section 27 is a subjective test based on the mind of the person concerned, specifically Mr. Adams as a member of the Police Portfolio Committee who interacts with police and has access to relevant information.

“Yes [to suspicion viewed subjectively] ... Mr Adams is a member of the Police Portfolio Committee ... there is active engagement with the police ... I did not take his to be just the test of a subjective mind.”

Advocate Johnson acknowledges that Mr Adams, a member of the Police Portfolio Committee, has access to information and documents related to the allegations.

“Mr Adams is a member of the Police Portfolio Committee. These allegations come to them from time to time. There is active engagement with the police. There are documents ... I also had information.”

Chairperson presses that the test for suspicion must be either subjective or objective, not both, indicating confusion or dispute about Advocate Johnson's stated position.

“Once you say the test is subjective, then you look to what was going on in a specific person's mind. ... You cannot have it both ways. ... You cannot say it is subjective, but then also refer to a reasonable person test.”

Chairperson explains distinction between subjective and objective tests in law, emphasizing that mixing them is incorrect.

“Law 101 says, subjective, you look to the person's mind. Objective, you test that in accordance with how a reasonable person would view the situation. The two are totally different. You cannot compound them.”

Advocate Johnson clarifies the test under section 27 initially described as subjective must be understood as an objective test of the reasonable person applying the test, rejecting mixing subjective and objective tests.

“I said the test under section 7 is subjective ... No answer but then later asserts it is an objective test of the reasonable person.”

Advocate Johnson eventually confirms that the test under section 7 is an objective test of the reasonable person.

“It is an objective test of the reasonable person. ... Yes, it is an objective test.”