Hearing day 137

Witness N is a female member of the PKTT team investigating matters related to the University of Fort Hare in the Eastern Cape.

“"This witness is a female, adult female, and member of the PKTT team currently deployed in the Eastern Cape to investigate matters relating to the University of Fort Hare."”

Witness N was approached through an intermediary with a public complaint about a senior investigator at IDA in the Eastern Cape, prompting her to investigate further and conclude that the concerns warranted further investigations.

“"During the course of investigations, through an intermediary, she was approached and informed of a complaint from members of the public relating to a specific senior investigator at IDA in the Eastern Cape. She was approached because of the trust reposed in members of the investigating team in the Fort Hare matter. She took the matter up and investigated and concluded that the concerns expressed warranted further investigations."”

Witness N is protected by members of the NIU and TRT and is always in their company for safety during investigations.

“"She, as part of the investigating team, is protected by members of the NIU and TRT and is always in their company."”

Witness N's testimony will be given remotely with voice distortion off, name withheld, and images not distributed to protect her anonymity while maintaining testimony completeness.

“"The application is that she testify virtually, remotely, her voice will not be distorted, her name will be withheld, and her images will not be distributed."”

If Witness N's face and identity are disclosed, the PKTT would need to replace almost the entire team and reconstitute it for the Fort Hare investigations, which could have an unintended negative impact on the original investigation.

“"The disclosure of her face and her identity will by definition extend to them members of her protection team. That would require the PKTT to replace almost the entire team that has been seen in her presence and reconstitute the team for the purposes of the Fort Hare investigations. Her employers expressed serious concerns with that and their unintended impact on the original investigation for which she is tasked."”

Disclosure of Witness N's identity and images risks inadvertent disclosure of her and her team's identities, which could undermine their anonymous investigation strategy and hinder their ability to access community evidence.

“"The disclosure of her identity, both physical in terms of her pictures and images, and her name, risks the inadvertent disclosure of her team members in the entire Fort Hare investigation. Their success thus far is based in large part on the fact that they are 'anonymous', and they are able to access the community, and those who want to provide evidence in so far as Fort Hare is concerned, are comfortable to approach them and be seen with them."”

The whistleblower is a current SAPS member with serious personal concerns, granted anonymity under the Protected Disclosures Act, with no circulation of her identity and requesting the Commission to maintain anonymity throughout.

“"That whistle-blower, however, is a member of SAPS, is currently in service, and has got serious personal concerns... Her disclosure was then initiated in terms of the Protected Disclosures Act, and her name has not been circulated or published in any manner. She would like to Commission to provide the necessary evidence, but would prefer that the anonymity extends."”

The investigation triggered by a whistleblower involves three investigators and the original whistleblower who is prepared to confirm the reports she made and provide supporting documentary evidence.

“"The Commissioners will actually hear evidence from four witnesses. Three witnesses cover the same issues but they play different roles. ... The investigations were triggered by a whistle-blower... The original whistle-blower is prepared to testify to confirm the correctness of the reports she had made to the investigators, and any documentary evidence she may have given in support of her report."”

The whistle-blower requests the Commission extend protections afforded by the Protected Disclosures Act to allow her to testify anonymously and not disclose her name or physical identity, moving the application for an in-camera testimony to retain anonymity within the SAPS community.

“Her request is for the Commission to extend the protection afforded her by the Protected Disclosures Act, and as a whistle-blower, and not require her to disclose either her name or her physical identity and it is on that basis that she moves the application for an in camera.”

The whistle-blower fears that if her identity is disclosed within the SAPS environment, she may suffer pushback, occupational detriment, intimidation, or other consequences that might affect her employment.

“She fears that if her identity is now disclosed, she may suffer pushback and some level of occupational detriment, including intimidation or any other that may eventually affect her employment.”

The whistle-blower will testify virtually/remotely and her voice will not be distorted, but people impacted by her evidence will know who she is, though the broader SAPS community will not know her identity.

“The idea is that she, as with Witness N, will be testifying virtually, remotely, her voice will not be distorted. It is accepted that those people who are impacted by her evidence will know who she is, and that has always been the case, even during the stage of investigation. But the broader SAPS community does not know who she is, and that is what she is quite desirous to retain and that is the sole basis for why she is in camera.”

The whistle-blower was initially reluctant to testify and had to be persuaded, only finally agreeing the day before or the day of the hearing with the necessary support.

“She was quite reluctant to place herself on this platform, and it took some persuasion, and I think she was only the day before yesterday, or yesterday, finally persuaded with the necessary level of support to present herself before you.”

The whistle-blower's identity, name, and report were always available to the evidence leaders; the issue was how she would appear and maintain her anonymity in the Commission hearings.

“Her identity, her name and her report was always available. It was a question of how are those presented to the Commission.”

Consultations with the whistle-blower resolved issues around additional factual clarity in the investigation which were not contained in the original report, and her testimony serves to cure hearsay evidence by providing direct factual clarity.

“The question that arose was, in light of some facts not contained in the original report, can the investigators purport to give clarity on that? ... if she avails herself to deal with all material facts around that issue, then any hearsay that would have been testified to would be cured by her own appearance.”

The whistle-blower stands by her original report and every finding the investigators made at that time, but is interested in retaining her anonymity and not being known as the instigator of the investigation.

“She stands by her report ? Absolutely. She stands by everything the investigators did ? At her instance, she does. She was just interested in retaining the anonymity and not be known that she was the instigator of the entire investigation.”

Colonel Roe Loofse was a member of the South African Police Service attached to the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigations (Hawks) and retired on 31 January 2025.

“I was a member of the South African Police Service, SAPS, with the rank of Colonel, attached to the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigations, commonly known as the DPCI, and also known as the Hawks. I retired on the 31st of January 025.”

In May 2020 Colonel Roe Loofse was part of a team with Captain Mark McLean investigating crime intelligence matters within the Investigation Directorate of the National Prosecuting Authority (IDAC).

“In May 2020, I was part of a team... The team just consisted of me and Captain McLean. Captain Mark McLean, yes, relating to this matter. The team placed at IDAC with more members of the DPCI, but in terms of this matter and CI, Crime Intelligence Investigation, it was just me and Captain McLean and myself. It was part of a team placed at the Investigative Directorate of the National Prosecuting Authority, or now known as IDAC...”

The investigation team became familiar with crime intelligence officials who provided information, sometimes on unrelated ongoing investigations.

“While conducting investigations into Crime Intelligence, we became familiar with Crime Intelligence officials who would provide us with information. At times, these officers would provide information to ongoing investigations or matters that we were not aware of.”

Colonel Roe Loofse gives context of a 2018 event involving Advocate Andrea Johnson and Major General Feroz Khan, stating previous efforts to uncover crime intelligence matters were frustrated by media pressure and interference.

“Commissioners, for context, may be I should just refer to our investigation in 2020 in terms of Crime Intelligence and the conduct that we experienced at the time, which included the using of the media to put pressure on us when we investigated this matter from Crime Intelligence. Major General Khan played a huge role in that... So that media report was then placed and there was a lot of fallout in respect of that... So I expect no less now than what we went through.”

Colonel Roe Loofse states there was a 15 year struggle between police and National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to get Crime Intelligence matters on the roll, due to interference and impunity.

“So between the police and the NPA, we struggled about 15 years, 12 years to get a Crime Intelligence matter on the roll because of all the interference that we experienced.”

Colonel Roe Loofse confirms pattern of behaviour of impunity and interference in Crime Intelligence investigations, citing 2011 incident as example.

“This is a pattern of behaviour that I have experienced, and this specific incident just forms part of that pattern of behaviour. The impunity, the fact that they think they can get away with it, and they did for a long time... It is in that context that I am referring to what happened in 2011 because, how do I say, I have seen this movie before.”

In May 2022, in Crime Intelligence, a disclosure was made to Colonel Roe Loofse and Captain Mark McLean by a colonel and lieutenant colonel about an incident in 2018 involving Andrea Johnson and General Feroz Khan, deemed protected under the Protection Disclosure Act.

“Sometime in May 2022, a Colonel who was a captain at the time of the incident in 018, and a lieutenant Colonel when she approached us in 2022, in Crime Intelligence, approached Captain Mark McLean and me to make a disclosure which I deemed to be in terms of the Protection Disclosure Act of 26 of 2000. She informed us that in 2018, she shared an office with General Khan, who had been appointed as the Head of Operational Intelligence Support in September 2017...”

The colonel complied by giving her personal email address to the caller on General Feroz Khan's phone, who said she would send an email whose contents must be given to Khan and then deleted.

“The female caller requested her personal email address and she complied. The Colonel told us that the female caller told her that she would send her an email and the contents of the email must be given to General Khan and thereafter, the Colonel must delete the email.”

General Feroz Khan handed his cell phone to the colonel in 2018, asking her to give an email address of a person on the other end, later identified as Andrea Johnson.

“On 4 July 2018, while she was working in the office, General Khan, who was attending a meeting in the main boardroom, approached her, handed his cell phone to her and requested her to give an email address to the person on the other end of the phone. General Khan told the Colonel that the person on the other end was Andrea.”

The email from Andrea Johnson's Gmail was forwarded from Barry Bateman, a senior journalist, who sent the Petle complaint email with attachments on 3 July 2018. Colonel Roe Loofse printed and gave the envelope to General Khan but did not delete the email as requested.

“The email from Andrea Johnson's Gmail address to the Colonel's private email address was a forwarded email originating from Barry Bateman, who at the time was a senior journalist. Mr Bateman had sent the Petle complaint email with the attachment to Andrea Johnson's Gmail address on the 3rd of July 2018. The Colonel printed the email and attachments, placed them in an envelope and gave the envelope to General Khan. She did not delete the email as requested by the female caller.”

The Colonel received an email with subject 'Petle Complaint' containing attachments including an audio file recording of General Khan and documents relating to a criminal complaint against General Khan by Brigadier Petle.

“The subject header of the email was Petle Complaint. The email had photo attachments and an audio file. The email contained photographs of the A1 statement of Brigadier Petle, at the time a Crime Intelligence officer, in a criminal complaint by her against General Khan for assault common, intimidation as well as a J88 medical report and an audio recording of General Khan taken at the time of the alleged incident. The alleged incident took place on 26 June 018 and the A1 was commissioned on the same day at Silverton police station and the case opened under Silverton CAS number 422/06/2018.”

General Khan was given the contents of the criminal complaint against him, even though he was not entitled to them as a suspect, and before submitting a warning statement.

“The Colonel had essentially disclosed to us that General Khan was given the contents of the criminal complaint against him, when he was not entitled to the contents of the docket, as the suspect, and importantly, before he submitted a warning statement as a suspect.”

General Khan's warning statement was prepared with the benefit of the evidence against him, which is concerning as the complainant and suspect worked at the same place with a senior-subordinate relationship.

“General Khan prepared this e-statement with the benefit of the evidence against him. This was particularly concerning in this case because the complainant and the suspect worked at the same place and the suspect was the complainant's senior and direct superior.”

The fact that the suspect had access to the contents of the docket prior to submitting his warning statement raised a huge red flag and was a very big concern due to the entitlement rules.

“To me that is a huge red flag and a very huge concern because you are not entitled to any statements at that point in time. You are entitled to what the charges ... but to come to the investigating officer with a prepared statement, warning statement, it seems to me that you had to have prior knowledge of your version of events based on the evidence that was given to you and on which you can base your affidavit.”

It is very important for investigating officers to get the suspect's version of events without showing them the complainant's statement beforehand as it is unethical and not allowed.

“When I do a warning statement that I inform the suspect of the complaint, not what the witness was saying, because I need the suspect's version of events, if he is going to give it to me or not. That is a different ballgame. If he is not giving it to me, then obviously I cannot take it further. But if he is willing to give it to me, I cannot tell him beforehand what the suspect said because it is unethical and it is not allowed.”

Suspects should only be entitled to the contents of the docket after being charged and with disclosure to their lawyers or themselves, not beforehand during the investigation.

“Procedurally is when he is either represented or not represented in the case before Court and there is a disclosure to the defence, either to his lawyer or to himself, the suspect himself. That is when you get entitled to the documents ... After you are charged.”

Advocate Andrea Johnson, Head of Organised Crime in the NPA at the time, could have called for the docket due to her position, though no normal reason was apparent for her request.

“she p r o b a b l y w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b l e t o c a l l f o r t h e d o c k e t i n h e r c a p a c i t y w i t h i n t h e N P A a n d I t h i n k s h e w a s H e a d o f O r g a n i s e d C r i m e a t t h e t i m e”

The request for the docket was confined to the Silverton Police Station's jurisdiction and there was no normal reason for the person to want to get hold of the docket.

“I t w a s t h e S i l v e r t o n C A S ? ... S o t h e y w o u l d h a v e f a l l e n u n d e r t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n ... s h e d o e s n o t h a v e a n y r e a s o n a s t o w h y s h e w a n t s t o g e t h o l d o f t h e d o c k e t .”

Mr Bateman received email attachments on 3 July 2018 via WhatsApp from an undisclosed source and complied with Advocate Andrea Johnson's request for a statement, J88 and audio file on the same day.

“Mr Bateman informed us that he received the email attachments on the 3rd of July 018 via WhatsApp from a source that he was not willing to disclose ... Advoca te Andrea Johnson ... requested the information from him ... he complied with the request on the same day”

Mr Bateman had a very good relationship with Advocate Andrea Johnson going back to 2011 and saw nothing untoward about her request for information.

“Mr Bateman also stated that he had a very good relationship with Advocate Johnson going back to 2011 ... He saw nothing untoward about Johnson's request”

Mr Bateman received a WhatsApp message from a source on 3 July 2018 sending an audio clip regarding an incident between General Khan and Brigadier Petley involving assault and intimidation.

“Mr Bateman's message ... What is this about ? ... A n d h i s m e s s a g e i s : A General Khan and Brig Petley ... A n incident between them . He allegedly also assaulted her with a pen . Case was opened , assault and intimidation .”

Mr Bateman only provided the requested statement to Captain McLean in June 2026, four years after requested and several follow-ups.

“he only provided the statement to Captain McLean in June 2026 , four years after we met with him and requested the statement”

Mr Bateman confirmed he provided documentation and WhatsApp messages to Advocate Andrea Johnson but could not recall why the information was requested.

“he did not deny that he provided the documentation and the Whats Apps ... he confirmed it was asked by Advocate Johnson ... but he could not remember as to why it was asked from him”

Advocate Andrea Johnson specifically requested the docket from Mr Bateman, who would not have given it if not requested.

“the impression that I had during the whole conversation is that she specifically requested this docket . He would not have known giving it to her if it was not requested”

Advocate Andrea Johnson requested Mr Bateman to source the documents and provide them to her on the same day, indicating the request was initiated by her.

“she requested him to see if he can get it ... So she was supposed to source the documents and then provide it to her ... She initiates her request and asks his source to get it”

Mr Bateman did not have the information at the time of the request from Advocate Andrea Johnson but received the attachments later that day and sent them to her in the evening.

“He gets the audio recording at 11.08 ... if she requested it from him to obtain it , she did not have it at the time she made the request ... He only sends it at 6.00 in the evening”

Mr Bateman received a voice recording and pictures of an affidavit from Brigadier Petle of the South African Police Service in July 2018, and sent this information to Johnson on the same day, 3 July 2018.

“In July 2018 , a voice recording and pictures of an affidavit deposed to by Brigadier Petle of the South African Police Service were sent to me ... I received the information and sent it to Johnson on the same day, 3 July 2018 .”

The CAS system is an administrative system to register case dockets; when an investigation ends or a case is closed (e.g. nolle prosequi), the docket is closed and archived but not deleted, leaving an audit trail.

“It actually should read closed , Commissioner . What we have , we have a CAS administration system , which is an administrations system for our dockets . So if the case docket is opened, it would be registered on the CAS system . So at the end of an investigation , whether it is unfounded , whether a warrant of arrest was issued , you will then close the docket and it will be closed on the CAS system , as in I think in this specific case , it was an olle prosequi , if I am not mistaken . So the docket would have been closed on the CAS system as an olle prosequi . But as I said , I do not have the docket in front of me , so I am not sure exactly as what it was closed . But then it would get archived . So that is in essence what happened . So there will not be any further queries on the administration system , bring forward dates and that kind of thing . But the docket will show that it has been archived , and you can go and find the docket there .”

Captain McLean had ascertained that the NPA decided on 5 December 2021 not to prosecute the assault and intimidation docket, which was withdrawn from the CAS system on 13 January 2022.

“Captain McLean had also ascertained that the NPA decided on 5 December 2021 already not to prosecute the assault and intimidation docket , and the docket had been withdrawn from the CAS system on 13 January 2022 .”

Advocate Johnson was placed at IDAC but could not approach Advocate Johnson due to allegations of interference and defeating the ends of justice.

“I could not approach Advocate Johnson , given the allegations of interference and defeating the ends of justice .”

The docket that was withdrawn from the CAS system means it was closed, not deleted, since deletion is not possible due to an audit trail.

“It does not mean , because that is how I had read it , because I do not know your systems . So when you say withdrawn from the CAS system , I had read it to mean it had been deleted from the systems . No , it cannot be deleted . There will always be an audit trail , so you cannot delete that .”

Advocate Johnson's position as Head of IDAC placed the witness in a precarious position, due to conflict arising from allegations implicating Advocate Johnson.

“Advocate Johnson 's position also placed me in a precarious position, because I had been placed at IDAC in Advocate Johnson 's office, as part of a duty arrangement between the DPCI and IDAC .”

The witness decided to approach National Head of the DPCI, Lieutenant General Lebeya, for assistance due to the circumstances he found himself in and informed him of the allegations contained in the Colonel's statement, requesting a senior prosecutor be assigned.

“I decided to approach the National Head of the DPCI, Lieutenant General Lebeya, for assistance, because of the circumstances that I found myself in. I met General Lebeya in the last week of August 022, but I do not recall the exact date. I informed him of the allegations contained in the Colonel 's statement and furnished him with a copy of the Colonel 's statement. I told General Lebeya that we needed the NPA to assign a senior prosecutor to the matter. I expected General Lebeya to request the NPA head, at the time, Advocate Shamila Batohi, for a senior prosecutor to be assigned to the case.”

The witness could not approach Advocate Johnson because of her position as Head of IDAC and allegations of interference and defeating the ends of justice, and instead approached the Head of the DPCI.

“Advocate Johnson 's position also placed me in a precarious position, because I had been placed at IDAC in Advocate Johnson 's office, ... I could not take the matter to a lower Court due to Advocate Johnson 's position as Head of IDAC. ... She also informed me ... that she understood why I did not deal with the incident within IDAC, but instead we went to the Head of the DPCI.”

On 7 September 2022, Advocate Johnson approached the witness and revealed knowledge of the Colonel's affidavit and had spoken to Mr Bateman before meeting the witness.

“On 7 September 2022 , Advocate Johnson approached me at work , I was still at IDAC at the time , and asked me to see her in her office . ... Advocate Johnson told me she had been called by Advocate Batohi 's office , who informed her of the Colonel 's affidavit and the allegations against her, Advocate Johnson, contained therein. ... She also informed me that she spoke to Mr Bateman before meeting with me, and told Mr Bateman not to worry.”

Advocate Johnson was informed about the Colonel's affidavit and allegations against her by Advocate Batohi's office, which the witness found concerning as it implicated Advocate Johnson in wrongdoing.

“I found it extremely concerning that Advocate Batohi would have told Advocate Johnson about a protected disclosure implicating her, Advocate Johnson, in wrongdoing.”

Advocate Johnson denied any wrongdoing after reading the Colonel's affidavit commissioned by Colonel Odendaal.

“She then told me that she read the Colonel 's affidavit , and that she denied any wrongdoing .”

Mr Leask told the witness that Mr Bateman had informed Mr Gerrie Nel of a conversation between Mr Bateman and Advocate Johnson.

“Mr Leask told me that Bateman had informed Mr Gerrie Nel of the conversation between him, Bateman, and Advocate Johnson.”

General Lebeya gave the Colonel's affidavit to Advocate Batohi, who then shared it with Advocate Johnson, replicating a pattern of sharing sensitive information seen before in respect of Brigadier Petley's criminal complaint against General Khan.

“General Lebeya gave the Colonel's affidavit to Advocate Batohi, which I did not take issue with...Advocate Batohi, by sharing the Colonel's statement with Advocate Johnson, did the same thing Advocate Johnson had done by sharing Brigadier Petley's criminal complaint against General Khan with him.”

Advocate Johnson did not explain or justify forwarding the Colonel's affidavit to General Khan, stating only that she did not do anything wrong.

“she just said to me... 'I did not do anything wrong.'”

The forwarding of the Colonel's affidavit to General Khan is seen as a subtle warning not to assist in the investigation, effectively limiting further support from the witness due to concern for career and safety.

“it took us four years to evenutally get Bateman's statement... that call did in fact play a role in him not finalising his affidavit... It is a very subtle way to tell someone not to assist in an investigation... I had a huge problem with the situation... I am not going to risk the Colonel's career and life...”

Mr Leask told the Colonel that Mr Bateman sent a WhatsApp message to Advocate Gerrie Nel following his conversations with Advocate Johnson on 5 September 2022.

“Mr Leask told me that Mr Bateman sent a WhatsApp message to Advocate Gerrie Nel after his conversation with Advocate Johnson on 5 September.”

Advocate Johnson did not consider forwarding the Colonel's affidavit to General Khan to be wrong, according to her statement 'I did not do anything wrong'.

“I did not do anything wrong.”

The Colonel has led many investigations into corruption by police officials in SAPS, particularly in Crime Intelligence, and is aware of the dangers in prematurely releasing witness names which could jeopardize investigations and the safety of witnesses.

“I have led many investigations into corruption by police officials within the SAPS, with a specific reference to Crime Intelligence... It puts the investigation into jeopardy, and more importantly, it has the potential to put the life of the witness in danger.”

Advocate Johnson had spoken to Mr Bateman about the Colonel's affidavit before the Colonel met with Advocate Johnson, and Mr Leask informed the Colonel of this conversation in early September 2022.

“I had already been informed that Advocate Johnson had spoken to Mr Bateman about the Colonel's affidavit... Mr Leask informed me of the conversation between Mr Bateman and Advocate Johnson...”

Advocate Johnson asked Mr Bateman to move their communication from WhatsApp to Signal, as indicated in a screenshot from Mr Bateman's phone from 5 September 2022.

“It is a screenshot or a photo that I took of, I think it is Mr Bateman's phone, with the request by Advocate Johnson to go to Signal.”

Advocate Johnson preferred to use the secure messaging app Signal rather than WhatsApp due to security concerns.

“you need to use Signal because WhatsApp is not as secure as you think and she prefers to use Signal because it is much more secure”

On 7 September 2022, COL ROELOFSE met with Advocate Johnson and then with Mr Leask, receiving forwarded WhatsApp exchanges between Bateman, Advocate Johnson and Advocate Nel before meeting Mr Leask.

“on 7 September 2022 , I would have met Mr Leask after my meeting with Advocate Johnson . I do recall that Mr Leask sent the WhatsApp exchange between Bateman and Advocate Johnson and Advocate Nel before I went to meet him”

General Lebeya gave Colonel ROELOFSE's affidavit to Advocate Batohi, who then showed or gave the statement to Advocate Johnson.

“General Lebeya met Advocate Batohi and gave her the Colonel 's affidavit . And thereafter , Advocate Batohi either showed or gave the Colonel 's statement to Advocate Johnson”

On 31 January 2025, COL ROELOFSE retired from the South African Police Service and noted that they were unable to secure the appointment of a prosecutor to consider complaints against General Khan and Advocate Johnson, which he considered as defeating the ends of justice.

“On 31 January 2025 , I retired from the South African Police Service . At that stage , we were unable to secure the appointment of a prosecutor to consider both Brigadier Petle criminal complaint against General Khan and the allegations against Advocate Johnson of what I considered to be defeating the ends justice”

The case docket was assigned to Captain McLean after COL ROELOFSE retired, who had worked with him from the start and to whom he reported regularly.

“When I retired , the docket was assigned to Captain McLean , who had worked with me on the case from the start and to whom I report regularly on my interactions”

There was an issue between Khan and Petle mentioned in the affidavit that could only have come from the affidavit itself.

“there was an issue between Khan and Petle . That information could have only come from the affidavit itself”

Advocate Johnson's conduct amounted to interference with investigation and defeating the ends of justice because she warned a suspect who was a superior officer, potentially intimidating her.

“The nature of the allegation , where she worked , the fact that she could be intimidated , the fact that the guy was a superior officer . So those are the things , if you look at the Act itself , those are the kind of things that you look out for when it is a protected disclosure”

Ms Johnson was duped by General Khan and deliberately called witnesses and involved Bateman as an implicated person in the case.

“she is , as far as I am concerned , an implicated person . She did not deny that she was dupe by Khan”

Ms Johnson requested private emails to be used and asked the Colonel to delete them, suggesting she wanted to obscure official communication and evidence.

“she requested that private emails be used . Because it was done on her Gmail account . She asked the Colonel to go to her Gmail account and she also asked the Colonel to delete the emails when it was done”

Mr Bateman, a journalist, was not entitled to possess or publicize the docket documents, and Ms Johnson should have known this and not shared it with the suspect in an assault complaint.

“Mr Bateman was not entitled to that document . So it is not part of the public domain . ... Ms Johnson should have known that when she received it from him and she should not have shared it with the suspect in the assault complaint ?”

No disciplinary action or prosecutor appointment occurred after the issues with Advocate Johnson and General Khan, despite expectations that action should have been taken.

“there was never a prosecutor appointed , and there was no disciplinary proceedings after that as well . I was not contacted by the NPA for disciplinary proceedings”

There was interference with an active investigation involving Advocate Johnson and General Khan.

“you unequivocally say there was interference with an active investigation”

Advocate Batohi's conduct might have constituted interference in an investigation, similar to Advocate Johnson's conduct with General Khan.

“do you similarly express the same view about Advocate Batohi speaking to Advocate Johnson about this investigation that you are now conducting into her behaviour ?”

Col Roelofse deduces that Advocate Batohi made exactly the same mistake as Advocate Johnson by showing the same affidavit to Advocate Johnson that Johnson gave to General Khan, indicating potential misconduct or interference.

“she made exactly the same mistake , if you want to call it a mistake , because it is not a mistake , as Advocate Johnson did by her actions”

Captain Mark McLean states he was part of a team assigned in May 2020 to investigate state-owned enterprises and entities as part of a duty arrangement between IDAC and DPCI.

“In May of 2020, I was part of a team placed at the Investigating Directorate, the ID, of the National Prosecuting Authority, also commonly known as IDAC, as part of a duty arrangement between IDAC and the DPCI, where we were assigned to conduct investigations relating to inter-alia state-owned enterprises or state-owned entities.”

Captain McLean confirms involvement in investigations starting around March 2011 into the murder of Oupa Ramogibe in Vosloorus, related to General Mdluli.

“In 2011, I think it was March, it was our public holiday, we were informed to form part of a team coming up to Gauteng to investigate a murder of Oupa Ramogibe in Vosloorus against General Mdluli at the time.”

The Secret Service Account abuse was known to investigators by 2011, but it was not part of the initial murder investigation in 2011; information was provided later by Crime Intelligence officials to the investigation team.

“Not right in the beginning, Commissioners. Like I said, as things progressed, because you are dealing with a murder of the then Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence, the officials in Crime Intelligence, you get to know them and then they will approach you with information. And that is exactly what transpired here.”

Captain McLean was part of a team including Colonel Roelofse, Colonel Viljoen, and Sergeant Cathy Williams working on the 2011 Vosloorus murder investigation.

“It was myself, Colonel Roelofse, Colonel Viljoen, Piet Viljoen, and Cathy Williams, Sergeant Cathy Williams.”

Multiple cases were opened involving abuse of the Secret Service Account, including against General Lazarus and Colonel Barnard, as well as General Mdluli.

“We opened, at that time we opened two other separate cases that was running. One was against General Lazarus and Colonel Barnard. And then the other matter was General Lazarus, General Mdlulian and Colonel Barnard. The first one was on a Lyttelton matter against General Lazarus and Barnard for abusing the Secret Service Account.”

In 2011, the abuse of the Secret Service Account and related appointments were known issues that should have been stopped then, but were not.

“Like I said, the abuse of the Secret Service Account, the appointments, all of that was known to us in 2011.”

In 2018, General Jacobs informed Captain McLean and retired Colonel Roelofse about an incident involving Major General Feroz Khan and Advocate Andrea Johnson.

“We were approached by, actually, General Jacobs, who informed us about the Colonel, who had information regarding an incident that took place in 2018 relating to Major General Khan and Advocate Johnson.”

General Khan handed his cellphone to a Colonel after informing her that the person on the phone was Advocate Andrea, who asked for a personal email address to send something for General Khan that he must receive and then delete.

“He then informed the Colonel that it is Andrea on the phone, and that . . . He then handed his phone to the Colonel. The Colonel was then requested by the lady on the phone to give a personal email address, and she will send something for General Khan that she must give to General Khan, and then she must delete the email, which she did.”

Captain McLean received from Brigadier Petle her own statement, a statement of the A1 in a docket of Silverton 422/05/2018, a J88, an email, and a recording related to an assault case.

“She provided us with a statement, her own statement, a statement of the A 1 in a docket of Silverton 422/05/2018, and the J88. And the email. And also the recording. It is a recording that was ... done by the complainant, Brigadier Petle, of the assault case, and that was also given to the Colonel.”

The audio recording captured a conversation between Brigadier Petle and Major General Khan where Khan insisted on being addressed as General and disciplined Petle for calling him Khan, questioning her about her whereabouts and time she started work on that morning.

“" Brig Petla: Open. Maj-Gen Khan: Morning. Brig Petla: Mmm. Maj-Gen Khan: How are you? Brig Petla: Good, yourself? Can you close the door? Maj-Gen Khan: No, I do not want to talk with the door closed. Brig Petla: Why? Maj-Gen Khan: I have got my reasons. ... Maj-Gen Khan: I am not your Khan, I am General. Do not address me as Khan. That is the last time you call me Khan. ... You call me General. You do not call me Khan. I am not your friend, I am your commander. Do not address me as Khan. Am I clear to you? ... Where were you this morning? ... I am here from 7.30. Why were you not at work? ... What time did you start work? ... The penis very powerful. You have lots of issues at the moment. You want me to add to them? Brigadier, you want me to add to your issues? I need to know where were you. I need answers from you. ... Have I been rude to you? Why are you rude to me? Do I call you Catherin? Lebo? I have never called you anything but Brigadier.”

Brigadier Petle confirmed that an audio recording was part of the assault case incident.

“She confirmed that that recording was a recording of a part of the incident, a portion of the incident.”

Brigadier Petle was assaulted with a pen resulting in injuries including marks consistent with being poked by a pen as recorded in a J88 form, with injuries also noted on the chest.

“The general spoke about a pen. And if I look at the J 88 and what Brigadier Petle is saying, it is more about the pen. Because he was doing this. And the J 88 also speaks about injuries on the chest. It just shows that there is marks. Like if somebody press you with a pen, that is the type of injuries it shows on the J 88.”

The J88 medical report documenting Brigadier Petle's injuries was completed by an independent doctor, but some pages of the original docket 422 are missing.

“The J 88 is completed by whom? An independent doctor, Commissioner. I must also state that when I went to fetch the initial docket, the original docket, the 422, some of the J 88 pages is missing. So I am following up with the doctor to see if we can get a proper J 88.”

Brigadier Petle had injuries including swelling on the upper part of the left forearm, superficial bruises on the facial left, and multiple small bruises that were documented in the J88 report.

“Page 33, I think it says one swelling on the upper part of the middle left forearm. ... The second one, bruises superficial on facial left. And then three, four multiples small bruises on, I cannot read the rest.”

The circle mark on the head in the medical report indicates where the doctor observed injuries.

“That is where the doctor will say this is where injuries, when he you examine the patient, that is where it shows.”

In investigations, a separate inquiry docket is opened and the original case docket is preserved for court purposes.

“we do not use the original case docket that is there. We try to preserve that as it is for the Court to see what was in that case docket. So what we did in this case, we opened an inquiry into the matter.”

The sharing of the whistleblower’s statement between DPCI, NPA and Advocate Johnson was done legitimately, at the request of General Lebeya to assist with the investigation.

“I do not, we do not have an issue because we requested, the reason we gave that copy of the statement to General Lebeya is to request a prosecutor from the NPA to assist us, to guide us in the investigation and also to get our Section 205 authorised because otherwise we could not get anything done.”

The matter under investigation was treated initially as an inquiry and only later as a criminal investigation once evidence was complete.

“As a normal criminal offence, but it is just an inquiry at that stage. Until you have all the evidence, all the statements, and then open a case docket.”

The inquiry opened into the matter was numbered 8/9/2022.

“So you open an inquiry and then it has an inquiry number? CAPT. McLEAN: Yes, 8/9/2022.”

The criminal investigation was initiated with an inquiry number and after gathering evidence would receive a case number.

“It is a criminal investigation. The one has just got an inquiry number and the other will have a case number when the investigation is finalised.”

Advocate Gerrie Neland and Mr Andrew Leask assisted with obtaining the statement of Mr Barry Bateman regarding the Petlec criminal complaint.

“Mr Barry Bateman told us that Advocate Johnson had requested the information, the Petlec criminal complaint, from him. I note that in his statement that I obtained from Mr Bateman on the 23rd of June 2026, he stated he does not have a recollection of the circumstances that led to him sending the information to Advocate Johnson. However, he can only infer that it was following a discussion and response to a request from Advocate Johnson. This, together with Mr Bateman's reluctance to provide a statement when the same was requested in 2022, suggests to me that Mr Bateman is aware that Advocate Johnson's request to him was not...”

Mr Barry Bateman was reluctant to provide a statement in 2022 regarding the criminal complaint, only submitting in June 2026; reasons for delay unclear.

“he can only infer that it was following a discussion and response to a request from Advocate Johnson. This, together with Mr Bateman's reluctance to provide a statement when the same was requested in 2022...”

Mr Bateman delayed finalising his statement possibly waiting to see if investigation developments occurred before submitting it.

“what Mr Bateman was doing was to see whether anything is going to happen with the investigation before finalising his statement.”

Mr Bateman did not express a reason for the delay in submitting his statement between 2022 and 2026.

“But he did not express to you the reason why he was delaying with the statement? CAPT. McLEAN: Not at all.”

In August 2022, the statement from Colonel Roelofse was received recounting events of 4 July 2018; at that time Advocate Johnson was head of IDAC where Captain McLean was attached to DPCI.

“In August of 2022, we received the statement from the Colonel, setting out events of 4 July 2018. At this stage, Advocate Johnson was the head of IDAC where I was placed, even though I was attached to the DPCI.”

Captain McLean obtained the assault and intimidation docket to establish information relevant to the investigation.

“At that stage, I had also obtained the assault and intimidation docket to establish whether the information”

Due to allegations of interference and defeating the ends of justice, no approach was made to Advocate Johnson at that stage.

“We could not approach Advocate Johnson given the allegations of interference and defeating the ends of justice.”

According to SAPS records, on 15 December 2021, the NPA informed the investigating officer that it would not prosecute the assault and intimidation case against General Khan, and on 13 January 2022, the docket was withdrawn.

“According to SAPS records , on 1 5 D e c e m b e r 2 0 2 1 , t h e N P A i n f o r m e d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r t h a t i t w o u l d n o t p r o s e c u t e t h e a s s a u l t a n d i n t i m i d a t i o n c a s e a g a i n s t G e n e r a l K h a n a n d o n t h e 1 3 t h o f 1 0 J a n u a r y 2 0 2 2 , t h e d o c k e t h a s b e e n w i t h d r a w n .”

Captain McLean was not personally involved and did not attend the meeting between Advocate Johnson and Colonel Roelofse with General Lebeya.

“I was not personally involved , I did not attend the meeting with Colonel Roelofse with General Lebeya , our Commissioners .”

Colonel Roelofse confirmed he was approached by Advocate Johnson and what transpired on that specific day.

“I can confirm that Colonel Roelofse was approached by Advocate Johnson and what transpired on that specific day .”

General Lebeya could not remember the incident related to the meeting and requested Captain McLean to get his diary from his old office, which showed there was a meeting on 2 September 2022 with the NDPP but did not specify the meeting's purpose.

“At that stage , General Lebeya could not remember and he requested me to get his diary from his office , his old office , which I did . I saw that there was indeed a meeting on the 2nd of September 2022 with the NDPP , although there is no reference to what the meeting was all about .”

Advocate Batohi and Advocate Johnson were well aware of the potential serious consequences of their conduct which could compromise the investigation and place the safety of whistle-blowers like the Colonel at risk.

“Both Advocate Batohi and Advocate Johnson are well aware of the potential serious consequences of their conduct , which has the potential to compromise the investigation and place the safety of whistle-blowers like the Colonel at risk .”

General Lebeya met Advocate Batohi on 2 September 2022 and gave her a copy of the Colonel's statement to see and read for herself the implications of Advocate Johnson's actions; the purpose was not to share it with a person of interest.

“I think it is likely that General Lebeya met Advocate Batohi on that day and gave a copy of the Colonel 's statement , which is what we expected him to do . The purpose of giving the statement to a copy to Advocate Batohi , the sole purpose of that is so that Advocate Batohi can be in a position to see for herself and read for herself the statement and the implications of what Advocate Johnson did . It was not given to her with the purpose of sharing it with a person of interest , definitely not , Commissioners .”

Advocate Johnson gave a person of interest a copy of the docket to prepare himself and make a tailored statement, similar to what Advocate Batohi did to Advocate Johnson.

“Advocate Johnson did by supplying a person of interest with a copy of a docket to prepare himself and to prepare himself to make a statement , to tailor the evidence that is there in the case docket , is exactly the same what Advocate Batohi did to Advocate Johnson at that time .”

Advocate Johnson called Mr Bateman in June 2022 to assure him they were still friends and that the Hawks were going to come to him, but Mr Bateman became sick after that.

“... subsequent getting a call from Advocate Johnson telling him we know , do not worry , we are still friends . The Hawks is going to come to you . What we understood was he became sick .”

Advocate Johnson, as a person of interest, improperly approached witnesses, assuring them they have nothing to worry about and implying the Hawks might intervene, which constitutes interference and potential intimidation.

“That is where we are saying the interference came , Commissioner . Why will you , knowing that you are a person of interest , you know the witness , why will you now go and approach the witness ? Are you trying to intimidate the witness ? Are you trying to tell the witness the Hawks is going to come there , tailor your evidence ? We do not know . But it is improper for a person of interest , especially a senior prosecutor within the NPA , knowing the law , to approach a witness in this fashion .”

Advocate Johnson told witnesses that the Hawks might come to speak to them, which is improper conduct.

“And you even tell them that the Hawks might be coming to speak to you .”

The delay of four years in getting Mr Bateman's statement was partly because there was no prosecutor at the time to process it and to convince the witness to give the statement and trust them again.

“I think my biggest issue was that we did not have a prosecutor at the time . And for me to go back to the witness and say I want your statement , I must be able , I must be in the position to tell him yes , indeed , we have prosecutor , we will proceed . I must try and convince him now again to give me that statement and trust us again .”

Advocate Johnson was informed by Colonel Roelofse that Advocate Batohi had discussed a matter regarding a statement implicating Advocate Johnson in wrongdoing, and Batohi then revealed to Johnson that the Colonel had implicated her in wrongdoing, which caused disappointment in Johnson's conduct.

“On the 7th of September 2022 Colonel Roelofse told me that Advocate Johnson approached him at work and they had a brief meeting in the office. According to Colonel Roelofse Advocate Johnson told him that she saw Colonel's statement and mentioned the Colonel's name as well as the name of the officer who commissioned the Colonel's statement, Colonel Odendaal. He also told me that Advocate Batohi had discussed the matter with Advocate Johnson and showed her the Colonel's statement. In other words, Advocate Batohi now revealed to Advocate Johnson that the Colonel had implicated Advocate Johnson in wrongdoing. I was disappointed with Advocate Johnson's conduct.”

Advocate Batohi's conduct toward Advocate Johnson was similar to what Advocate Johnson had done for General Khan.

“In other words, Advocate Batohi is doing exactly the same as what Advocate Johnson did for General Khan. Colonel Roelofse, who told me that Advocate Johnson told him that she spoke to Mr Bateman before meeting him with Colonel Roelofse, and that told Barry Bateman not to worry.”

Advocate Johnson knowingly contravened her duties as a prosecutor by favouring General Khan, sending information to him to benefit from a complainant's statement and preparing his warning statement accordingly.

“Advocate Johnson clearly understood that what she did was a contravention of her duties as a prosecutor who must act without fear, favour and prejudice. In this instance she clearly intended to favour General Khan, so that he could have the benefit of the complainant's statement and the contents of the docket when he prepared his warning statement, which he submitted on the same day that Advocate Johnson sent the information to the Colonel.”

After Colonel Roelofse retired at the end of January 2025, Captain McLean obtained a statement from Mr Bateman on 23 June 2026 and opined that Mr Bateman was downplaying the seriousness of Advocate Johnson's conduct by claiming he saw nothing unusual.

“After Colonel Roelofse retired at the end of January 2025, the docket was assigned to me. On the 23rd of June 2026, I finally obtained a statement from Mr Bateman. My opinion of Mr Bateman's statement is that he is trying to downplay the series of Advocate Johnson's conduct. ... the seriousness of Advocate Johnson's conduct by saying that he saw nothing unusual about sending the information to Advocate Johnson and that he had no reason to question her integrity or intentions.”

After Colonel Roelofse retired, Captain McLean was unable to secure a suitable prosecutor for the case because they had to wait for Advocate Batohi to vacate her post before approaching the NPA for a prosecutor due to past events in 2022 involving Colonel Roelofse and Advocate Johnson's conduct.

“After Colonel Roelofse retired I was unable to secure a suitable prosecutor for the case to progress insofar as Advocate Johnson is concerned. ... Commissioner, I had to wait for Advocate Batohi to vacate her post before I could approach the NPA again for a prosecutor. Because of what happened to us in 2022 when Colonel Roelofse approached Advocate, agh General Lebeya to approach Advocate Batohi and subsequent to that, Colonel or Advocate Johnson, then spoke to our witnesses.”

A new NDPP was appointed at the NPA in May 2026, which was different from the situation in August 2022 when Advocate Batohi was still at the NPA.

“When you went to the NDPP in May this year, what was different to what happened in August 2022? There was a new NDPP appointed at the NPA. That was the difference. We did not have Advocate Batohi here anymore.”

The only reason to wait for the new NDPP to appoint a prosecutor was to get someone from outside the Gauteng province who did not know Advocate Johnson well to assist with the prosecution.

“The only way and the only reason we waited for the new NDPP, is to get us someone that is not in this province, that does not know Advocate Johnson or did not work with her much, to assist us with this prosecution.”

Due to Advocate Johnson's influence, the prosecution had to approach the NDPP to secure a prosecutor for the case to avoid influencing local court prosecutors, unlike other crimes which could be prosecuted without NDPP involvement.

“The issue is simple for me, approach any prosecutor at any Court, they will go to Advocate Johnson and say, this docket is here. There will be influence, like she was influencing the witnesses. That same influence could have been practiced to these prosecutors, if we had to approach any prosecutor at any of these local Courts.”

Advocate Batohi never responded to appoint a prosecutor despite engagements by Colonel Roelofse with Advocate Batohi and General Lebeya.

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

Captain McLean states that if Advocate Batohi wanted to appoint a prosecutor, she would have communicated this clearly rather than discussing the matter with a person of interest.

“If Advocate Batohi wanted to give us a prosecutor, why would you then discuss the matter with a person of interest, instead of just saying to General Lebeya, I am going to give you this prosecutor ...”

Captain McLean confirms he never requested a meeting or follow up from Advocate Batohi after the docket was given to General Lebeya.

“we just never heard anything from Advocate or General Lebeya or Advocate Batohi ... we never got any response from her office ... I never asked for a meeting or follow up”

No feedback or response was received from Advocate Batohi or General Lebeya regarding the appointment of a prosecutor despite ongoing requests and interactions.

“we never heard back from Advocate Batohi or General Lebeya ... we never got any response from her office ... no prosecutor”

Despite being requested, Advocate Batohi did not appoint a prosecutor and no explanation was received for this omission.

“If Advocate Batohi wanted to give us a prosecutor ... we never got any response from her office ... no prosecutor”

Captain McLean did not approach Advocate Batohi to appoint a prosecutor when he took over the inquiry in January, waiting instead for her successor to be appointed.

“wh e n d i d h e s a y t h i s t o y o u ? C A P T . M c L E A N : I n t h i s y e a r , a f e w w e e k s a g o ... A d v o c a t e B a t o h i i s s t i l l t h e r e ... C a P T . M c L E A N : C o m m i s s i o n e r , l e t m e j u s t g o b a c k ... w e r e q u e s t e d a s s i s t a n c e f r o m t h e N P A ... I d i d n o t s e e w h y a d i f f e r e n t r e s p o n s e f r o m A d v o c a t e B a t o h i ... n o r e s p o n s e , n o p r o s e c u t o r”

There was no meeting between General Lebeya and Advocate Batohi regarding the appointment of a prosecutor, though General Lebeya requested such from Advocate Batohi according to Captain McLean.

“When I had a discussion with General Lebeya, he said that is exactly what he did. What we requested, he requested from Advocate Batohi ... but he also does not recall having the meeting”

Captain McLean asserts that it is wrong for Advocate Johnson to have told Colonel Roelofse that Advocate Batohi would not appoint a prosecutor without clear communication.

“If it was indeed like we were told that Advocate Johnson said to Colonel Roelofse ... yes, then there is a lot wrong”

Captain McLean testifies that Advocate Batohi's conduct was wrong in not appointing a prosecutor despite clear requests and information of wrongdoing in the department.

“yes, the re was lots, everything wrong with the conduct of Advocate Batohi ... I must address it ... give us a prosecutor to investigate the matter so we can put it to bed ... that is what our request was”

On 4 July 2018, Major General Khan asked Witness O to provide their personal email address to a female caller named Andrea on his phone, and then requested the content of an email to be given to General Khan and then deleted.

“On 4 July 2018, I was working in my office when Major General Khan ... handed me his cell phone and requested me to give my personal email address to the person he was speaking to on the cell phone. He said the person’s name is Andrea. ... The female caller asked for my private email address and told me that once I have given the contents of the email to General Khan, I must delete the email.”

Witness O obliged the request by giving their personal email address to the caller and printed out the email received from Andrea Johnson and gave it to General Khan in a white envelope.

“I gave her my email address. She told me that once I have given the contents of the email to General Khan, I must delete the email. I thought it was a strange request, but I obliged. ... I printed the email and gave it to him. I placed it in a white envelope.”

Witness O did not delete the email despite the female caller's instruction to do so, as the request to delete seemed strange to them.

“No, I did not delete the email. ... Well, I thought the request was strange. Why would you email something and then request to delete it? So I was thinking, I was cautious and I kept it.”

Witness O realized the person they spoke to on the phone was Advocate Andrea Johnson, a senior prosecutor and current Head of IDAC, from the email itself, including the email address and name.

“I realize that the person I had spoken to was Advocate Andrea Johnson, who was a senior prosecutor at the time and is currently Head of the Independent Directorate of the National Prosecuting Authority, also known as IDAC. ... Her email, or her name appeared on the email.”

The attachments to the email were photographs of an A1 statement and an audio file related to a complaint against General Khan by Brigadier Phetlhe for assault and intimidation on 26 June 2018.

“The email file contained photos of the A1 statement of Brigadier Phetlhe, a female Crime Intelligence Officer who had made a criminal complaint against General Khan for an incident on 26 June 2018 at the Crime Intelligence office. She had accused General Khan of assault and intimidation. ... The audio file contained a recording of parts of the incident between General Khan and Brigadier Phetlhe.”

Witness O assisted General Khan with drafting his statement in the alleged assault and intimidation matter and knows this because General Khan came to commission the statement to him, which he did.

“My colleague assisted General Khan with a draft of his statement in the alleged assault and intimidation matter. I know this because General Khan later came to me to commission the statement, which I did.”

Witness O commissioned the affidavits sometime after handing General Khan the white envelope, contradicting the statement that it was commissioned at 12:30.

“I also know that I commissioned the affidavits sometime after I handed General Khan the white envelope. I am aware that it is stated on General Khan's statement that it was commissioned at 12:30, but this is not correct.”

Witness O handed General Khan the contents of Advocates Johnson's email and continued drafting the statement after that.

“I know that they continued drafting the statement after I handed General Khan the white envelope.”

The document was modified at 13:33, indicating the statement was commissioned later than 12:30.

“I have looked at the properties information of the typed statement and I noticed that the document was modified at 13:33.”

Witness O confirmed the statement prepared by General Khan on 4 July 2018, but not with the strikeout at the bottom which appeared later.

“I confirm it is, but not with this strike out at the bottom here. I made a copy of this affidavit when I signed it, or when I commissioned it for myself.”

Witness O confirmed the statement contains his signature and commission of oath signed in Pretoria on 4 July 2018 at 12:30 is an incorrect time.

“You confirm that where it says: "I certify that the deponent is acknowledged, that he knows and understands the contents of the statement which was sworn to be before me, and he placed his signature in my presence in Pretoria on 2018-07-04 at 12:30" ... that is an incorrect time.”

Advocate Johnson's email was received after 12:30 and the statement was commissioned after receiving it.

“It was also after that, after 12:30 ... Yes. I commissioned the statement after receiving the email.”

The date and time on the document were pre-typed when General Khan gave the statement to Witness O.

“The time and date was already pre-typed when General Khan gave me the statement.”

Witness O was very fearful to volunteer information given the environment at Crime Intelligence at the time and was aware that Advocate Johnson's husband, Colonel Junaid Johnson, worked at Crime Intelligence and had worked closely with General Khan.

“I was very fearful to volunteer information, especially given the environment at Crime Intelligence at the time. I was also aware that Advocate Johnson's husband, Colonel Junaid Johnson, worked at Crime Intelligence, and him and General Khan had worked closely together.”

Witness O kept the envelope containing Advocate Johnson's email and did not delete the email because the request seemed suspicious and could be relevant if an investigation into the assault matter was conducted.

“I kept the envelope, and as stated above, I did not delete Advocate Johnson's email. I do not have one specific reason for keeping the envelope and not deleting the email. The request just seemed suspicious... I thought that if there was ever an investigation into the assault matter, that perhaps this would be relevant.”

Witness O started thinking about the assault incident again and was troubled after Advocate Johnson was appointed Head of IDAC in early 2022, knowing that Hawks were placed at IDAC to investigate matters at Crime Intelligence.

“When Advocate Johnson was appointed the Head of IDAC in early 022, I started thinking about this incident again, and it troubled me all over again. At the time, members of the Hawks were placed at IDAC to investigate matters at Crime Intelligence.”

Witness O approached the Hawks on the condition that his identity would be protected to inform them of the incident and prepared a statement of his recollection in August 2022, but nothing came of the investigation conducted by the DPCI officers.

“I approached them on the condition that my identity would be protected. I informed them of the incident and that I would prepare a statement setting out my recollection of the incident. I did so in August 2022. As far as I am aware, the DPCI officers investigated the matter, but nothing has come of it.”

Witness N is an adult female employed by the South African Police Service as a Detective holding the rank of Sergeant, member of the Political Killing Task Team deployed to the Eastern Cape Province, and also a Detective in the KZN Anti-Corruption Unit.

“I am an adult female employed by the South African Police Service as a Detective. I hold the rank of a Sergeant, and I am a member of the Political Killing Task Team deployed to the Eastern Cape Province to investigate matters relating to the University of Fort Hare. In addition to my assignment to the PKTT, I am a Detective in the KZN Anti-Corruption Unit”

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

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

In December 2025, Mr Neil, a director in the Eastern Cape Department of Community Safety responsible for community police relations, informed Witness N that Mr Asif Habib Muhammad, a Pakistani national with an RSA identity document, complained about being assaulted by a law enforcement officer who was Suneel Belochan.

“In December 2025, I was conducting investigations in the Eastern Cape when I was contacted by Mr Neil. Mr Neil was a director in the Department of Community Safety in the Eastern Cape. He was responsible for community police relations and is known to me as we had previously worked together on some criminal matters. Mr Neil explained that he has been approached by a Mr Asif Habib Muhammad, who is a Pakistani national. . . who has an RSA identity document. . . who complained that he, along with other Pakistani shop owners, were being assaulted by a law enforcement officer. Mr Neil further informed me that Mr Asif Muhammad had been assaulted by the same law enforcement official earlier in 025.”

Members of the Tactical Response Team were present at an initial meeting between Mr Neil, Mr Asif Muhammad, and Witness N regarding the assault complaint against Mr Bellochun.

“In December 025 , an initial meeting was held between Mr Neil, Mr Asif Muhammad, members of the Tactical Response Team , and I .”

Mr Asif Muhammad was assaulted by his landlord, Suneel Bellochun, on 27 September 2025, who allegedly punched him causing physical injuries; Mr Bellochun was a law enforcement officer and member of IDAC.

“In December 025, an initial meeting was held between Mr Neil, Mr Asif Muhammad, members of the Tactical Response Team, and I. At that meeting, Mr Asif Muhammad informed me that he had been assaulted by his landlord, which is Mr Suneel Bellochun on the 27th of September 2025. He explained that this landlord was a law enforcement officer and a member of IDAC. He said that during the assault, Mr Bellochun had punched him, leaving him with a bloody nose, loose teeth, and torn clothes.”

Later that day, Mr Asif Muhammad received a threatening phone call from someone claiming to be calling from East London Police Station, during which Mr Bellochun was heard shouting threats towards Mr Muhammad.

“He further explained that on the same day, he received a telephone call from someone who said that they are calling from the East London Police Station. While he was still speaking to that person, Mr Bellochun could be heard shouting that Mr Asif Muhammad must come back to the police station and that my police will deal with you.”

Mr Asif Muhammad went to the East London Police Station on the day of his assault and laid a criminal charge against Mr Bellochun for assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

“Mr Asif Muhammad explained that on the same day of his assault, he went to the East London Police Station and laid a criminal charge against Mr Bellochun for assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.”

Witness N is always accompanied by members of Combat, which is the Tactical Response Team, when meeting individuals related to investigations.

“Because I am always accompanied by members of Combat , which happened to be the Tactical Response Team on the day .”

Witness N contacted a law enforcement officer residing in the same property as Mr Bellochun to verify information received from Mr Asif.

“I contacted a law enforcement who I was informed had resided in the same property belonging to Mr Bellochun. I spoke to him in order to seek further information about the property and left my contact details with him.”

Witness N is empowered as a police officer in the Anti-Corruption Unit to investigate abuse of power for personal, financial, or potential gain and corruption undermining the rule of law and public trust.

“since I am in the Anti-Corruption Unit, we look into the abuse of entrusted power or authority for personal, financial or potential gain and also that corruption undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in institutions. I am under Anti-Corruption, so, and a police officer so I am empowered to do so.”

Mr Bellochun contacted Witness N via WhatsApp making him understand who he was using the same phone number registered as 'Suneel Bro' on Mr Asif Muhammad's phone.

“On the 22nd of December 2025, I was contacted by Mr Bellochun via a WhatsApp call and text making me to understand who he was ... Which is the same number that Mr Asif Muhammad has registered as 'Suneel Bro' on his phone.”

The assault case where Mr Asif Muhammad is the complainant is registered as East London CAS 36/9/2025 and was filed undetected on 9 October 2025, per the docket obtained by Witness N.

“The assault case where Mr Asif Muhammad is the complainant is registered as East London CAS 36/9/2025 ... I noted that the assault docket was closed as undetected ... it is the 9th of October 2025 that the docket was filed undetected.”

The assault offence recorded in the East London CAS 436 docket is abbreviated as ASSGBH, referring to assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

“The nature and description of the offence is abbreviated ASSGBH, which refers to assault with grievous bodily harm ... With intent to cause grievous bodily harm, yes.”

The assault case docket indicates injuries described as 'loose teeth and bleeding nose'.

“It is written: 'Loose teeth and bleeding nose'.”

Mr Asif Muhammad arrived in South Africa in 1998 as an undocumented immigrant from Pakistan and began a small shop where he was later extorted and demanded bribes by Mr Bellochun who also sold counterfeit cigarettes and helped obtain fraudulent South African identity documents.

“he arrived in South Africa in 1998 as an undocumented immigrant from Pakistan ... he was pulled over by Mr Bellochun for driving without a licence ... Mr Bellochun demanded a bribe ... Mr Bellochun began extorting money from Mr Asif Muhammad as well as other Pakistani shopkeepers ... Mr Bellochun participated in unlawful activities such as selling counterfeit cigarettes and ... assisted some Pakistani nationals to obtain fraudulent South African identity documents in exchange for money.”

Mr Bellochun extorted money at exorbitant rates through loans and kept a car when the lender was unable to repay, selling it himself and keeping the money.

“He had borrowed money from Mr Bellochun at exorbitant rates and even after paying Mr Bellochun back, Mr Bellochun continued to demand more money ... explained that he gave his car to Mr Bellochun to keep until he repaid the loan ... Mr Bellochun refused and instead sold the car himself and kept all the money.”

Mr Bellochun routinely exploited other Pakistani nationals desperate for money, including borrowing R20,000 at interest of R3,000 per week and taking cars as collateral.

“Mr Asif Muhammad further shared with me that Mr Bellochun routinely exploited other Pakistani nationals who were desperate for money ... borrowed R20,000.00 from Mr Bellochun at interest of R3,000.00 per week ... gave his car to Mr Bellochun to keep until he repaid the loan ...”

Mr Bellochun regularly demands money from Mr Asif Muhammad, interpreted as extortion and a protection fee.

“Mr Bellochun regularly demands money from him”

Mr Bellochun sent threatening WhatsApp messages to Mr Asif Muhammad demanding money and threatening to kill him.

“Mr Bellochun asking him to pay his money back or else he will kill him”

Mr Asif Muhammad provided WhatsApp printouts and bank statements to support claims of extortion by Mr Bellochun.

“He shared a printout of the WhatsApp conversation which I attach as X7 .. He also provided bank extracts.”

The message, "I will kill you" was sent on 21 August 2025 at 17:25 by sender Suneel Bru.

“where it says: 'I will kill you' ... date is the 21st of August 2025 at 17:25 ... sender of the message is ... 'Suneel. Bru'”

The WhatsApp messages were highlighted to show regular demands of money and threats to Mr Asif Muhammad, evidencing escalation of violence.

“reading of the messages reveals a pattern of Mr Bellochun repeatedly demanding money from Mr Asif Muhammad and threats to him are highlighted”

The threatening WhatsApp messages were sent by a person known as 'Suneel Bru'.

“The sender of the message is written 'Suneel. Bru'”

On 11 September 2025, sender Suneel Bru sent a WhatsApp message to Mr Asif Muhammad saying "My people are looking for you".

“The message is written at 16:23 by Suneel Bru, and it says: 'My people are looking for you.'”

On 26 September 2025, sender Suneel Bru sent multiple grave insulting and threatening WhatsApp messages including "Dies, you crook bastard" and "You must die in the streets. You are rotten. Muslim bastard..." to Mr Asif Muhammad.

“On 26th September 2025 at 1:24 Suneel Bru text: 'Dies, your crook bastard.' ... also 'You must die in the streets. You are rotten. Muslim bastard, God knows you are a crook.'”

The date of these threatening WhatsApp messages is one day before the assault on Mr Asif Muhammad.

“that date is one day before the assault that Mr Asif relate to you he was the victim of”

The total value of transactions made (presumably including to Suneel Bellochun accounts) is R84,300.00.

“the total of the transactions made is R 84,300.00”

Mr Asif Muhammad has two Nedbank accounts, a business account in the name of Suneel Bellochun and a regular personal account.

“That blue box depicts the account of Suneel Bellochun, which is his normal account that was given to Asif Muhammad by him. So he had two different accounts, one business account and this one, but both of them are Nedbank.”

Mr Asif Muhammad made transactions totaling R203,099.88 to the account of Suneel Bellochun.

“the transactions he made to that account amounted to R 203,099.88”

Mr Asif Muhammad stated that some payments were rent and other payments appeared to be loans from Mr Suneel Bellochun with exorbitant interest, possibly protection fees.

“Some, Commissioners, of the payments are that of rent and then the other transactions are that when he says he had borrowed a certain amount of money from Mr Suneel Bellochun and he would charge an interest, but the interest there shows to have been paid exorbitantly.”

Mr Asif Muhammad explained the abuse and extortion he faced and wanted to provide proof and evidence of criminal activities through WhatsApp messages and bank transactions.

“He was explaining the kind of abuse that he is faced as well as the extortion ... to gather the evidence, this was, indeed concluded to amount to criminal activities”

WITNESS N inferred that the payments might have been protection fees but noted a proper investigation is needed, including subpoenaing bank records.

“So I drew an inference to say this could have been protection fees because of what he narrated to me.”

Without proper contracts and bank records, it is difficult to analyze and confirm the payment transactions and their true nature.

“Not entirely, Commissioners, because there are no contract details. So with just these amounts appearing, it can only be deducted with the bare information that is in front of us, but it would need a proper investigation into the matter to subpoena the bank for the actual bank accounts in order to be able to calculate and be able to do a proper analysis.”

Payments by Mr Asif Muhammad to Mr Bellochun included rent and borrowed money with uncertain specifics due to lack of contract details.

“If in certain parts of what Mr Muhammad told you, he acknowledged that he paid rent to Mr Bellochun and in certain instances she borrowed money from you, was an exercise done in order to attempt to determine what exactly, which transactions specifically he claims were with reference to the payment of so-called protection fees.”

Mr Bellochun lent money to the complainant and others, and there are allegations he ran a money lending scheme involving others like Enzo and Leon who are now accusing him of running away with their money.

“It seems to suggest that Mr Bellochun may, firstly, they have a relationship where they are lending money to each other with the complainant, one. But two, that in fact, Mr Bellochun is also getting money from other people, so, sort of like a money lending scheme that involves other people, such as Enzo and Leon, that is complaining that they think he is running away with their money.”

WITNESS N described the business relationship as not proper, possibly involving loan sharking or protection fees with irregular payment returns.

“My conclusion to this kind of relationship was that it is not a proper relationship, because it is either they are loan sharks or there is this kind of protection fee, as I have stated before, because there is this lending of money to and fro. And then when the payment comes back, it does not come necessarily to that amount that was borrowed.”

WITNESS N provided an affidavit made by Mr Asif Muhammad stating Mr Muhammad was suspended from work in 2014.

“"In the year 2014, he was suspended from work."”

In 2000, Mr Bellochun, an Indian police officer, extorted money from WITNESS N over several months with escalating demands and threats to friends to pay as well.

“I was stopped by an Indian police officer stationed at Duncan Village at the time by the name Suneel Bellochun back in the year 2000 when I was driving without a license. He asked me to give him R100.00 and I did. After 4 to 5 months, he approached to raid my shop and asked for R500.00, and I made a plan and gave him. He would do the same to all my neighbouring shops and asked me to tell my friends to make a plan, and I did. He therefore never arrested us. This went on for some years.”

There is an article from the Daily Dispatch dated 30 December 2014 reporting Mr Bellochun's arrest for soliciting R30,000 from a spaza shop owner and being apprehended when the outstanding R3,000 was paid.

“There is an article dated 2014, December 30, from the Daily Dispatch, whereby Mr Bellochun was arrested on a sting operation by the DPCI officers for the very same conduct, whereby he was soliciting R30,000.00 from a spaza shop owner, who only raised R27,000.00 and promised to pay him the outstanding amount of R3,000.00 on the Saturday, which is then the day that he was apprehended when that R3,000.00 transaction took place.”

There are other exploited foreign shop owners besides Mr Asif Muhammad making similar complaints of extortion.

“It is beyond Asif Muhammad coming forth. It is, there is other exploited foreigners.”

Mr Asif Muhammad repeatedly pressed WITNESS N for law enforcement assistance against Mr Bellochun, showing a warrant of arrest issued for Bellochun as per Pretoria West CAS 97/05/2021.

“Mr Asif Muhammad remained quite adamant that he wanted some assistance. In particular, he asked me, as a law enforcement officer, how can a person who is a wanted suspect with a J50 warrant of arrest work for an organisation such as IDAC? I asked him what was he talking about, and he then showed me an article displaying that a warrant for arrest was issued for Mr Bellochun, which was as per Pretoria West CAS 97/05/2021.”

The article headline states 'IDAC appoints a wanted suspect'.

“The headings states: “ IDAC appoints a wanted suspect . ””

The article headline on page 115 states corruption allegations prompted a Parliamentary enquiry focused towards some IDAC officials.

“The other on 115 reads the heading of : “ Corruption allegations prompt Parliamentary enquiry focussed towards some IDAC officials . ””

An article published on 19 July 2025 alleges that the Investigations Directorate against Corruption (IDAC) appointed Suneel Bellochun as a senior investigating officer despite him having a warrant for his arrest for alleged fraud.

“Investigation Directorate against Corruption , which is IDAC , has appointed Suneel Bellochun as a senior investigating officer despite him having a warrant for his arrest for alleged fraud .”

The case against Suneel Bellochun was opened by a former police officer named James Ramanjalum, involving a docket of fraud at Pretoria West CAS 97/5/2021.

“The case against Bellochun was opened by a former police officer , James Ramanjalum . Who opened a case , a docket of fraud at Pretoria West CAS 97/5/2021 .”

A warrant for Bellochun's arrest was issued following the complaint but he remains at large, complicating trust vested in IDAC and the South African Police Services.

“Following the lodging of the complaint , a warrant for Bellochun 's arrest was issued , yet he remains at large , further complicating the trust vested in IDAC and the South African Police Services .”

Attempts to arrest Suneel Bellochun were thwarted by charges of fraud and money laundering laid in 2018, with a complaint lodged in 2020.

“His attempts to arrest Bellochun were thwarted by fraud and money laundering charges in 2018 and lodged her complaint in 2020 .”

A docket numbered Pretoria West CAS 7/05/21 was referenced in relation to the article provided by Mr Asif Muhammad.

“the article according to your paragraph 31 makes reference to a Pretoria West CAS 7 / 0 5 / 2 1 .”

After receiving statements and discussions with superiors, Witness N opened an enquiry on Eastern Cape PEC 04/06/2026 for further investigations including requesting Section 205 application and history of vehicle ownership registration for Nissan Captiva.

“After receiving these statements and after discussion with my superiors , I opened an enquiry as per Eastern Cape PEC 04 / 06 / 2026 wherein these matters have been registered for further investigations . Upon opening this enquiry , I intend to take up the following steps which is to compile a section 205 application for the bank account numbers provided to me , request the history of the vehicle ownership registration for the Nissan Captiva and therefore analyse all the evidence , thereafter the case docket .”