Hearing day 146

Only the first three people in Annexure A were referred to in the section 27 affidavit by Mr Adams, and names from item 4 to 12 were not independently investigated by IDAC.

“only the first three people in that Annexure A were referred to in the section 27 affidavit by Mr Adams ... no independent investigation had been undertaken by IDAC”

Only the first three people in Annexure A were referred to in the section 27 affidavit by Mr Adams; the names from number 4 to 12 were obtained later and no independent investigation had been conducted by IDAC at that time.

“only the first three people in that Annexure A were referred to in the section 27 affidavit by Mr Adams ... no independent investigation had been undertaken by IDAC”

Advocate Ramsami submitted the section 28 application and had received the list of names from the office of the witness, which had been provided by Mr Perumal after engaging with Mr Adams.

“Advocate Ramsami ... did submit the application ... got the list of names from my office ... this list had been provided by Mr Perumal after his having engaged with Mr Adams”

Advocate Ramsami obtained the list of names from Mr Perumal after engaging with Mr Adams regarding the section 27 affidavit and application.

“Advocate Ramsami indicated last night that she had got the list of names from my office, wherein I had indicated that this list had been provided by Mr Perumal after his having engaged with Mr Adams”

Mr Perumal engaged with Mr Adams and obtained the section 27 document without having authorization for a preliminary investigation by IDAC.

“Mr Perumal was already engaging with Mr Adams ... was doing so within his mandate ... IDAC itself had not even authorized an investigation, a preliminary investigation, let alone an investigation in terms of section 28”

Mr Perumal engaged with Mr Adams and obtained the section 27 affidavit despite no authorization for the investigation from IDAC or Section 28.

“Mr Perumal was already engaging with Mr Adams ... IDAC itself had not even authorized an investigation ...”

Mr Perumal had no authority to initiate an investigation before authorization and acted without a mandate from IDAC.

“Was he doing so within his mandate in circumstances where IDAC itself had not even authorized an investigation ...”

Mr Perumal contacted Mr Adams to obtain further information to begin his investigation, indicating he started the investigation without formal authorization.

“He would have spoken to Mr Adams, had him provide the section 27 ... technically, he has begun the investigation unless he was informed by you”

Mr Perumal became aware of the section 27 affidavit only through the witness referring it to Advocate Ramsami, and he was not initially aware of the affidavit.

“Mr Perumal is not aware of the section 27 ... you said you received it ... and you referred it to Advocate Ramsami ... yesterday, you clarified that no, you had not”

Mr Perumal became aware of the section 27 affidavit only through Advocate Ramsami and not before.

“Mr Perumal is not aware of the section 27 ... you said you referred it to Advocate Ramsami ... you clarified that no, you had not”

There is no formal process for an investigator engaging a complainant before authorization of an investigation; this conduct by Mr Perumal may not be lawful but needs further response and possible escalation.

“there is no process for that action”

Mr Perumal contacted Mr Adams to obtain further information and the section 2 7 document, effectively beginning the investigation before formal authorization.

“he would have spoken to Mr Adams, had him provide the section 2 7 ... effectively begun the investigation unless he was informed by you”

There is no formal process or legislation authorizing Mr Perumal to engage with Mr Adams or start an investigation prior to authorization.

“There is no process for that action ... there is no legality that I can point to”

Advocate Johnson is the head of IDAC and states there is no legality he can point to regarding conducting investigations before authorization, and any such conduct must be escalated to an IDAC Judge for independent consideration.

“I am not sure ... in terms of Counsel asking me to provide a specific rule or legislation, there is not one ... we do have the IDAC Judge, for an independent consideration of the legality ...”

The head of IDAC does not consider Mr Perumal's conduct unlawful but suggests it must be escalated to the IDAC Judge for independent legal consideration.

“I have to consider the conduct ... it must then be dealt with through the IDAC Judge”

Conduct of Mr Perumal described is not clearly lawful, but investigators do engage witnesses or complainants and may deviate from strict processes; deviations must be understood and dealt with appropriately.

“they do not go on a frolic of their own ... if there is a deviation and it comes to the fore, then we have to deal with it and understand why the deviation”

Advocate Johnson states investigators adhere to processes and prescriptions, and any deviations must be understood and dealt with appropriately.

“They do not go on a frolic of their own ... investigators are out in the field ... if there is a deviation and it comes to the fore, then we have to deal with it”

IDAC does not have standard operating procedures or clear internal protocols for investigator conduct; practices are often informal or unwritten.

“you do not have standard operating procedure ... you have unwritten rules ... you make it up as you go along”

There is no prescribed process requiring Mr Perumal to wait for formal decision before engaging with a complainant.

“there is no prescribed process that says to him, until there is a decision that we are taking this matter on, you may not engage with a complainant”

The conduct of Mr Perumal initiating an investigation by contacting the complainant without authorization shows a lack of standard operating procedures or protocols within IDAC.

“You do not have standard operating procedures ... you have these unwritten rules of how we do things ... there is no prescribed process that he can be held to”

Chief Perumal acted outside prescribed protocols by consulting witnesses and potential complainants before deciding to take on a case, contrary to intended operating procedures.

“you acted outside of a prescribed protocol in that you went and consulted with a complainant, a potential complainant, even before a decision was made to take on this case for investigation”

Chief Perumal acted outside of prescribed protocol by consulting complainants or witnesses before a decision was made to take on the case, contrary to operating procedures restricting such premature engagement.

“that you acted outside of a prescribed protocol in that you went and consulted with a complainant, a potential complainant, even before a decision was made to take on this case for investigation”

Chief Perumal received a list of names from Mr Adamson that were not included in the section 27 referral affidavit but were implicated in the investigation authorization.

“I got the section 27 from the ID on this date, right, and we determined, or I determined, that it requires particulars . I met with Mr Adamson this day, right, and here is what I discussed with him . These are the questions I asked him , and this is where I got these names . I am talking about that kind of process.”

There should be a formal application document supporting authorizations, which must be recorded and retrievable for accountability purposes.

“I would expect that in that process of seeking clarifications, that is a formal process, it is recorded ... there would be a record that Chief Perumal spoke to Mr Adamson this day, and this is what was discussed between them . Otherwise, if you do not have that kind of formal record, then there is no accountability whatsoever .”

There must be formal process and recording when seeking clarifications from referees in section 27 inquiries; casual or undocumented engagements create a lack of accountability.

“I would expect that in that process of seeking clarifications, that is a formal process, it is recorded ... otherwise ... there is no accountability whatsoever”

There must be a formal, recorded process of seeking clarifications with witnesses or referees happening before a case is taken on for investigation, ensuring accountability.

“in that process of seeking clarifications, that is a formal process, it is recorded . It is a formal process . You may not at that point yet have decided to take on the case, but I would expect that there would be a record that Chief Perumal spoke to Mr Adamson this day , and this is what was discussed between them”

The authorization application for investigation implicated more people than were listed in the initial section 27 affidavit, raising questions about the factual basis for including the additional names.

“Now, if all Mr Adams gives Mr Perumal is a list of names and it is now 12 people, what is the factual basis for you coming to a conclusion as you do on 3283 that you have reason to believe that the persons in the annexure have committed the offences you mentioned on page one”

The list of names of potential offenders in the Fadiel Adams complaint was expanded from about 3-4 persons in the section 27 affidavit to 12 persons in later documentation, raising questions about the factual basis for expanding the list to 12.

“if all Mr Adams gives Mr Perumal is a list of names and it is now 12 people ... what is the factual basis for you coming to a conclusion ... that you have reason to believe that the persons in the annexure have committed the offences”

The section 28(13) authorization document mentions offenses committed by 12 people, whereas the section 27 affidavit only mentioned 3 or 4 people, resulting in questions about the factual basis for including the larger group in the investigation.

“Now, what was the factual basis for your conclusion or your reason to believe that 8 of the 12 people there have committed the offences listed on page 1 and they should be investigated , because the only people who were mentioned in the affidavit , we know it was 3 or 4 people , and the offences those 3 or 4 people had committed was mentioned in the section 27 affidavit”

Advocate Johnson states the need to see the application (likely legal application) that would indicate how the names in the list are linked to offences for a proper evaluation.

“I would just like to, if I can, have sight of the application, but I hear the point that you are making, Commissioner. I provided, she was provided with the names, she would have had to indicate them in the summation whether or not they are linked and how they are linked...”

Advocate Johnson requests to see the application that Advocate Ramsami would have submitted, asserting that it should link the people named to the offences they are alleged to have committed.

“I would just like to, if I can, have sight of the application... The application would have had to link them to the offences, and I would just like to see that part.”

Advocate Khumalo argues that a Section 27 affidavit containing only a list of names without linking them to specific offences or providing any complaint or allegations against them is insufficient to form a view that these people have committed serious offences and should be investigated.

“But if the prosecutor has not engaged with Mr Adams, and all you have given the prosecutor is the section 27 affidavit, how can the prosecutor come to you and say, I have reason to believe that people whose names are not mentioned in the affidavit, whose conduct is not mentioned in the affidavit, have committed such serious offences as you list in 1.1 to 1.11 on page 3282.”

Advocate Khumalo SC agrees that people not linked by the Section 27 affidavit should not have been included in the annexure or the application for investigation.

“They should not have been included in this annexure, because even you, as you got the application, you would say to her, but these people are not in the affidavit. No allegation is made against them. So... They should not be included.”

Advocate Khumalo SC asserts that the Section 27 affidavit provided to the prosecutor does not mention most people named in the annexure, nor state that these people have committed offences, so there is no basis to form a view that they should be investigated.

“We have seen the section 27 affidavit. It does not mention most of the people in the annexure. It does not say any of these people have committed offences... All you gave her was a list of names. What could she write back to you based only on the affidavit and the list of names that would make you form a view that these people have committed such serious crimes that would justify an investigation against them.”

Advocate Khumalo states that people not mentioned in the affidavit and against whom no allegation is made should not have been included in the annexure list, as there is no basis for investigation against them.

“They should not have been included in this annexure, because even you, as you got the application, you would say to her, but these people are not in the affidavit. No allegation is made against them.”

Advocate Khumalo states that the Section 27 affidavit does not mention most of the people in the annexure, nor does it say that these people have committed offences - thus only giving a list of names without any allegations does not justify investigation against them.

“My difficulty is this, that you give her the affidavit. We have seen the section 27 affidavit. It does not mention most of the people in the annexure. It does not say any of these people have committed offences... All you gave her was a list of names.”

Advocate Johnson agrees that without a link between the Section 27 affidavit and the list of names, those names should not be included for investigation.

“The application would have had to link them to the offences, and I would just like to see that part. But what I have to concede, Commissioner Khumalo, is in the absence of there being a link... Then they should not be included.”

An unnamed speaker asserts that the same affidavit was given before it was provided to the prosecutor, so the prosecutor could not have new information about those named, implying investigations without a factual or legal basis against those people is improper.

“Because the same affidavit you would have seen before it went to the prosecutor... So for you to form the view that these people have committed fraud... there has to be a factual basis. It cannot just be made in the dark... to target South African citizens without any factual basis and without any legal basis and decide that it is going to conduct an investigation against them.”

The unidentified speaker argues that for the Independent Development Authority (IDAC) to investigate South African citizens, there must be a factual and legal basis, and it cannot be done without these bases or in the dark based only on a list without allegations.

“The IDAC uses its powers to attack or to, attack is a strong word, let me withdraw that, to target South African citizens without any factual basis and without any legal basis and decide that it is going to conduct an investigation against them... In the absence of that, I cannot see how you could have authorized an investigation against many of these people listed in the annexure.”

Advocate Johnson accepts the point that there was no link between the information in the Section 27 affidavit and the list of people included in the application at the time.

“I accept the point, because the information came... It is as it stands at the time.”

Advocate Baloyi SC states that linking names to specific factual allegations would not be in the submission from the prosecutor, but in whatever submission was made by Chief Perumal, who would have explained why the people were implicated and must be included in the list.

“The linking of these names to any specific factual allegation would not be in the submission from the prosecutor. It would be in whatever submission was made to you by Chief Perumal. So the one that gives, by the time you give the list to the prosecutor, Ms Ramsami... already have been told these people are implicated...”

Commissioner Baloyi states that the prosecution submission would not link names to specific factual allegations, but that such linking would occur in submissions made to the advocate by Chief Perumal, and it would justify including names in the list for the application.

“The linking of these names to any specific factual allegation would not be in the submission from the prosecutor to you, it would be in whatever submission was made to you by Chief Perumal... So the one that gives, by the time you give the list to the prosecutor, Ms Ramsami, in this case, you already have been told these people are implicated.”

Advocate Johnson states he had no independent recollection of discussion with Chief Perumal about why the list of people was given and can only speculate about any engagement.

“I had no independent recollection, and so I do not want to venture guess whether or not I even had a conversation... But that is mere speculation and I do take the point that you make.”

Advocate Johnson agrees with the point that there is no independent recollection of any discussion or instruction from Chief Perumal about why the names were included in the list given to the prosecutor, and that absence of proof means he will not speculate.

“As I indicated this morning, Commissioner Baloyi, I had no independent recollection, and so I do not want to venture a guess whether or not I even had a conversation, except that when the list was given to the prosecutor, there was no reason why she may not have, I am not saying she did, why she may not have had an engagement with Mr Perumal as they were part of that team. But that is mere speculation and I do take the point that you make.”

The witness did not ask Chief Perumal to confirm that he gave the list, despite having talked to him.

“You have to explain why did you not ask Chief Perumal , confirm I got this”

The witness was told by Ms Ramsami that the list was obtained from Chief Perumal, and the witness confirmed having spoken to Chief Perumal about the list.

“once you were told by Ms Ramsami that you told her that you got it from Chief Perumal”

Ms Ramsami reminded the witness that the list came from Chief Perumal, and expected the witness to confirm this directly with Chief Perumal.

“once you were told by Ms Ramsami that you told her that you got it from Chief Perumal”

Advocate Johnson stated that he spoke to Mr Perumal but Mr Perumal has no recollection of giving the list.

“I did speak to Mr Perumal . And Mr Perumal has no recollection .”

Advocate Johnson stated that he received the list from Mr Perumal but Mr Perumal conveyed to him he has no recollection of giving the list or any list.

“that he gave me the list . And I said to him , I conveyed the message of the prosecutor , and he conveyed to me he has no recollection of having given us , or given me a list .”

The witness spoke to Chief Perumal who claimed to have no recollection of giving the list, despite the witness stating Chief Perumal gave the list.

“I did speak to Mr Perumal . And Mr Perumal has no recollection . ... That he gave me the list”

Advocate Johnson testified before an ad hoc committee that he did not receive the referral affidavit from Mr Adams personally but received it through IDAC's nominal document receiver process.

“My office did receive the section 27 . That is the position . I received a section 27 deposed to by Mr Adams and dated the 21 st of November 2024 .”

There is a contradiction between the witness's statement to the ad hoc committee and current statement about receiving a referral from Mr Adams and triggering an internal process.

“You did not receive the referral yourself when it was received by IDAC”

Advocate Johnson stated that he was not aware of Mr Adams referring the matter to the National Commissioner of Police or the Minister.

“You are not aware of Mr Adams also referring this matter to the national Commissioner of Police , the National Commissioner or the Minister ? No , not at all .”

The witness eventually clarifies that the referral was received by their office from IDAC, not directly from Mr Adams.

“The referral when it came , came in an envelope to IDAC , to the offices , through the nominal document receiver process”

The witness was unaware that Mr Adams referred the matter to the National Commissioner of Police, the National Commissioner or the Minister.

“You are not aware of Mr Adams also referring this matter to the national Commissioner of Police , the National Commissioner or the Minister ? No , not at all .”

Advocate Johnson clarified he received the referral from IDAC and not directly from Mr Adams by hand.

“You did not receive it directly from Mr Adams by hand , you received it from IDAC .”

The witness claimed not to recall receiving anything from the office of the Minister at the time of questioning, despite evidence suggesting otherwise.

“I did not recall receiving anything from the office of the Minister”

The witness instructed Chief Perumal to get an affidavit from Mr Adams following an unhelpful letter from the Minister.

“The Minister's letter was unhelpful and you instructed Perumal to get an affidavit from Adams .”

There was confusion about whether the Minister or Mr Adams approached IDAC regarding the matter; Advocate Johnson initially said the Minister sent a letter that was unhelpful and then instructions were given to Mr Perumal to get an affidavit from Mr Adams.

“the Minister 's letter was unhelpful and you instructed Perumal to get an affidavit from Adams .”

IDAC reached out to Mr Adams based on the Minister's letter, contrary to the impression that Mr Adams came to IDAC on his own.

“It is IDAC that reached out to Mr Adams ... it is not Mr Adams who came to IDAC but yesterday you were quite clear that it is the Minister who came to IDAC”

Advocate Johnson clarified that Mr Adams wanted IDAC to deal with his matter and that the office first received a letter from the Minister, but without attachments.

“it is the position of having first received a letter from the Minister . I did indicate that there were no attachments , I therefore asked Mr Perumal to please engage Mr Adams as Mr Adams wanted IDAC to deal with his matter .”

By 6 December 2024, Advocate Johnson had already authorized a Section 8(13) application to investigate 12 people mentioned earlier, showing the referral and investigation started before mid-December.

“By the 6th of December, you had had engagement not just with Perumal, but also with the prosecutor... you would have by the 6th of December already looked at the application from the prosecutor and formed a view that you are going to authorize investigation into those 12 people...”

Advocate Johnson admits that his prior assertion to the ad hoc committee that Mr Adams' referral landed on his desk in the middle of December 2024 was incorrect.

“This is incorrect, yes.”

Advocate Johnson admits it is incorrect that Mr Adams' referral landed on his desk in mid-December 2024; he had authorization from the prosecutor by 6 December 2024 and had already engaged on the matter.

“This is incorrect, yes.”

Advocate Johnson states that the referral was received before mid-December 2024 and formed a view to authorize an investigation into 12 people mentioned earlier by 6 December 2024.

“Because you would have by the 6th of December already looked at the application from the prosecutor and formed a view that you are going to authorize investigation into those 12 people that we mentioned earlier.”

Advocate Johnson states his earlier recollection that the referral was received in mid-December was due to his memory at the time and that he prepared to attend the ad hoc committee properly.

“At the time, Commissioner Baloyi, that was my recollection... incoming to this Commission, I had to aufait myself properly with all of the facts... I did not go through all of this detail with my team when I went to ad hoc.”

Advocate Johnson recalls that at the time of the ad hoc committee hearing, he thought he received the section 27 referral in mid-December but later realized this was a mistake as he had acted before 6 December 2024.

“At the time, Commissioner Baloyi, that was my recollection...”

Advocate Baloyi doubts the credibility of Advocate Johnson's claim that he did not remember receiving the referral before mid-December.

“I can’t conceive of a situation where you did not go into your records of how this started... Your recollection of mid December is incorrect.”

It is improbable and unbelievable that Advocate Johnson did not remember receiving the referral in November 2024 since he had already activated processes and signed authorization documents before 6 December 2024.

“It is improbable that you did not remember that you received this in November already, before the middle of December...”

Advocate Johnson confirms that Mr Adams did not approach IDAC but rather that IDAC approached Mr Adams to obtain information, contrary to earlier statements suggesting Mr Adams approached IDAC.

“Correct.”

Advocate Johnson confirms that Mr Adams did not approach IDAC but rather IDAC approached Mr Adams, contrary to what was said before the ad hoc committee.

“You mention in your statement that when he approached IDAC, he had already gone to SAPS... Now we know that he did not go to, he did not approach IDAC. IDAC approached him. We know that now for a fact. Do you confirm?”

Advocate Johnson states he never received the documents pushed under Mr Adams' door nor were these documents disclosed to IDAC.

“They were not part of the 27 and I am not aware that any of those documents were disclosed to IDAC.”

Advocate Johnson states he has first-hand knowledge that the cases disappeared based on his investigators' information obtained from a Section 27 referral affidavit from Mr Adams.

“Thus: "This came to my knowledge through my own investigators who had taken the section 27 referral affidavit from Mr Adams."”

Advocate Johnson states that cases disappeared miraculously and that information came to him through his own investigators who had taken a section 27 referral affidavit from Mr Adams showing information was pushed under his door, indicating some Crime Intelligence procurement documents.

“This came to my knowledge through my own investigators who had taken the section 27 referral affidavit from Mr Adams... when he received information which he alleges was pushed under his door, which is part of the affidavit, he opened cases in the Western Cape.”

Advocate Johnson clarifies that he did not receive any documents purported to be classified but relied on Mr Adams' affidavit statement about documents pushed under his door.

“It was a hypothetical example.”

Advocate Johnson states the affidavit referred to information pushed under his door that included crime intelligence procurement documents secret funds and vetting documents.

“He found an envelope pushed under his office door that contained Crime Intelligence procurement documents using secret funds and vetting documents.”

Mr Adams suspected General Khumalo and others due to finding an envelope pushed under his office door at Parliament containing Crime Intelligence procurement and vetting documents using secret funds.

“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 and vetting documents.”

Advocate Johnson relied on the information in Mr Adams' affidavit that documents were pushed under his door but he never saw the actual classified documents himself.

“I rely on what he says in his affidavit, that this is... documents having been pushed under my door... I relied on that information... he did not give us classified documents or I did not get any classified documents.”

Advocate Johnson relied on the affidavit of Mr Adams which stated documents were pushed under Mr Adams' door, although Johnson did not see any classified documents himself.

“I relied on Mr Adams' affidavit stating documents were pushed under his door, though I did not see the actual documents.”

There is a provision in the NPA Act that if, during an investigation, information about a possible offence outside the scope of the investigation is found, the investigator can refer this to another agency.

“there is a provision that provides, that states that if in the course of your investigation, you come up on, I am going to call it information because I do not remember the exact terminology, of a possible offence, another offence, that is not what you are investigating, you can refer on if it is not part of what you are investigating . Am I correct in remembering such a provision ?”

There is a provision in the NPA Act that if during an investigation one comes across information about an offence not being investigated, one must refer it to the appropriate agency.

“there is a provision that provides, that states that if in the course of your investigation, you come up on, I am going to call it information, of a possible offence, another offence, that is not what you are investigating, you can refer on if it is not part of what you are investigating”

Mr Adams stated he has intelligence documents that were placed under ADV BALOY ISC's door which suggest General Khumalo and others have committed offences.

“Mr Adams tells you that I have intelligence documents that were shoved under my door and from those documents, I have even more reason to believe that Khumalo and them, General Khumalo and them have committed offences”

Mr Adams claims to have intelligence documents shoved under his door suggesting offences committed by General Khumalo and others.

“Mr Adams tells you that I have intelligence documents that were shoved under my door and from those documents, I have even more reason to believe that Khumalo and them, General Khumalo and them have committed offences .”

ADV BALOY ISC asserts that ADV JOHNSON acted on Mr Adams' affidavit solely on suspicion without having factual basis and failed to refer the intelligence documents to the proper authority.

“You have acted on his affidavit solely on suspicion. You did not have any facts to action anything in his affidavit. That we have settled. He gives you information that tells you I have, not only in my possession, I have had sight of Crime Intelligence documents that someone gave to me and I do not know who put them under my door. That seems to me a classical case of you should have referred this to somebody.”

Advocate Johnson did not consider it necessary to refer the matter of possession of intelligence documents to another authority for investigation despite knowing about it.

“Why did you not consider it a case that must be referred to somebody else to look at, the appropriate authority to look at ?”

Mr Adams alleged possession of crime intelligence documents related to procurement and other matters, but there were only suspicions and no factual basis to act on his affidavit.

“He tells you that he has got documents that speaks to intelligence matters. It is Crime Intelligence documents about procurement and something else. You have acted on his affidavit solely on suspicion. You did not have any facts to action anything in his affidavit. That we have settled .”

Advocate Johnson did not refer the possession of intelligence documents to the appropriate investigative agency because he had no knowledge or sight of the documents.

“I did not, Commissioner, not having any knowledge or sight of the documents here referred to .”

Possession of intelligence documents that were not properly or lawfully given to Mr Adams should have been referred to the appropriate agency for investigation under the NPA Act.

“Did you do anything in accordance with the provision of your Act that says if you come upon information that suggests a possible offence being committed, you refer it to another agency, did you refer this possession of intelligence documents that were on Mr Adams' own account, were not properly given to him or lawfully given to him, did you refer it to the appropriate agency for investigation ?”

ADV JOHNSON did not refer the possession of intelligence documents mentioned by Mr Adams to the appropriate agency for investigation because he had no knowledge or sight of the documents.

“Did you refer this possession of intelligence documents that were on Mr Adams' own account, were not properly given to him or lawfully given to him, did you refer it to the appropriate agency for investigation? I did not, Commissioner, not having any knowledge or sight of the documents here referred to.”

ADV JOHNSON confirms he did not refer the intelligence documents to anyone else for investigation.

“Did you not consider it a case that must be referred to somebody else to look at, the appropriate authority to look at? I did not.”

ADV JOHNSON did not have any reason for not referring the intelligence documents to the appropriate authority.

“And you do not have a reason why you did not do it? No, ma'am.”

Advocate Johnson was unaware of a complaint laid with the Minister and did not recall receiving a letter from the Minister's office regarding the complaint.

“At the time, I did not remember that letter, at the time when I was at the adhoc Committee ... I did not recall that we had got a letter from the office of the Minister .”

Advocate Johnson confirms that he did not refer the matter to another agency and has no reason for not doing so.

“And you do not have a reason why you did not do it ? No, ma'am .”

ADV JOHNSON was not aware of a complaint laid with the Minister at the time it was made or its referral to the police.

“You are not aware that this complaint was also being laid with the Minister at the time, Minister Mchunu, and in turn he was referring to the police. No, not at all.”

ADV JOHNSON confirmed that the dockets requested by IDAC are the same as those irregularly handed over by the Division Inspectorate to IDAC.

“The dockets that were requested are those dockets. So you confirm.”

Lieutenant General PAJ Jacobs in a memo dated 1st November requested a report on a complaint received from a Member of Parliament, showing passing of the complaint through to the National Commissioner and issues of complicity and irregular handling by the Division Inspectorate regarding Mr Adams' complaint and referral of seven dockets to IDAC against corruption.

“‘Good morning, Major General Sebula. Ministry has received this complaint from a Member of Parliament. In order for the Ministry to respond accordingly, please furnish this office with a report in responding to this complaint and the details of the investigating officer who was assigned to investigate those cases. Your report is expected by Monday, 4th of November.’ ... The purpose of the information note is to provide a response to the allegation that one, the Division Inspectorate was complicit and irregular in the handling of these service complaints levelled by Mr Adams, and two, to reflect on a averment that the Division Inspectorate irregularly handed seven dockets to the Investigating Directorate against corruption, IDAC.”

A complaint was received by Ministry and referred to the National Commissioner, indicating the Division Inspectorate mishandled the service complaint levelled by Mr Adams and inappropriately handed multiple dockets to the Investigating Directorate against Corruption (IDAC).

“The purpose of the information note is to provide a response to the allegation that one, the Division Inspectorate was complicit and irregular in the handling of these service complaint levelled by Mr Adams, and two, to reflect on an averment that the Division Inspectorate irregularly handed seven dockets to the Investigating Directorate against corruption, IDAC.”

Advocate Johnson confirmed the dockets requested by IDAC had been requested from SAPS Divisional Commissioner Detective General Senthumele as per common process.

““The dockets that were requested are those dockets." ... "I sent a letter to SAPS Divisional Commissioner, Detectives, Lieutenant General Senthumele requesting the dockets."”

Advocate Johnson stated he first saw General Jacobs' report at the adhoc committee and that it had not been made available to IDAC before.

“I do believe I indicated to the adhoc that at the adhoc this was the first time I saw this report of General Jacobs. It had not been made available to IDAC before .”

ADV JOHNSON stated at the ad hoc committee it was the first time he saw General Jacobs' report and it had not been made available to IDAC before.

“I do believe I indicated to the adhoc that at the adhoc this was the first time I saw this report of General Jacobs. It had not been made available to IDAC before.”

Mr Fadiel Adams made a referral which was supervised and overseen like any other referral; four dockets relevant to the referral were requested from SAPS Division Commissioner Detective Lieutenant General Senthumele by ADV JOHNSON.

“The referral was made by Mr Fadiel Adams. It was not treated any differently. It was supervised and overseen like any other. There were four dockets that were relevant to the referral. Following the common established process, I sent a letter to SAPS Divisional Commissioner, Detectives, Lieutenant General Senthumele requesting the dockets.”

ADV JOHNSON received a letter authorizing the complaint in early December, no earlier than 6 December 2025.

“I will, when we do break, ask my office for a copy of the letter, but it will have been soon after the authorization of the matter. That is no earlier than the 6th of December.”

Advocate Johnson received a complaint early November and requested the dockets soon after authorization, dated no earlier than 6 December 2025.

“When would that have been? You received the complaint early in November. Your response is: "I will, when we do break, ask my office for a copy of the letter, but it will have been soon after the authorization of the matter." So, it is no earlier than the 6th of December. We have established the date to it now.”

There was confusion or correction about requesting dockets from Major General Mbuso Khumalo rather than Dumisani Khumalo, as indicated in letters to Lieutenant General Senthumule and Major General Khumalo.

“I do recall having written to Lieutenant General Senthumule, and I recall her then ensuring that the dockets were received accordingly by IDAC.”

A letter was written to both General Khumalo (Gauteng Detective Head) and Lieutenant General Senthumule (Divisional Commissioner of Detectives) to request dockets, with Senthumule facilitating the receipt of the dockets.

“we had first written that morning to General Khumalo of Gauteng, the Detective Head, and on the same day, a letter followed to Lieutenant General Senthumule as the Divisional Commissioner of Detectives ... General Senthumule facilitated the receipt of those dockets”

The dockets ended up with Lieutenant General Peter Jacobs at the Inspectorate and were later handed over.

“Those dockets were then ... found to be with Lieutenant General Peter Jacobs, and were then handed over”

A letter to General Khumalo was because Adam indicated he had opened dockets in Orlando, which falls under Gauteng, thus requiring writing to the Provincial Head.

“When the letter was written to General Khumalo, it was because Adams had indicated he had opened dockets in Orlando, Chair. That falls under Gauteng, so we had to write to the Commissioner”

The investigation team advised and showed that a letter was first written to General Khumalo of Gauteng in the morning, followed by a letter to Lieutenant General Senthumule as Divisional Commissioner of Detectives, who facilitated receipt of the dockets.

“the investigation team advised and in fact showed that we had first written that morning to General Khumalo of Gauteng ... and on the same day, a letter followed to Lieutenant General Senthumule as the Divisional Commissioner of Detectives”

Mr Adams indicated he had opened dockets in Orlando, which falls under Gauteng, prompting letters to be sent both to General Khumalo and to Lieutenant General Senthumule to facilitate dockets' receipt.

“Adam had indicated he had opened dockets in Orlando, Chair. That falls under Gauteng, so we had to write to the Commissioner ... General Senthumule as the national custodian of the dockets, and General Senthumule facilitated the receipt of those dockets”

The docket cases opened in Gauteng were no longer with Adam but with the Inspectorate headed by General Jacobs, as informed by investigators Rapetsu or Perumal.

“that the dockets were no longer with him, and that the dockets were with the Inspectorate ... that we are referring to in terms of where General Jacobs was the Head”

Mr Adams told the team on the 6th itself that the dockets were with the Inspectorate, prompting letters to both General Khumalo and Lieutenant General Senthumule for explanation.

“you write to General Khumalo on the 6th, but on the same day you write to General Senthumule for the explanation that you have just given ... because Mr Adams told you that the dockets are with the Inspectorate”

Section 27 referral affidavit from Mr Adams stated he opened dockets in Western Cape and later opened three more cases at Orlando Police Station, Gauteng.

“In his affidavit, the section 27 referral, he initially ... refers to the dockets he opened in the Western Cape, and thereafter ... few days after I opened the three cases at the Cape Town Police Station, I decided to go to Gauteng, and I went to Orlando Police Station, where I opened another three cases”

General Khumalo informed investigators that the dockets were not with him, which led to follow-up inquiries that found the dockets were with the Inspectorate.

“He had informed the investigators that the dockets were not with him ... we then made the follow-up on where the dockets were ... subsequently found out that those dockets were with the Inspectorate”

General Khumalo informed investigators the dockets were not with him, leading to follow-up inquiry which found the dockets with the Inspectorate where General Jacobs was the Head.

“He had informed the investigators that the dockets were not with him ... the dockets were with the Inspectorate, which is why I then wrote ... to Lieutenant General Senthumule as the national custodian of the dockets”

Mr Adams had previously opened the same dockets in the Western Cape, so there was no need to engage with General Patekile, the Provincial Commissioner of Western Cape, for the Western Cape dockets.

“there was no need to engage General Patekile because Adams himself said he opened the same”

Lieutenant General Khumalo questioned if it was not redundant for IDAC to seek the dockets if the Inspectorate was already investigating the issues as part of its mandate.

“when IDAC was told that the dockets are with the Inspectorate did it not cross IDAC's mind that if the Inspectorate is already investigating these issues, then it is their mandate. We do not have to deal with this”

IDAC was told that the dockets are with the Inspectorate, which prompted a letter to Lieutenant General Senthumule to facilitate procession of the dockets since the Inspectorate’s investigation was ongoing.

“I write to General Senthumule, who is the custodian of dockets. She facilitates that process. If, in fact, she came back to IDAC to say that we cannot facilitate those dockets from the Inspectorate because there is a complaint being looked at, then we had no right to ask for those dockets”

General Khumalo asserted that if the Inspectorate is already investigating the dockets, it should be their mandate and IDAC should not have to deal with it.

“When IDAC was told that the dockets are with the Inspectorate did it not cross IDAC's mind that ... if the Inspectorate is already investigating these issues, then it is their mandate. We do not have to deal with this”

General Senthumule came back to indicate that the Inspectorate was vested with the investigation, looking at a service delivery complaint, not necessarily the allegations that Adams made in his section 27 referral.

“General Senthumule came back to indicate that the Inspectorate was vested with the investigation and what that investigation was, and sorry, IDAC, goodbye, you cannot get those...The Inspectorate, from how I understand it, Commissioner Khumalo, and if I am incorrect, my understanding is they were looking at a service delivery complaint.”

Mr Adams laid complaints with SAPS but the Inspectorate did not initially enquire with SAPS about these complaints, delaying the investigation process.

“When Mr Adams gives you an affidavit, the section 27, and he says, I have laid these complaints, and nothing is happening, or they have been intercepted, before you make the decision to investigate, is there a reason you do not enquire with the SAPS? They are your sister agency...Why is it not the first reaction, to find out where the complaint has been laid, before you demand the dockets?”

ADV Johnson's first step after receiving Mr Adams' affidavit was to call Lieutenant General Senthumule regarding the investigation and search for the dockets.

“What my first port of call, Commissioner Baloyi, was I did call. I called Lieutenant General Senthumule.”

Lieutenant General Senthumule indicated during a phone conversation that the dockets were with the Inspectorate and was unaware herself but would find out and come back with information.

“General Senthumule indicated...she indicated that she was not aware herself, that the dockets were with the Inspectorate, she would find out, and she would come back.”

General Senthumule indicated that the docket numbers related to complaints were with the Inspectorate, as facilitated by Commissioner Khumalo, and IDAC would not have requested those dockets without that understanding.

“General Senthumule indicated, and this was a telephone conversation, Commissioner Baloyi, she indicated that she was not aware herself, that the dockets were with the Inspectorate, she would find out, and she would come back. When she later came back, she had facilitated, then the dockets to IDAC ... had she at that stage said, I am sorry, ID, these are with the Inspectorate for a very specific purpose, based on the points that Commissioner Khumalo has made, IDAC would not have asked for those dockets”

Claims that section 27 complaints are inadequate and that the investigation was based on such complaints, which implied criminal allegations against police and disappearances of dockets, were accepted at face value without questioning by the investigating party.

“We based it, we based our actions on what was on the section 27, and on the 27, there are allegations being made against the police in terms of criminal allegations, as well as allegations that the dockets would disappear, as they did in Cape Town, and it is on that basis that I make that call, Commissioner Baloyi. So you unquestioningly just accepted his say so. He says to you in the affidavit, my dockets have disappeared, they have been intercepted, and you go into investigation mode. You do not question why would he say that. Let me verify that indeed nothing is being done about them. You say, it is on the basis of what he says. So whatever he says, you just acted on that, because that is what it is.”

The Inspectorate plays a specific role empowered to investigate service complaints against SAPS members.

“I assume that you are aware of the function, or what the function was of the Inspectorate, that it plays a specific role, and that perhaps you know, in general, it is empowered to investigate service complaints against SAPS members.”

The dockets referred to in the complaint were with the Inspectorate as of 6 December.

“At some point on the 6th of December, you are aware that the dockets referred to in the complaint are with the Inspectorate, correct?”

The Inspectorate is empowered to investigate service complaints against SAPS members.

“I assume that you are aware of the function, or what the function was of the Inspectorate, that it plays a specific role, and that perhaps you know, in general, it is empowered to investigate service complaints against SAPS members.”

The dockets referred to in the complaints were referred to the Inspectorate by December 6th, 2026.

“At some point on the 6th of December, you are aware that the dockets referred to in the complaint are with the Inspectorate, correct?”

IDAC did not intend to dispossess the Inspectorate of the dockets but sought to determine where those dockets were, acting under section 27 and subsequent authorization.

“IDAC did not intend to dispossess the Inspectorate of those dockets . What IDAC did is , acting upon the section 27 , and the subsequent authorization , IDAC sought to determine where those dockets were .”

IDAC did not intend to dispossess the Inspectorate of the dockets but sought to determine where the dockets were according to section 27 and subsequent authorization.

“IDAC did not intend to dispossess the Inspectorate of those dockets . What IDAC did is , acting upon the section 27 , and the subsequent authorization , IDAC sought to determine where those dockets were .”

SAPS had the legal power during an investigation to demand access to documents, including the dockets, and could have subpoenaed them if necessary.

“You do have the legal means to , in the course of an investigation , to demand access to documents , no ?”

In the course of an investigation, legal means exist to demand documents, including subpoenas through the National Commissioner, if access to dockets is refused.

“You do have the legal means to , in the course of an investigation , to demand access to documents , no ? ... If we had to , we would have had to subpoena them through the National Commissioner .”

IDAC's request for dockets was a request that could have been denied; it did not have compulsory authority to take possession without consent.

“Which request did not have to be acceded to , Counsel . The request could easily have been denied for access to those dockets .”

IDAC's request for access to dockets could have been denied as they did not have the authority to demand them outright without subpoena through the National Commissioner.

“The request could easily have been denied for access to those dockets .”

The police could have legally refused IDAC access to the dockets, which would have ended the matter.

“No , no , I was just clarifying , just in case the impression you leave us with , is that , well , you know , SAPS could have refused with those dockets , and that would have been the end of it .”

IDAC worked through the usual channels to request dockets via the Divisional Commissioner of Detectives and not directly to Lieutenant General Jacobs.

“I worked through the channel that we do when we request dockets , which would have been the Divisional Commissioner , Detectives .”

IDAC received the dockets on 9th December after requesting them on 6th December, and they were received by Investigator Rapetsu who shared them with Advocate Ramsami for appraisal.

“We requested them on the 6th of December . They were received on the 9th of December . The dockets when they were received , were received by Investigator Rapetsu . Investigator Rapetsu then shared those dockets with Advocate Ramsami , who already had the 27 and she appraised those dockets together with the section 7 .”

The dockets were requested on 6 December and received on 9 December.

“We requested them on the 6th of December . They were received on the 9th of December .”

Investigator Rapetsu received the dockets and shared them with Advocate Ramsami who appraised them with section 7 alongside section 27.

“The dockets when they were received , were received by Investigator Rapetsu . Investigator Rapetsu then shared those dockets with Advocate Ramsami , who already had the 27 and she appraised those dockets together with the section 7 .”

There was further engagement in January between Advocate Johnson, Investigator Rapetsu, Advocate Ramsami and Mr Adams to supplement the statements in the dockets.

“what did happen later on in January is that Mr Rapetsu , Advocate Ramsami and Mr Perumal , after having gone through those dockets together with the section 27 , then had further engagements with Mr Adams in order to amplify or supplement the statements that were in the docket”

Advocate Johnson did not personally peruse the dockets and was not aware at the time if they added any value to the section 27 referral.

“I did not peruse the dockets , Counsel . I am not aware at that time if they added value”

After initial appraisal, Mr Rapetsu, Advocate Ramsami, and Mr Perumal engaged with Mr Adams to supplement statements that were not up to standard or sufficient.

“Mr Rapetsu , Advocate Ramsami and Mr Perumal , after having gone through those dockets together with the section 27 , then had further engagements with Mr Adams in order to amplify or supplement the statements that were in the docket , which I guess by interpretation means they were not up to standard or sufficient .”

Advocate Johnson admitted he never perused the dockets and was not aware if they added value to the section 27 referral at that time.

“I did not peruse the dockets , Commissioners . ... I am not aware at that time if they added value , except maybe this ...”

The initial section 27 referral dockets contained only the complainant's A1 statements and no other evidence, making it impossible to determine proper jurisdiction.

“Onl y the complainant 's A 1 statements are contained in the six dockets . No other evidence is contained in the dockets . ... The current information contained in the dockets is scanty and too vague to formulate charges against any suspects . As a result , Legal Services are unable to confirm that the required elements of any offence are contained in the dockets .”

The six dockets contained only the complainant's A1 statements and no other evidence, and they were too vague and scant to formulate charges against any suspects.

“Onl y the complainant 's A1 statements are contained in the six dockets . No other evidence is contained in the dockets . The lack of location information makes it impossible to determine proper jurisdiction at this stage . The current information contained in the dockets is scanty and too vague to formulate charges against any suspects .”

The section 27 referral affidavit could not have made any difference to the decision even if the writer had sight of it, as it was accepted that there was nothing in it.

“But based on the engagement we had yesterday, the section 27 referral affidavit could not possibly have made any difference even if the writer of this legal report had had sight of it. It would not have made any difference. I say that because when I engaged you yesterday, you accepted that there was nothing there.”

A section 27 referral affidavit would not have made any difference to the investigation or decision.

“the section 27 referral affidavit could not possibly have made any difference even if the writer of this legal report had had sight of it . It would not have made any difference .”

Where the affidavits are deficient, it is standard practice to engage the person who made the referral to get clarity enabling a decision whether or not to proceed.

“where the affidavit is deficient , it is standard practice that you engage the person whom made the referral to get clarity .”

It is standard practice to engage the person who made a deficient section 27 referral affidavit to get clarity to decide whether to proceed with an investigation.

“where the affidavit is deficient, it is standard practice that you engage the person whom made the referral to get clarity. Is it safe to assume that you do so to enable you to take a decision whether or not to proceed?”

Several highly skilled and qualified senior police officers were overlooked in favor of Mrs Mokwele for the position, with involvement from generals Khumalo CI Head, Lushaba CI, Madondo CI, and Ligagala CI.

“there were several highly skilled and qualified senior police officers who applied for the post , but were overlooked by the CI management , who favoured Mrs Mokwele over them . The generals involved are Khumalo CI Head , Lushaba , CI , Madondo , CI , Ligagala CI , amongst others .”

Allegations were made of high-ranking police officials manipulating promotional and security vetting processes to unduly benefit a civilian appointed as head of Technical Support Services with no policing or management experience.

“The allegation related to a certain high-ranking police official being involved in manipulating and manipulating promotional and security vetting processes to unduly benefit a civilian person who worked for BMW South Africa , before being appointed as a brigadier in CI . She apparently has no policing experience and no management experience , and was appointed as the Head of the Technical Support Services .”

Several highly skilled and qualified senior police officers who applied for the post were overlooked by CI management in favour of Mrs Mokwele.

“there were several highly skilled and qualified senior police officers who applied for the post, but were overlooked by the CI management, who favoured Mrs Mokwele over them. The generals involved are Khumalo CI Head, Lushaba, CI, Madondo, CI, Ligalagala CI, amongst others.”

The allegations relate to fraud and corruption involving a high-ranking police official manipulating promotional and security vetting processes to benefit a civilian appointed as brigadier without policing or management experience.

“The allegation related to a certain high-ranking police official being involved in manipulating promotional and security vetting processes to unduly benefit a civilian person who worked for BMW South Africa before being appointed as a brigadier in CI. She apparently has no policing experience and no management experience, and was appointed as the Head of the Technical Support Services.”

An investigation can go ahead to determine the veracity of claims of fraud and corruption made in a section 27 referral.

“in my assessment of this reading , together with the section 27 , it creates a sufficient enough basis for an investigation to go forward .”

The reading of the section 27 referral affidavit and the accompanying statement creates a sufficient basis for an investigation to go forward.

“in my assessment of this reading, together with the section 27, it creates a sufficient enough basis for an investigation to go forward.”

Appointments to senior management posts in SAPS are governed by National Instruction 11 of 2017, which outlines procedures for appointment, interview, scoring, recommendation and appointment approval processes.

“appointments to senior management at SAPS level are governed by National Instruction 11 of 2017”

IDAC is not familiar with National Instruction 11 of 2017 as evidenced by Colonel Padayachee struggling to answer questions regarding this document.

“IDAC is not even familiar with this National Instruction because when Colonel Padayachee was here, he struggled to give answers in relation to this document”

Appointments to senior management at SAPS are governed by National Instruction 11 of 2017, which gives detailed procedures for appointments and handling issues of non-compliance or false information.

“appointments to senior management at SAPS level are governed by National Instruction 11 of 2017”

If a candidate appointed to senior management posts fails to comply with requirements or provides false information, the matter must be reported to the Divisional Commissioner Personnel Management for recommendation to the National Commissioner on retention of appointment.

“If a candidate is appointed and it appears that the candidate did not comply with the requirements of the appointment ... the matter must be reported to the Divisional Commissioner Personnel Management for a recommendation to the National Commissioner on whether or not the candidate may retain his or her appointment.”

The National Instruction 11 of 2017 prescribes a mandatory reporting procedure for candidates who do not comply with appointment requirements or who provide false information, with the matter to be reported to the Divisional Commissioner Personnel Management for recommendation to the National Commissioner.

“the matter must be reported to the Divisional Commissioner Personnel Management for a recommendation to the National Commissioner on whether or not the candidate may retain his or her appointment”

IDAC investigators failed to pay attention to National Instruction 11 of 2017 which governs appointments to senior management posts in SAPS, ignoring the proper processes and definitions therein.

“your investigators did not even pay attention to a national instruction which governs appointments at this level...your investigators say nothing about this. In fact, they pay no regard to it”

Investigators overlooked the National Instruction 11 of 2017 and its detailed governance of appointment procedures, including panel setup, recommendation and appointment processes, and definitions of appropriate management experience.

“your investigators did not even pay attention to a national instruction which governs appointments at this level. And later on, when we got through the provisions of this document, you will see that it governs how panels are setup, who recommends, who approves”

The referral affidavit limits the offence date and location, but IDAC's investigation extended far beyond those limits without justification.

“Mr Adams limits himself to ... a particular date ... and the scene of the offence...But IDAC's investigation goes to April, it goes to May, it goes to June...”

IDAC's investigation improperly targeted an individual civilian in relation to a matter dated October 2024, which was not justified by the referral or affidavit itself.

“IDAC's investigation goes to April, it goes to May, it goes to June, and it targets this individual civilian in circumstances that are simply not justified by the referral or the statement or the affidavit itself.”

The offence described in the affidavit occurred at Crime Intelligence offices, Prieska Street, Erasmuskloof, Pretoria, in October 2024.

“the offence took place at Crime Intelligence Officers Prieska Street, Erasmuskloof, Pretoria...the date of the offence is October 2024”

The IDAC investigation improperly targeted a civilian alleged in connection with events from April to June 2024, which was not justified by the referral, statement, or affidavit.

“IDAC's investigation goes to April, it goes to May, it goes to June, and it targets this individual civilian in circumstances that are simply not justified by the referral or the statement or the affidavit itself”

Employing a civilian under the circumstances described does not fall within section 7A of the NPA Act, which deals with serious, high-profile or complex corruption or financial crimes.

“this matter relates to employing a civilian and there is a process in terms of initial instruction to address that issue...it cannot be that that employment could come anywhere close to section 7 capital A”

The assessment for investigation under section 7A should be based on allegations of fraud, corruption, and unduly benefiting a civilian, which may justify further investigation.

“I get there in terms of the allegation of fraud and corruption and the unduly benefiting of a civilian...the assessment is whether there is fraud and corruption and whether someone unduly benefited and that it does allow for further investigation”

The complaint referral and affidavit concern allegations of fraud, corruption, and undue benefit to a civilian, justifying further investigation.

“I get there in terms of the allegation of fraud and corruption and the unduly benefiting of a civilian. Hence, I said initially, I am not going back on agreeing with the sufficiency hereof. At the time, the assessment is whether there is fraud and corruption and whether someone unduly benefited and that it does allow for further investigation”

Advocate Johnson confirms that the referral is about fraud and corruption, not mere forgery.

“No, you said fraud and corruption. That is correct.”

Advocate Johnson asserts that serious, high-profile or complex corruption includes commercial or financial crime cases under section 7B.

“Not ignored that part, that it falls within the ambit of the 7 B.”

IDAC's entry point for investigations must be based on criteria of seriousness, high-profile status, or complexity related to corruption or financial crime, which is reflected in Subsection A of section 7(1).

“IDAC's entry point has got to be A .”

IDAC's mandate overlaps with SAPS and Hawks regarding investigating serious high-profile fraud and corruption, with no difference in their mandate.

“No difference between you and SAPS ? No difference between you and Hawks ? No .”

IDAC was formed specifically to deal with serious, complex, high-profile corruption matters.

“IDAC was formulated to deal with serious , complex , high-profile corruption matters .”

The mandate of IDAC includes serious, high-profile, complex corruption as well as commercial or financial crimes, primarily fraud and undue benefit.

“under Capital 1 A , we have relating to serious high-profile or complex corruption , and then it has commercial or financial crimes . And that then takes you to the additional , which is in B , which is fraud”

Advocate Johnson clarifies that IDAC's mandate is to deal with serious, high-profile or complex corruption and related commercial or financial crimes, especially those arising from Commissions of Inquiry like state-capture investigations.

“...serious high-profile or complex corruption is precisely what we were formulated for... to deal with those that arise from these Commissions of Inquiry, the state-captured Mpati and Nugent...”

The theft of a motor vehicle is not within IDAC's mandate but within SAPS's mandate.

“No . Because that matter falls within a different mandate , and that matter falls within the mandate of SAPS .”

Advocate Johnson states that theft of a motor vehicle is not within IDAC’s mandate but falls within SAPS mandate.

“No. Because that matter falls within a different mandate, and that matter falls within the mandate of SAPS.”

There is no substantive factual content in section 27 of the affidavit mentioned, as agreed regarding the need for further clarification.

“Section 27 , which contains no facts whatsoever . We have agreed to that . It contains no actual material .”

Further investigations into the docket revealed additional statements relating to theft of funds and allegations of undue benefit in connection with an appointment.

“They took additional statements in each of those docket . This would have been the one that relates to the allegations of the appointment , but that there would have been other statements that would relate to the theft of the funds , etc .”

Advocate Johnson explains that additional statements were taken in a case related to theft of secret or slush funds, which are linked to appointment grievances and charges of gratification.

“They took additional statements... relates to the allegations of the appointment, but that there would have been other statements that would relate to the theft of the funds... that this grievance as it relates to this employee... her ending up being charged...”

The matter involving theft of funds in the docket is a grievance about someone losing out on an appointment, rather than a criminal matter outside the mandate of IDAC.

“This , in fact , further clarifies that this grievance as it relates to this employee in particular, and her ending up being charged , is really a grievance about someone having lost out on an appointment , and it is no more than that .”

Advocate Johnson acknowledges charges of gratification against a person related to the investigation.

“And the charge of gratification against her. Yes.”

IDAC investigates serious high profile or complex corruption or commercial or financial crime cases specifically related to fraud.

“related to serious high profile or complex corruption or commercial or financial crime cases. I take the commercial or financial crime cases relating to fraud”

IDAC cannot investigate any fraud, forgery, uttering or theft unless these are additional and related to serious high profile or complex corruption or commercial or financial crimes as envisaged in paragraph A.

“at least you accept that IDAC cannot just jump and investigate any fraud, any forgery, any uttering, any theft ... It must be additional to what is envisaged in paragraph A”

IDAC can only investigate fraud, forgery, uttering, or theft if these are related to serious, high profile, or complex corruption or commercial or financial crime cases as envisaged in paragraph A.

“So it must be additional to what is envisaged in paragraph A.”

The documents docketed containing original section 27 and A1 statements were exactly what the legal adviser at SAPS said and matched what the Inspectorate had, providing the basis for the charges preferred.

“Those documents, the original section 27, the A1 in the respective dockets, which is what the legal adviser at SAPS said, that is all that was contained in the dockets and I assume that is precisely what you found. You could not have found any more than the Inspectorate had.”

Investigations were based not only on the three original documents but on a reading of all investigation documents in their totality leading to the charges preferred.

“I am saying... further investigations were done, and it is on a reading of all the investigation in its totality that led to the charges as they were preferred”

IDAC exercised discretion to request further substantiation from a referee before initiating an investigation due to incompleteness of the initial Section 27 documents.

“you exercised your discretion... which is to request further substantiation from a referee. Now you have it.”

Section 27 was incomplete, and it is necessary to have jurisdiction established before initiating investigations; investigations cannot be based on hope for damning facts to justify jurisdiction.

“You exercised your discretion, as you say you normally do, which is to request further substantiation from a referee... We first have to be in A before you investigate. Otherwise, the process is deeply concerning.”

Further investigations beyond the initial three documents led to the charges being preferred, not limited to only those documents.

“I am saying, Counsel, that it is not restricted to those three because further investigations were done, and it is on a reading of all the investigation in its totality that led to the charges as they were preferred.”

The Section 27 affidavit only lists suspicions and does not contain sufficient facts or grounds to justify the suspicions, meaning it cannot by itself justify an investigation under Section 1A.

“We settled that all that affidavit does is to list suspicions. It does not say what is the basis of those suspicions ... requires that there must be grounds for it”

The affidavit revealed only that a civilian was unduly benefited over employees within Crime Intelligence; this does not justify investigation for serious high profile or complex corruption or commercial or financial crimes.

“all that affidavit does is tell you that a civilian was unduly benefited over employees within Crime Intelligence. That is all it tells you.”

From the documents, the fraud and undue benefit related to commercial and/or financial crimes justified moving investigations from category A to B and justified continuing investigations, but they have not reached the charge stage.

“Based on the fraud and the undue benefit and the fact that it is commercial and/or financial crimes, we moved from A into the B and that, therefore, justified investigations continuing. We are not there at charges.”

IDAC's mandate and powers do not contemplate conducting fishing expeditions or investigations without reasonable grounds or trigger requirements met by the Section 27 affidavit.

“your mandate and your powers do not contemplate you doing that... typical fishing exercise... that is why there is that trigger provision...”

The section 27 affidavit only lists suspicions without substantiation and does not contain facts that ground reasonable suspicion of serious high profile corruption, commercial or financial crime; relying on it for investigation is fishing and outside powers.

“All that affidavit does is tell you that a civilian was unduly benefited over employees within Crime Intelligence. That is all it tells you... it is actually irrelevant for purposes of your decision, what triggered your decision... All that affidavit does is to list suspicions. It does not say what is the basis of those suspicions... Otherwise, you are going to be fishing... Your mandate and your powers do not contemplate you doing that.”

IDAC undertook a fishing exercise by investigating despite lacking a reasonable basis or jurisdiction as required by the trigger provisions; the investigation was not properly triggered.

“This is a typical fishing exercise. Your mandate and your powers do not contemplate you doing that. That is why there is that trigger provision. But in this case, it seems there was a failure in that trigger, you just did not have enough to trigger that investigation...”

No lawyer in the IDAC office advised that they lacked jurisdiction to investigate based on section 27, even after receiving the affidavit.

“It is simply unimaginable that in your office no one would have said to you, ID, we do not have the trigger, the triggering requirements. It is simply unimaginable that no lawyer in your office said, we do not have jurisdiction to investigate...”

Section 28(13) of the NPA Act allows Investigating Director to hold a preparatory investigation to determine if there are reasonable grounds for a full investigation under subsection 1A.

“section 28(13) of the NPA Act says that ... Investigating Director may hold a preparatory investigation ... to determine if there are reasonable grounds to conduct an investigation in terms of subsection 1A”

No lawyer in the office advised that IDAC lacked jurisdiction to investigate based on Section 27, despite vague evidence and lack of clear grounds in the affidavit.

“does it mean no single lawyer in your offices said to you, we do not have jurisdiction to investigate... and even after you received this affidavit no one said, we lack jurisdiction?”

Section 28(13) of the NPA Act allows the Investigating Director to hold a preparatory investigation by hearing or obtaining evidence to determine if there are reasonable grounds for a full investigation.

“Section 28(13) of the NPA Act says that: “If the Investigating Director considers it necessary to hear evidence in order to enable him or her to determine if there are reasonable grounds to conduct an investigation in terms of subsection 1A, the Investigating Director may hold a preparatory investigation.””

As of 6 January, there were no grounds to conduct a preparatory investigation because the matter did not fall within IDAC mandate.

“As of the 6th January, there are not even any grounds at all to conduct a preparatory investigation... the matter does not fall within IDAC mandate.”

IDAC conducted a preparatory investigation as allowed by Section 28(13) of the NPA Act to determine if there were reasonable grounds for a formal investigation.

“That is the preparatory investigation... conducted so that ... to determine if there are reasonable grounds ...”

The preparatory investigation conducted was to determine if there were reasonable grounds for a full investigation, not to undertake the full investigation itself.

“That is the preparatory investigation that is conducted so that where there, it is in order to determine if there are reasonable grounds...”

No lawyer in the offices told ADV JOHNSON that they lacked jurisdiction to prepare charges even after the preparatory investigation.

“No.”

Section 28(13) was not a carte blanche for full-blown investigations on flimsy or non-existent grounds, but allows hearing or obtaining evidence to determine if reasonable grounds exist to investigate.

“2 8 (1 3) allows you to hear evidence or obtain evidence to determine whether or not there are grounds for an investigation.”

Section 28(13) does not give carte blanche to conduct a full investigation without reasonable grounds, it only permits hearing evidence to determine if such grounds exist.

“2 8 ( 1 3 ) allows you to hear evidence or obtain evidence to determine whether or not there are grounds for an investigation.”

After the preparatory investigation, no lawyer said IDAC lacked jurisdiction to prepare charges.

“no single lawyer in the offices said to you, we do not have jurisdiction to prepare these charges? No.”