Hearing day 151

Advocate Johnson is implicated quite seriously in the statement received by the Commission.

“the statement implicates Advocate Johnson quite seriously”

The intention is to serve a Rule 3 notice on Advocate Johnson to address the allegations made against her.

“The intention is to serve a Rule 3 notice on Advocate Johnson to address these allegations”

Advocate Johnson gave evidence on 22 July implicating Ms Ramsamy in events related to the Mokwele investigation, which led to Ms Segels-Ncube receiving information about Ms Ramsamy's disclosures during that evidence.

“on the 22nd of July, when Advocate Johnson gave evidence regarding certain events that occurred in the Mokwele investigation, she mentioned the name of Ms Ramsamy... I received a message from a DPCI officer who had indicated to me that Ms Ramsamy had made certain disclosures...”

Ms Ramsamy was aware of the serious allegations she was making but did not want them put to Advocate Johnson until she could give her full version under protected disclosure protection.

“She was aware of the allegations that she was making, that they were serious, but had not wanted them to be put to Advocate Johnson until she had been given an opportunity to give her full version, because her intention was in any event to only make this disclosure under protected disclosure protection after Advocate Johnson gave her evidence”

Ms Ramsamy made certain disclosures to a DPCI officer regarding matters in the Mokwele investigation and wanted to consult on these matters.

“Ms Ramsamy had made certain disclosures to him regarding these matters and had wanted to consult on the matters”

Ms Ramsamy is a witness in the Commission and has given a statement dated 30 July 2026.

“Ms Ramsamy confirmed that her signature on the statement at page 1 to 33 was hers and that it was signed this morning, the 30th”

Ms Ramasamy holds an LLB degree from the University of KwaZulu-Natal and was admitted as an attorney of the High Court of South Africa on 7 June 2013.

“I hold an LLB degree obtained from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, and I was admitted as an attorney of the High Court of South Africa on the 7th of June 2013.”

Ms Ramasamy is a full-time employee of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) attached to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), joined as a state advocate on 1 March 2023.

“I am an adult female admitted attorney in the full-time employee of the National Prosecuting Authority, attached to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, commonly known as IDAC ... I joined the IDAC as a state advocate on the 1st of March 2023.”

Ms Ramasamy was appointed as an aspirant prosecutor in Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal on 1 February 2015, and worked on drug-related prosecutions in the Pinetown cluster, KwaZulu-Natal from 2016 to 2020, collaborating closely with SAPS members including Karl Saunder.

“I was appointed as an aspirant prosecutor in Pietermaritzburg-KwaZulu-Natal on the 1st of February 2015 ... I was based within the Pinetown cluster, KwaZulu-Natal, from the period of 2016 to 2020. During this period, I have dealt with drug-related prosecution and worked closely with SAPS members, such as Karl Saunder, who has given evidence before this Commission.”

Ms Ramasamy was a Regional Court prosecutor in Pretoria CBD before joining IDAC on 1 March 2023.

“I was a Regional Court prosecutor in Pretoria Court, CBD, and I was then appointed as a state advocate on the 1st of March 2023 in the Investigating Directorate, IDAC.”

Advocate Johnson initiated emails with the subject line referring to Tembisa, which were later used to cover Project Diversion and Medicare 24 related investigations.

“Who initiated the emails referring to Tembisa? Advocate Johnson... It later then, Advocate Johnson would title projects, like the Crime Intelligence became known as Project Diversion...”

The Medicare 24 investigation was initially disguised under the title 'Tembisa' in emails and meetings to obscure what was actually being investigated, according to Ms Ramasamy.

“In my second statement...what was initially titled as Tembisa, which was actually the Medicare 24, becomes Project Wellness... it progresses in terms of names and disguising.”

Advocate Johnson made untruthful statements about Ms Ramasamy's involvement in the Mokwele case and did not disclose that Ms Ramasamy raised concerns repeatedly from the onset.

“Advocate Johnson told many untruths about me and my involvement in what is now known as the Mokwele case. She did not disclose that I raised concerns from the onset and repeatedly thereafter...”

Advocate Johnson decided after section 28(13) authorization of the Crime Intelligence matters that all other Crime Intelligence matters would be brought into a project named Project Diversion.

“Advocate Johnson decided shortly after the section 28(13) authorisation of the Crime Intelligence matters, that all other Crime Intelligence matters would be ring-fenced into a project which she named Project Diversion.”

Ms Ramasamy and Mr Mansha Raphesu, the lead investigator, questioned Project Diversion from the start contrary to Advocate Johnson's expectations.

“What she did not anticipate was that Mr Raphesu, Mansha Raphesu, the leading investigator, and I would question Project Diversion from the start.”

Ms Ramasamy believes that Advocate Johnson handpicked her for Project Diversion because of her successful investigation of a high-profile individual in another section 27 referral matter and because she thought Ms Ramasamy would not question or ask questions.

“It is my belief that Advocate Johnson hand-picked me to be part of this project because I had successfully, or rather we had successfully, investigated another section 27 referral matter involving a high-profile individual. I also believe that Advocate Johnson picked me because she thought that I would not question or ask questions because I am a state advocate.”

Ms Ramasamy prepared documents on Advocate Johnson's instructions that were not in accordance with IDAC standard operating procedures, although IDAC SOPs do exist.

“I confirmed that I prepared documents on Advocate Johnson's instructions that we: not in accordance with IDAC standard operating procedures, which Advocate Johnson indicated to this Commission did not exist.”

The Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) has an operational manual disseminated via email to all employees and staff upon arrival, indicating the existence of operating procedures.

“This is disseminated via email to every person that works at IDAC. It is also re-disseminated to every staff member upon the arrival of a new staff member. So it cannot be said that there are no operating procedures or SOPs within IDAC.”

The Investigating Directorate Against Corruption Operations Manual is signed by Matthew Sesoko, Head of Investigations and Operations, and Advocate A Johnson, Investigating Directorate, Director IDAC, dated 16 October 2024.

“The last paragraph or portion of that page 10 is the signature of Mr Matthew Sesoko. He is the Head of Investigations and Operations, also known as the second in charge of our office. And then thereafter is the signature of Advocate A Johnson, Investigating Directorate, Director IDAC. Please note that the date also indicate 16 October 2024. This is version 2.”

The operational manual of IDAC sets out procedures for investigations, referrals, team constitutions, reporting, presentations and briefings according to sections 7, 27, 28 and 29 of the NPA Act, but Advocate Johnson frequently deviated from it and did things her own way causing constant deviation and intimidation.

“The operational manual is supposed to, ... And when I use the word supposedly, if I may, Advocate Segels, continue? Advocate Johnson would deviate constantly. It was a situation where we had this, but she would also have her own way of doing things with different groups, different investigations, different structures. So there was a constant deviation from what was in black and white and it was always from her office that the deviation was done. And when the deviation was done, it always came with intimidation.”

Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumalan extended instructions that overrode legal rationality and changed investigative outcomes based on Mr Perumalan's desires.

“...the flip-flop would happen. So, no matter how you explained it to her, or how the decision was made in a rational manner, it would then change according to what Mr Perumalan wanted.”

When one defied Advocate Johnson's instruction, there was a regime of wrath leading to emotional stress and counseling among IDAC staff, with many employees affected.

“If you defy an instruction of Advocate Johnson, or you contradict her, the regime or the wrath, if you have to – may I speak about – if you have to go and check the records at the wellness programme that NPA provides for its employees with regards to just work stress, home stress, you know, counselling, you will be shocked at the amount of prosecutors and employees, admin staff from IDAC that are receiving counselling.”

Advocate Johnson was a very active legal mind and the level of legal engagement was high when Mr Perumalan was not present or influencing decisions.

“When Mr Perumalan was not present, or was not involved in the communication, or was not influencing the decisions, Advocate Johnson was a very active legal mind. You would be able to engage, and she would speak about different things that she had done, and how we can incorporate it in sections of Acts.”

Section 28 of the legislation is invasive and lacks checks and balances, allowing unlimited control by one person without checks, leading to severe abuse since the start of the witness's tenure at ID.

“Section 28 does not have any checks and balances and it can be likened to a section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is invasive. It is exceptionally invasive, but section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act allows for a person to make submissions to a Magistrate or a Judge to explain why we are now invading this person’s privacy, or we need this information. Section 8 allows unlimited control by one person without any checks or balances, and that is how we were investigated, throughout that.”

Advocate Johnson gave instructions that had to be followed, and deviation or contradiction would lead to internal investigation, unlawful treatment, and counseling due to the stress caused among IDAC employees.

“If you do not follow the instructions, you receive emails of a nature that – when I was consulting with the DPCI officer, when I intended on making protected disclosure in June last year, I likened it to being treated worse than a scullery maid. You would be internally investigated, unlawfully so. You would be made redundant for an entire period in 2023 because I objected to Mr Perumalan and Advocate Johnson. And it happened again this year because I objected.”

The operational manual of IDAC exists but is not actually applied, and the organization operates by discretion in meetings rather than following prescribed procedures.

“There is such a document, but we do not operate according to it. So the impression I had was, you know, it is sitting somewhere in your computer or on your mainframe, but in fact it is more, you just go about doing your things and people exercise their discretion at any one time, in meetings, without this ever being applied.”

Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumalan instructed to proceed with a section 28(13) investigation authorization that was drafted and approved within a short timeframe in December 2024.

“Advocate Johnson had stated they had made a decision that the matter was to proceed in terms of section 28(13) and that I was to draft the authorisation and email it to her on the same day that the referral was handed to me because she wanted to approve it by Friday, the 5th of December 2024.”

On or about 30 June 2025, after the Mokwele arrest and first appearance, the witness contacted a DPCI officer to report problems at IDAC and to initiate protected disclosure by arranging a meeting on 2 July 2025.

“On or about the 30th of June 2025, after the Mokwele arrest and the first appearance, I contacted a DPCI officer... to inform him that there is a problem at IDAC and that I need to see him and explain and show him the documentation that I had in my possession, I asked if I could do protected disclosure. We agreed to meet on the 2nd of July 2025, where I showed him a prosecutorial memo prepared by me...”

Ms Ramsamy contacted the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) because of discord among the Crime Intelligence Investigation team and sloppy investigation procedures regarding Project Diversion.

“I contacted DPCI because I had previously, in late April 025, informed Advocate Santhos Manilall, the DDPP, of the discord amongst the team, the team being that of the Crime Intelligence Investigation, and that the investigation procedures were being flouted and that the investigation was sloppy.”

Advocate Santhos Manilall replied he had his own problems, unrelated to the Crime Intelligence Investigation issues raised by Ms Ramsamy.

“He replied that he had his own problems.”

Advocate Santhos Manilall had not been briefed on the Crime Intelligence Investigation matter despite being the Deputy Director on paper.

“He had not, although he was on paper as the Deputy Director, he had not been briefed on the matter, which I do discuss later on in the statement.”

Advocate Peter Serunye, Deputy Director of Public Prosecution, came onboard the Mokwele and Lushaba cases and sent emails and memoranda supporting Ms Ramsamy's concerns about the Mokwele matter.

“On the 8th of August 2025, Advocate Peter Serunye, a Deputy Director of Public Prosecution, came on board the Mokwele and Lushaba cases. He started sending emails and memoranda that accorded with my concerns on how the Mokwele matter was being conducted.”

Ms Ramsamy met with DPCI officer around March 2026 after the appointment of the new NDPP Advocate Mothibi because nothing would have been done with the previous NDPP regarding her concerns about Advocate Johnson.

“Once the new NDPP, Advocate Mothibi, was appointed, I met with the DPCI officer. This would have been around March 2026. ... Because I knew that if I had reported or we had taken these concerns to the then-sitting NDPP, nothing would have been done.”

Ms Ramsamy was removed from the Mokwele case and excluded from the Lushaba case from September 2025 after Advocate Serunye requested removal from those cases.

“When Advocate Serunye requested to be removed from the Mokwele and Lushaba cases, I was removed from the Mokwele case, and although I was apparently kept on the Lushaba case, I was excluded from the case from September 2025.”

Another Deputy Director told Ms Ramsamy that concerns she showed him would never come to light, implying suppression of information.

“I also approached another Deputy Director and showed him all the documentation that were concerning. He stated these things will never come to light.”

In November 2025, Ms Ramsamy reported to DPCI that Advocate Johnson lied to the Ad Hoc Committee and provided proof.

“In November 2025, after Advocate Johnson testified at the Ad Hoc Committee, I contacted the same officer at the DPCI. I informed him that Advocate Johnson had lied to the Ad Hoc Committee and that I had proof of this.”

Advocate Johnson was the favored prosecutor of Advocate Shamila Batohi and could do no wrong, and grievances about IDAC from staff were suppressed to the extent that people resigned or applied for other posts.

“Advocate Johnson was the blue-eyed girl of Advocate Batohi. She could do no wrong. ... If you look at any grievance that was sent about IDAC from the staff members, it was quashed to an extent where people started just resigning. People were applying for posts.”

There was corridor talk about sharing a docket by Advocate Johnson with General Khan before it was publicly known.

“You refer to the sharing of documents. Are you talking about what Mr Roelofse, Mr McClean and Witness O said about the sharing of a docket by Advocate Johnson with General Khan? ... Correct, but at that time, before the testimony, it was just corridor gossip.”

Ms Ramsamy is concerned that by coming forward with information against Advocate Johnson she is being made a scapegoat and fears retaliation.

“I mention this because I do not want the narrative to be that I am retaliating against Advocate Johnson for making me the scapegoat or that I am coming forward with this information now that my name has been dragged through the mud.”

A Deputy Director of Public Prosecution said to Ms Ramsamy after she showed him concerning documentation that these things will never see the light of day, which Ms Ramsamy understood as an intent to suppress and destroy evidence.

“The DDPP, and he said these things will never see the light of day. ... That no one will ever know that these things were done by Advocate Johnson or at IDAC.”

IDAC's mandate includes investigating and prosecuting serious, high-profile, or complex corruption and related commercial or financial crimes, as well as related common law offences including fraud, forgery, theft, and offences involving dishonesty.

“IDAC's mandate, as I understand it, is to investigate and where sufficient evidence of criminality is established to prosecute matters of serious, high-profile, or complex corruption and related commercial or financial crime. Asset out in section 7 of the NPA Act, the mandate extends to related common law offences, including fraud, forgery, uttering, theft, and any offence involving dishonesty and related to offences including contravention of PRECCA, POCA, PFMA, and the Local Government Municipal Financial Management Act, the Financial Intelligence Centre Act.”

Ms Ramsamy understood there is some debate about the interpretation of section 7(1)(A) of the NPA Act but explains IDAC interprets it as concerning serious or high-profile or complex corruption or financial criminal cases.

“My understanding is that IDAC interprets this section to mean that IDAC's mandate, insofar as section 7(1)(A) is concerned, is to investigate serious corruption or serious commercial or serious financial criminal cases, high-profile corruption or serious commercial or serious financial criminal cases, complex corruption or serious commercial or serious financial criminal cases.”

IDAC also institutes the resulting criminal proceedings from its investigations.

“Where appropriate, IDAC also institutes the resulting criminal proceedings.”

Ms Ramsamy provided documents showing the standard operating procedure and case selection criteria directives issued and signed by Advocate Johnson and Mr Matthew Sesoko, Head of Investigation, in October 2024 and August 2022 respectively.

“I will deal with the section 27 referrals based on my personal experience and understanding of the SOP, case selection, criteria directive issued and signed by Advocate Johnson and Mr Sesoko in October 2024 and in August 2022 respectively.”

IDAC's case referrals mostly consist of cases from other units like the Specialised Commercial Crime Unit or from reports of Commissions of Inquiry such as the State Capture or Nugent Commission.

“At the time of the Adams referral, the bulk of IDAC's cases were either existing cases from other units, such as the Specialised Commercial Crime Unit, or cases emanating from the reports of Commissions of Inquiry, such as the State Capture Commission or the Nugent Commission.”

There is a standard operating procedure manual called the IDAC Operation Manual issued and signed by Advocate Johnson and Mr Matthew Sesoko on 16 October 2024.

“There was, and still is, a standard operating procedure referred to as the IDAC Operation Manual issued and signed by Advocate Johnson and Mr Matthew Sesoko, the Head of Investigation, on 16 October 2024, which I have also provided to the Commission.”

IDAC operates on the principle of prosecution-led investigations, but this method is left open to manipulation of suspects, evidence, and witnesses, and has been manipulated by Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal.

“IDAC operates on the principle of prosecution-led investigations... And it has been manipulated by and used by Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal.”

There are no checks and balances currently within IDAC's prosecution-led investigation process, which leads to present shortcomings.

“There is no checks and balances ... I am giving evidence today because of the manipulation of section 20 and the prosecution led.”

The SOPs require a multidisciplinary panel including investigation and prosecution to collectively make decisions but this panel is not applied in practice within IDAC.

“The SOPs speak to a panel, a panel that includes investigation, prosecution, and other multidisciplinary... And that panel was supposed to make decisions collectively... It is not applied.”

A general prosecution unit like the OCC has many checks and balances that prevent manipulation, unlike IDAC where such protections are missing.

“...a general prosecution, OCC, OCC is prosecution guided. There are so many checks and balances in place to prevent this very thing we are talking about today ... prevented in that unit because there is checks and balances.”

In IDAC, the SOPs exist but there is no adherence to them, and if they were complied with, current issues would not occur.

“...there is no adherence to that, and if we complied with it and adhered to it, then what is happening now would not happen because we do have written down checks and balances.”

Within the office, gossip about concerns with Advocate Ncube is not effectively addressed, and the head constantly interferes and deviates from the structural basis set out in the SOPs.

“...if I had a problem with Advocate Ncube, I could go and gossip... But I could go and gossip about Advocate Ncube and say Advocate Ncube does not know what she is doing... and then the next meeting Advocate Johnson is at the meeting, and what I said is golden, but the correct way Advocate Ncube is asking for is out the door... the Head constantly would interfere and deviate from that.”

Until March 2026, the concerns described about manipulation and lack of checks could not be reported due to lack of authority, but with the presence of Advocate Mothibii, people are more willing to come forward.

“...until March 2026, none of this could be reported, because who do we report it to? Now that Advocate Mothibii is there, we are a little bit braver to come forward about these things.”

The investigation process for section 27 referrals is supposed to follow strict SOPs, but in practice, there is no strict compliance, though failure to adhere does not necessarily mean the process is irregular as long as it complies in substance.

“The investigation process is supposed to follow a sequence as set out in the SOPs... but even in other section 27 referral... there was no strict compliance with this process... failure to adhere strictly to the SOP does not mean that the process is irregular, as long as it complies in substance.”

Advocate Johnson received a section 27 referral in July 2023 and held a consultation with the deponent and the deponent's legal representative, instructing the team to handle the matter secretly due to sensitivity and implicated persons.

“In July 2023, I received a meeting invite from Advocate Johnson...Advocate Johnson stated that she had received a section 27 referral and that had held a consultation with the deponent and the deponent's legal representative...Advocate Johnson...instructed the team that no one was to know that we were handling the matter, owing to the sensitivity of the information and of the implicated person or persons.”

The process for handling the referral involved copying statements, interrogating affidavits to decide if they fell within ID mandate, drafting certificate of mandate, applying for section 28(13) investigation authorization, and drafting an investigation plan with investigators.

“We were to make copies of the statement, the prosecutor and myself, that she had handed to us and return the original to her office...The prosecutors were to interrogate the affidavit and decide whether it fell within the mandate of ID...Once the certificate of mandate was signed, the prosecutors were to attend to drafting the application of authorisation of a section 28(13) investigation...and once authorisation was signed, we were to consult with the investigators and draft an investigation plan.”

If the investigation finds criminality, a motivation for section 28(1) authorisation must be prepared with a detailed evidential report. If no criminality or prima facie case is found, prosecutors prepare a memorandum explaining why there is no prima facie case.

“Should the investigation yield evidence of criminality, we had to motivate for a section 28(1) authorisation...This motivation had to be accompanied by an evidential report prepared by the prosecutors...Should the investigation show that no criminality could be proven or that there was no prima facie case, the prosecutors would prepare a detailed memorandum setting out a summary of each statement and a detailed submission as to why there was no prima facie case.”

A comprehensive application for section 28(13) authorisation was received including a 9-page summary of the evidence to confirm the mandate and the application.

“There was a verbal briefing about the allegations. And then once we received the – we did a comprehensive application for 28(13). When I say comprehensive, we also included a 96-page, 19-page, sorry, 9-page summary of the evidence that was contained to confirm our mandate and our application for 28(13).”

Ms Ramsamy and another advocate were given one week to interrogate the evidence in the section 27 referral and found sufficient evidence that it fell within the IDAC mandate, relating to a high-profile individual and serious corruption.

“Myself and the other advocate...when we were given this 27 referral, we were given a week to interrogate the evidence contained in the affidavit referral. We then drafted this, indicating that we had found sufficient evidence that it did fall within the IDAC mandate. Not only under high-profile individual, but also serious corruption.”

Documents including a recommendation and a summary are submitted for approval through Mr Sesoko and Advocate Johnson, who must approve the recommendation for the process of mandate and investigation application to proceed.

“This is our recommendation having regard to what had been provided to us, and then you include your summary, the 19-pager.”

The process involved Ms Ramsamy and other advocates setting out the matter, findings and available evidence to inform the decision on their recommendation to proceed.

“Correct.”

The decision to approve the section 28(13) application is made after Advocate Johnson confirms it falls within the mandate, followed by submission of documents and consultation via emails and WhatsApp before drafting the application.

“After Advocate Johnson confirms that she approves that it falls within the mandate...after you submit this document, the consideration memo of mandate and the summary, and then she would ask who makes the decision that there must be an application for 28(13). After the report and the certificate, we would then receive an email or a WhatsApp from the PA indicating that, please come and collect your certificate. And at that point, we would be informed to proceed with drafting a 28(13).”

Investigator sent an email to Advocate Johnson on 4 December 2024 to inform her that including Ms Ramsamy, staff would be in court on another matter on 6 December 2024 and could not attend a scheduled staff meeting.

“On the morning of 4 December 2024, an investigator working on another case...sent an email to Advocate Johnson...informing her that we, including me, would be in court on another matter that Friday. In other words, he was informing Advocate Johnson that we would not be able to attend the staff meeting.”

Advocate Johnson instructed that a product needed to be compiled for her office to be submitted on Friday.

“Advocate Johnson specifically instructing, telling you that she needs you for tomorrow ... a product I need you to compile for my office to be submitted on Friday.”

On 5 December 2024, Ms Ramsamy went to Advocate Johnson's office per her instructions where she was given a grey document bag containing a highly sensitive section 27 referral affidavit and a pinkish-purple note with names of suspects handwritten by Advocate Johnson.

“The next morning, the 5th of December 024, at 8 a.m., I went to Advocate Johnson's office per her instructions ... she had a grey document bag with a zip, and she told me that it contained a highly sensitive section 27 referral affidavit ... It also contained a pinkish-purple page from a notepad with the names of people in Advocate Johnson's handwriting. She told me that these are the suspects Chief and I discussed are to be included in the section 28 (13). By Chief, she meant Mr Perumal. Advocate Johnson handed me the bag and gave me the following instructions ... I must take the content of the bag and prepare an application for authorisation of a section 28 (13) investigation ...”

Advocate Johnson said she needed a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP) on the matter for authorisation purposes but would supervise the matter herself.

“Advocate Johnson said that she needed a DDPP on the matter for the purposes of authorisation, but that she would supervise the matter.”

Advocate Johnson instructed Ms Ramsamy not to make copies of the section 27 referral affidavit due to the sensitivity of the matter, but she was allowed to make notes.

“I must not make copies of the 27 referral affidavit. I am allowed to make notes regarding the section 27 referral affidavit. I must not show the section 27 referral affidavit to anyone due to the sensitivity of the matter.”

Mr Padayachee testified that he never had sight of the section 27 referral affidavit, which was difficult to believe given what he would have been expected to investigate.

“When Mr Padayachee testified and said that he never had sight of the section 27 referral affidavit, I suggested to him that that was very hard to believe because what would he have investigated if he did not have what was in effect the source document?”

Ms Ramsamy testified that the pinkish-purple page with the suspects' names was Advocate Johnson's handwriting and that she clearly stated the names Chief and she decided, with Chief referring to Mr Perumal.

“... The page was her handwriting. Her handwriting is very distinctive ... And she had clearly stated to me, these are the names Chief and I decided. But it was her handwriting.”

Ms Ramsamy confirmed she was called by Advocate Johnson during her testimony and that she was asked about the list of suspects.

“When she called you now, as she was testifying here, when she called you, if she did call you, did she call you out to ask about the list? Yes, correct.”

Ms Ramsamy complied with Advocate Johnson's direct instruction to prepare and submit the section 28(13) investigation application despite her concerns.

“Since the instruction came directly from Advocate Johnson and she had already told me that the decision had been made and that she wanted to approve the section 28(13) then next day, I complied with her instructions.”

Ms Ramsamy expressed concern about the merits of the application after reading the section 27 affidavit and noted that normally the prosecutor preparing the mandate consideration memo should also prepare the section 28(13) application.

“When I read the section 27 affidavit that Advocate Johnson gave me, I became very concerned about the merits of the application ... in my limited experience, the prosecutors who prepared the consideration of mandate memo ought to be the prosecutors preparing the application for section 28(13) investigation authorisation.”

Ms Ramsamy testified that Advocate Johnson urgently needed the application for authorisation of the section 28(13) investigation approved by Friday, 6 December 2024, because she wanted to approve it herself.

“Advocate Johnson told me that she needed the application urgently because she wants to approve the section 28 (13) investigation by Friday, 6 December 2024.”

The Section 27 referral affidavit given to the Commission was different from the one Advocate Johnson gave on the 5th of December 2024, and the witness only saw this flighted document for the first time at the Commission.

“this was not the 27 referral affidavit that Advocate Johnson gave me on the 5th of December 2024”

The flighted affidavit mentioned a Major General Modondo failing a polygraph test while seeking security clearance, which was not noted in the Section 27 affidavit given on 5 December 2024.

“Major General Modondo failing a polygraph test while seeking security clearance. Although... [intervenes]”

The flighted affidavit included allegations of procurement irregularities within Crime Intelligence about a forklift, which were not mentioned in the Section 27 affidavit given on 5 December 2024.

“allegations of procurement irregularities within Crime Intelligence regarding the procurement of a forklift. On the one flighted, there is no mention of a forklift.”

The flighted affidavit detailed allegations of alleged criminal conduct by the Political Killings Task Team, including procurement of vehicles and excessive budget for laundry using the Secret Service account, which were not in the Section 27 affidavit given on 5 December 2024.

“multiple allegations of alleged criminal conduct by the Political Killings Task Team, such as procurement of vehicles, excessive budget for laundry using the Secret Service account. This is not mentioned on the 27 flighted.”

Vehicles procured for the Political Killings Task Team were being used for the personal use of former Minister of Police Mr Cele, not mentioned in the flighted affidavit.

“Vehicles that were procured for the PKTT being used by the former Minister of Police, Mr Cele, for his personal use. This is also not on the one that is flighted.”

Purchasing of hotels, lodges, or properties using the Secret Service account is mentioned only in the Section 27 affidavit given on 5 December 2024, and not in the flighted affidavit.

“Purchasing of hotels, lodges, or properties using the Secret Service account. Also not mentioned on the one flighted.”

The request to Major General Mbuso Khumalo for case dockets was based solely on the Section 27 affidavit given to the witness on 5 December 2024.

“I refer the Commission to a written request for case dockets that Advocate Johnson instructed me to prepare and address to Major General Mbuso Khumalo... The request was based on dockets referred to in the section 27 affidavit.”

The Section 27 affidavit flighted at the Commission contained no case numbers for Orlando or Villieria, only Cape Town, and referred to cases opened in Cape Town and Orlando police stations.

“And it gives the case numbers expressly. And there is no case number for the Orlando or the Villieria, but there is a reference to those case dockets”

The witness had no knowledge of emails between Chief of Staff Cedric Nkabinde or Police Minister Senzo Mchunu and Advocate Johnson and relied only on the Section 27 affidavit for information to prepare the request for case dockets to Major General Mbuso Khumalo.

“At this time, I had no knowledge of any emails that had taken place between Chief of Staff Cedric Nkabinde and Advocate Johnson, or any emails between Police Minister Senzo Mchunu and Advocate Johnson. So what I worked off for this request from Lieutenant General Mbuso could only have come from the 27 referral.”

Mr Perumal could not have given the witness the Orlando case numbers as he was rushing to the airport and only helped get email address information via General Charity Matloko.

“He could not have given. And everybody was rushing, because after the meeting he was leaving to the airport to go back home, which I deal with later on... Mr Perumal went outside the office, said let me call Charity, that being General Charity Matloko, to get details.”

The witness had no discussion with Chief Perumal about Orlando case numbers and did not get the numbers from him, instead communication with Perumal was about getting details to address Lt General Mbuso Khumalo.

“The communication I had with Mr Perumal on that day was I needed the details of Lieutenant General, I did not even know his name was Mbuso. No discussion with him about the Orlando case numbers.”

The allegations about the PKTT were included prominently in Mr Adams's section 27 affidavit, but the flighted version of that affidavit made no mention of the PKTT.

“The allegations about the PKTT featured prominently in Mr Adams's section 27 affidavit, yet the one flighted makes no mention of the PKTT.”

Brigadier Mokwele's appointment was considered a throwaway allegation in the section 27 affidavit that was seen.

“The allegations of Brigadier Mokwele appointed was more a throwaway allegation on the section 27 affidavit that I saw.”

The draft section 28(13) application corroborates the version of the section 27 referral affidavit seen on 5 December 2024, when the application was drafted.

“My draft section 28(13) application is also corroboration of the version of the section 27 referral affidavit that I saw on the 5th of December 2024, when I drafted the application.”

The section 27 referral affidavit contained allegations of procurement irregularities regarding the procurement of a forklift and vehicles for the PKTT including awarding tenders.

“The section 27 referral affidavit I considered contained allegations of procurement irregularities regarding the procurement of a forklift by Crime Intelligence and procurement of vehicles for the PKTT, hence the reference to awarding tenders in the section 28(13) application and authorisation.”

There are allegations of unlawful actions regarding vetting and polygraph testing by Crime Intelligence officials.

“The allegations of unlawful actions regarding vetting and polygraph testing perpetuated by Crime Intelligence officials.”

The flighted section 27 referral affidavit does not contain allegations of unlawful vetting and polygraph testing and could only have gotten those allegations from the section 27 referral because no dockets were requested at that stage.

“The allegations of unlawful actions regarding vetting and polygraph testing is not contained in the flighted section 27 referral. I could only have gotten the allegations from the section 27 referral because at that stage we had not even requested the dockets.”

On 9 October 2025, MS Ramsamy was contacted by Innocent Sekokane, personal assistant to Advocate Johnson, about Mr Perumal calling regarding whereabouts of the original section 27 referral affidavit, and said MS Ramsamy was asked to keep it safe but could not trace the affidavit.

“On the 9th of October 2025, I was contacted by Ms Innocent Sekokane, personal assistant to Advocate Johnson. She informed me that she was told that Mr Perumal had called me that same day regarding the whereabouts of the original section 27 referral affidavit. She said that I had to told Mr Perumal that I was tasked with the safekeeping of the section 7 referral affidavit and that I could not trace the section 27 referral affidavit.”

Fraud and corruption pertain to awarding of tenders and/or contracts involving SAPS and/or circumventing procurement processes.

“Fraud and corruption pertain to awarding of tenders and/or contracts involving SAPS and/or circumventing procurement processes.”

The flighted section 27 referral affidavit was produced after Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi's press briefing on 6 July 2025 where he stated that IDAC was investigating the PKTT.

“My suspicion is that the flighted section 27 referral affidavit was produced at that stage and after Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi's press briefing on the 6th of July 2025, where he stated that IDAC was investigating the PKTT.”

In September or early October 2025, accused persons in the Mokwele matter made numerous requests for the section 27 referral affidavit. Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal were struggling to find it and possibly thought MS Ramsamy had it, but MS Ramsamy suspects they did not want to disclose the affidavit to the accused and needed a reason why it could not be produced.

“If I recall correctly, in September 2025 or early October 2025, the accused persons in the Mokwele matter had made numerous requests for the section 27 referral. I want to say that Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal were struggling to find the section 27 referral affidavit and perhaps thought I had the affidavit, but I cannot say that because what I suspect is that Advocate Johnson and/or Mr Perumal did not want to disclose the section 27 referral affidavit to the accused persons in the Mokwele matter and needed a reason as to why it could not be produced.”

The flighted section 27 referral affidavit was created (not just produced) after July 2025.

“Did not, was not, yes, created by them.”

MS Ramsamy was concerned about being blamed unfairly for something she had no knowledge of and addressed an email to Advocate Johnson about events on 5 December 2024 and thereafter, regarding the section 27 referral affidavit.

“I was concerned that I was being blamed for something I had no knowledge of. I addressed an email to Advocate Johnson to set out the events that transpired on the 5th of December 2024 and thereafter, regarding the section 27 referral affidavit. I have provided the email to the Commission.”

The flighted section 27 referral affidavit makes no reference to the PKTT, whereas the December 2024 version does, and no record exists of the December 2024 version other than the original returned to Advocate Johnson on 6 December 2024, which was not produced.

“I do not think it is a coincidence that the flighted section 27 referral affidavit makes no reference to the PKTT, whereas the version I saw in December 2024, does. And now there is no record of that version, other than the original that I returned to Advocate Johnson on the 6th of December 2024, which was not produced, and in respect of which Mr Perumal tried to create the narrative that I had misplaced the original.”

On 9 October 2025, MS Ramsamy sent an email to Advocate Johnson, Mr Perumal, Mr Sesoko, and Mr Tlale saying that she was contacted by Enoch, that Mr Perumal had directed her to keep the section 27 referral affidavit safe but she could not trace it, and that Mr Perumal did not contact her that day but Mr Tlale did.

“Good day, Advocate Johnson. I was contacted by Enoch, in respect of: That I was contacted by Mr Perumal today regarding the above referral, and that I indicated you told me to keep it safe, and that I cannot trace it. Mr Perumal did not contact me today. Mr Tlale contacted me today. He contacted me this morning, and I explained to him as follows: On the morning of the 5th of December 2025 ...”

MS Ramsamy was instructed to return the folder containing the section 27 affidavit documents to the office the next day and not to make any copies, putting the documents in a large brown envelope because the grey document bag was conspicuous.

“Your instructions regarding the folder was that I was returned it to your office the next day, and no copies of the documents were to be made. Because the grey document bag was conspicuous, I put it in a large brown envelope and returned the same to your office before the staff meeting on the 6th of December 024.”

MS Ramsamy's last communication with Mr Perumal was on 18 September 2025 via WhatsApp text, so she could not have told him she was asked to keep the affidavit safe and that she misplaced it.

“I did not have any communication with Mr Perumal today. Our last communication was on the 18th of September 2025, via WhatsApp text. Thus, I could not have told him that I was asked to keep it safe, and I misplaced it.”

MS Ramsamy did not retain possession of the original section 27 affidavit referral nor any copies and returned it to the office the same day after receiving it.

“I wish to state I did not retain possession of the original section 27 affidavit referral, nor any copies thereof. As instructed, I returned the same to your office on the same day after receiving it.”

Advocate Johnson responded to MS Ramsamy's email later the same day via WhatsApp, accepting she may have been mistaken about the section 27 referral affidavit and said she would check her office the next day.

“Later the same day, at 3 or 4 p.m., Advocate Johnson responded to my email via WhatsApp. In the message, she accepted that she may have been mistaken about the section 27 referral affidavit. She said she would look in her office the following day.”

No one at IDA knew where the original section 27 affidavit was from January 2025 until the arrests in June and up to October 2025.

“from January 2025 until the arrests in June ... nobody at IDA knew where the original section 27 affidavit was”

There are great discrepancies between what transpired with the arrests and what is contained in the section 27 affidavit.

“there is great discrepancies”

Advocate Johnson gave Ramsamy a handwritten pink-purple page with the names of suspects for the section 28(13) authorization list.

“she gave me a list of suspects' names on the pink-purple notepad page”

The names in the section 28(13) authorization were sourced from Advocate Johnson and a section 27 referral affidavit.

“I got the names from Advocate Johnson, together with the section 27 referral affidavit”

Advocate Johnson made a startling remark that they must find a way for Ramsamy not to testify before the Commission.

“Advocate Johnson made a startling remark, that we have got to figure out how you do not go.”

Ramsamy was unsure where the names on the handwritten page came from, but Johnson explained the suspects list came after Dylan consulted Fadiel.

“the suspects was after Dylan had consulted Fadiel . That is how the list came about.”

Advocate Johnson says Dylan cannot remember many things and Ramsamy has no power abuse in authorizing names of others in the section 28(13).

“He cannot remember half the things”

Ramsamy sent an email explaining what she received and what she returned to Advocate Johnson concerning the suspect list.

“after you phoned me last night, I went and found that email where I explained what I received from you and what I returned to you.”

Ramsamy was told not to do a mandate memo and that facts were covered in the email sent.

“you told me not to do the mandate memo. It was just the ... I am just opening my laptop for you now ... the facts and all of that was covered in the email I sent.”

Advocate Johnson signed the section 28(13) authorization but indicated Ramsamy did not prepare an application for it as normally done, instead a short summary with facts is usually given to authorize Drew.

“Yes, but did you put an application together for the authorisation? ... usually we just put a thing with a short summary of facts.”

The dockets were only received because a letter was sent to Moile on the 6th, indicating a specific process to obtain them.

“N o , I d i d n o t h a v e t h e d o c k e t s , b u t w e o n l y r e c e i v e d t h e d o c k e t s b e c a u s e o n t h e 6 t h y o u s e n t a l e t t e r t o s e n d t o M o i l e .”

Forgery and uttering offences are generally included under fraud sections in docket 28.

“Forgery and uttering we generally put in our 28”

The alleged manipulation of procurement processes amounts to fraud, which is often manifest as forgery and uttering.

“that one paragraph where he says the alleged manipulation of procurement processes , that would appear for me at fraud , almost invariably that it is for gery and uttering .”

The names placed in the docket 28(13) came from a page with handwriting (possibly ADV Johnson's) and were obtained following consultation between Dylan and Fadiel.

“the names that I obtained or placed in the 28 (13) was the page with your handwriting and then names of the suspects and then when I asked about it you said that you ... Dylan consulted with Fadiel and that is how the names came up .”

ADV Johnson's laptop was stolen in January last year, resulting in loss of information.

“my laptop was stolen in January last year , so I have lost lots of my stuff .”

Dylan has emails on his phone relevant to the names and documents that were slotted under Fadiel's door, including a chain of emails between Dylan and MS Ramsamy about these matters.

“But ask Dylan to check because he has his emails on his phone . There is an email between him , you and I , about the names as well as about the documents , the ones that were slotted under Fadiel 's door . So there was a chain email between us , he should remember .”

ADV Johnson said today she did not know about section 27 or 28, implying she was unaware of these legal details initially.

“Today, I did not know section 28, I did not know section 27, I know nothing. I am as dumb as two bricks.”

ADV Johnson was Respected and called 'Mama' by MS Ramsamy due to her kindness and support, despite issues with work ethic.

“When I started with ID , before it became IDAC , Advocate Johnson was the Head of Office . We had a choice between calling her ID or Mama J . And I respectfully call her that because she is not a bad person . She is not . You know , when I got sick , she was there . She is kind . It is just the work ethic that I have a problem with . And so I respectfully call her Mama .”

MS Ramsamy expressed unease with being instructed to include names of suspects in the section 28(13) application since it did not reconcile with the content of the section 27 referral affidavit.

“paragraph 49: Mr Raphesu briefly perused the affidavit before I had to return it to Advocate Johnson, shortly before the staff meeting. I went to Advocate Johnson 's office and returned the section 27 referral affidavit, and she gave me the signed 28(13) authorisation. There was a meeting scheduled for 11 a.m. with the team assigned to the Adams referral, which took place in Advocate Johnson's office.”

ADV Johnson and Mr Perumal launched attacks on generals at a meeting or during the investigation, as referred to by the Chairperson and MS Ramsamy.

“Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal launched an orchestrated attack on General Masemola and General Khumalo , using IDAC's powerful investigation tools . And this will become evident in my statement and testimony.”

ADV Johnson and Mr Perumal launched an orchestrated attack on General Masemola and General Khumalo using IDAC's investigation tools.

“Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal launched an orchestrated attack on General Masemola and General Khumalo, using IDAC 's powerful investigation tools . And this wil l become evident in my statement and testimony.”

Advocate Johnson was personally supervising and dictating key decisions throughout the investigation related to the section 28 authorization for Fadiel Adam's arrest.

“Advocate Johnson was not merely supervising. She was dictating key decisions throughout the investigation.”

Mr Perumal wanted the docket to be collected immediately on the day it was instructed, overriding the letter process, to take it home to Eastern Cape.

“Mr Perumal instructed Mr Raphesu to collect the dockets immediately, he should not wait for the letter, because he, Mr Perumal, wanted to take the dockets home with him to Eastern Cape.”

Mr Padayachee was briefed on an investigation before the section 28(13) authorization was signed, indicating knowledge of the contents beforehand.

“Clearly Mr Padayachee was briefed on an investigation that he knew would be authorised before it was authorised.”

Mr Padayachee had not seen the section 27 referral affidavit in the presence of Mr Ramsamy, but likely saw a draft or signed version at some point.

“I confirm that Mr Padayachee had not seen the section 27 referral affidavit in my presence. However, I believe that Mr Padayachee either saw a draft of the section 27 affidavit or the signed version.”

Mr Perumal and Mr Padayachee were in Cape Town in November 2024 and stayed at a Formula One hotel due to a shortage of hotels, which embarrassed them because they met with a Member of Parliament there.

“Mr Perumal complained to me that when him and Mr Padayachee were in Cape Town in November 2024, there was a shortage of hotels and they were forced to stay at the Formula One hotel. He expressed how embarrassing it was for him and Mr Padayachee to meet with a Member of Parliament at the Formula One.”

Mr Ramsamy doubts Mr Padayachee's version that he did not see the section 27 referral affidavit due to secrecy around it and evidence from Mr Perumal's comments.

“There was a lot of secrecy around this section 7 referral affidavit. Had it not been for Mr Perumal's comments at the airport, I would have believed Mr Padayachee that he had not seen the section 27 referral affidavit.”

There was secrecy around the section 27 referral affidavit, which before Mr Perumal's comments, had only been seen by Advocate Johnson, Mr Perumal and Mr Raphesu.

“As far as I was aware, before Mr Perumal's comments at the airport, the only people who had seen the section 27 affidavit Advocate Johnson, Mr Perumal, and Mr Raphesu, because I had shown it to them.”

Mr Padayachee was likely to have seen the original section 27 affidavit during the November Cape Town trip with Mr Perumal and Mr Raphesu due to their presence and the timing of the statement.

“The one that I am speaking about, the one that contains the PKT and the vehicles and the lodges, it would have been improbable that he, impossible, that he would not have seen the original.”

Mr Ramsamy cannot confirm the date of the section 27 affidavit seen but has recollections of conversations and WhatsApp messages from November 2024 relating to the 27 referral email debacle.

“I cannot confirm that. I have a recollection of a different date. I also have a recollection of a conversation between Perumal and myself, when this whole debacle of where is the 27 referral as per my email was happening, where Perumal says to me, no, the ID must check, the ID must check, referring to Advocate Johnson, because I have WhatsApps from the 13th of November where Fadiel is asking for things.”

Advocate Johnson instructed to change the letter request from Major General Khumalo to Lieutenant General Jacobs and to shred the initial letter as it was never sent to Khumalo.

“I had to change the letter request from Major General Khumalo to Lieutenant General Jacobs. I sent Advocate Johnson a WhatsApp message... Her response was that I must shred the letter because it was not going to Lieutenant General Jacobs. She said she had written to Divisional Commissioner Detective Services, Lieutenant General Sentumule.”

The process of requesting and collecting dockets was complicated by internal office commotion and changes in official letter addressees, resulting in Advocate Johnson instructing shredding and changing letters instead of sending original requests to Major General Khumalo or Lieutenant General Jacobs.

“There was a lot of commotion on that day... I had to change the letter request from Major General Khumalo to Lieutenant General Jacobs... Her response was that I must shred the letter because it was not going to Lieutenant General Jacobs. She said she had written to Divisional Commissioner Detective Services, Lieutenant General Sentumule... Advocate Johnson told me to ask Mr Raphesu to call Colonel Phillips and ask if Lieutenant General Sentumule had asked Colonel Phillips to hand the dockets over.”

Advocate Johnson refused to send the letter to Lieutenant General Jacobs and instead told to shred the letter, claiming it had been redirected to Divisional Commissioner Sentumule.

“Not going to Jacobs. She said shred the letter. I wrote to Div Com on Friday. She will revert today.”

The request for dockets via letter to Major General Khumalo was never sent because Khumalo indicated the dockets were not with him or under his control, and the letter was subsequently addressed to Lieutenant General Sentumule instead.

“Advocate Johnson testified that we sent the letter requesting the dockets to Major General Khumalo and that he had indicated that the dockets were not with him or were not his. As stated above, the letter was never sent to Major General Khumalo and Advocate Johnson knew that because she told me to shred the letter. Advocate Johnson told me that the letter had been changed and addressed to General Sentumule.”

Advocate Johnson provided instructions that the dockets must be photocopied immediately and originals handed to her personal assistant.

“She also gave me an instruction that the dockets must be copied immediately and the originals must be handed to her personal assistant.”

It is standard procedure to request certified copies of dockets and to leave originals with the owning police station; the requester noted discomfort because he was asked to request the original dockets instead.

“The request for the dockets was yet another matter that did not sit well with me. We usually request certified copies of the dockets and the originals are retained by whomever the request is addressed to... In this instance, I was asked to request for the original dockets.”

Docket ownership and tracking is maintained by the police station that originated the docket; transfers between police stations require updating the CAS-i system for proper tracking.

“Centurion police station is the owner of that docket. Villieria police station is the owner of that docket. The tracking of those dockets are done on the CAS -ing system. If Villieria is asking for Centurion dockets, it must be transferred to Villieria... On the face of the brown copy of the docket, it would be scratched off Centurion, put Villieria. Villieria will have to re-CAS it, so that it can be tracked for safety reasons.”

Dockets go missing, get bought, or destroyed, and there is no CAS-in system at IDAC to track them.

“We all know dockets go missing, get bought, destroyed. So that is the reason. We do not have a CAS - in system at IDAC.”

Major General Modondo failed a polygraph test in July 2024 and had two cases of tax evasion, and Brigadier Ncube, the head of vetting, was instructed to ensure no investigation ensued.

“Allegations that a polygraph test was failed in July 2024 by Major General Modondo who had two cases of tax evasion and that the head of vetting, Brigadier Ncube, was tasked to ensure that no investigation ensued.”

The Provincial Commissioner is to get weekly or monthly updates when allegations were made against high-ranking SAPS officials.

“When these allegations were made against high-ranking officials within SAPS, the instruction was that the Provincial Commissioner is to get weekly or monthly updates.”

Allegations include abuse of funds from Secret Service account contravening PFMA, involvement of General Lushaba as complainant, and Lieutenant General Khumalo facilitating defeating the ends of justice including nepotism by placing family in key positions.

“Alleges sensitive information relating to the abuse of funds from the Secret Service account that contravenes PFMA, General Lushaba was the complainant, Lieutenant General Khumalo facilitated the act of defeating, further allegations of nepotism placing persons and family members in strategic key positions.”

Lieutenant General Khumalo, Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence (CI), and Major General Lushaba, the CFO of CI, are alleged to have abused power by channeling Secret Service account funds into the KwaZulu-Natal Political Task Team, which was a front for former Minister Mr. Cele, including vehicle purchases used for the former Minister's activities.

“"Alleges major abuse of power of the Secret Service account by Lieutenant General Khumalo, Divisional Com of CI, together with Major General Lushaba, the CFO of CI, funds being channelled into the KZN Political Task Team, which is a front for the former Minister, Mr Cele. Purchases of vehicles through this fund allegedly bought for the Task Team, but used for the former Minister's activities."”

A docket referred to as 'Villeria 38' was not properly investigated according to the claim presented.

“"The 38 was what we would term an exhibit in the sense that the claim was that that docket was not properly investigated."”

The investigation into docket 22 in 2024 was considered poor and disturbing, especially regarding the offence of theft.

“"The investigation into this matter is poor and disturbing, the offence of the theft."”

The docket review found discrepancies and little effort had gone into the docket, indicating sloppy investigation work.

“"I found discrepancies, but I am not an investigating officer. My discrepancies were based as a prosecutor ... very little effort had gone into that docket and had it come to me for a decision, I probably would have put a very nasty diary entry to the Commander as to why it was done so, for lack of a better word, sloppy."”

MS Ramsamy initiated a report upon receiving the dockets, motivated by instinct and lack of substantiation in the docket itself, despite no one requesting the report.

“"No one had asked me for this report. I, upon receiving the dockets, felt compelled to do this report because of my gut instinct and whatever happened on the th. And then when I received the dockets itself, it needed to be reported in a manner that we as prosecutors would report dockets."”

A full and detailed draft affidavit related to the subject matter was requested from Advocate Adams before any prosecution plan could be discussed, and one of the two prosecutors must be present during consultations.

“"If Adams is to be consulted, full and detailed draft affidavits to be obtained before prosecution plan can be discussed. One of the two prosecutors must be present when this consultation takes place."”

All information, documentation, and witness names need to be contained in the affidavit draft from Advocate Adams.

“"All information, documentation, and witness names, etcetera, to be contained in the affidavit draft from F Adams."”

Advocate Adams claims to have proof of evidence and alleges some material was surreptitiously slipped under his door.

“"He is saying that he has proof. He is saying that someone slotted things under his door."”

Advocate Johnson was not initially tasked to receive a certain report, and there was no evidence substantiating a Section 28(13) application referenced in the dockets.

“"Advocate Johnson had not asked for this report. No one had asked me for this report... I was uneasy because, in fact, the evidence that he says is contained in these dockets, it is not there. I do not see anything, so I do not think we should continue with the 813."”

A conversation between MS Ramsamy and Advocate Johnson about concerns regarding the matter took place in January after some delay.

“"The conversation between myself and Advocate Johnson did take place in January about my concerns."”

Instructions to investigators include that prosecutors must be informed before interviews or consultations with any person related to the matter, due to rapid and premature demands not matching available evidence.

“"Prosecutors to be informed before any interview consultation to take place with any person relating to this matter... there is no substance. I do not have anything to even draft a prosecution plan. So my instruction is very clear, nothing is to be done without my knowledge."”

Mr Perumal was involved in pressuring for rapid procedural action before readiness was achieved.

“"Mr Perumal was on this whole mission of, we need to do this, we need to do that..."”

Section 28(6) or (7) documents refer to information, persons to be consulted or interviewed, summonses, or documentation to be issued or obtained before formal action.

“"Section 28(6) or (7) for information or for persons to be consulted with or interviewed... or summonsed to be interviewed or for any documentation books or anything listed in Section 28(6) and (7) to be done."”

The section 27 referral affidavit is supposed to be the A1 complaint statement in the docket.

“My understanding is that the 27 is supposed to be your A1.”

The 27 referral is a complaint statement not currently implemented within IDAC.

“It is a complaint received, but that is my understanding. It is not implemented within IDAC.”

A draft supplementary affidavit must be added to the original complaint (A1) affidavit; you cannot have multiple A1 affidavits.

“But it cannot be a standalone affidavit, and from there, investigations flow in a different direction, or, not different direction, but investigations flow where we are taking no new A1's. But I was told that, this was told to me in 2023. I was shut down with this. When I was dealing with that specific 27 in 2023, I held the same view that the referral affidavit needs to be the A1 in the dockets. I was told that is incorrect and it is not going to happen that way.”

When an investigation has been authorised under section 28(13), a new affidavit is not necessarily required.

“No. With the previous, the 2023, I am just going to refer to it as the 2023 referral, that complainant had come with a letter and a statement, an uncommissioned statement. When the matter progressed before myself and the other prosecutor got involved, the legal representative submitted a very extensive formal affidavit, and that is in the docket. So, we received two different...”

Draft affidavits for witnesses usually come from investigating officers and prosecutors only expect drafts if the investigator indicates the person is a 204 (suspect).

“It is generally in IDAC space at the moment that people or prosecutors get draft affidavits. When most prosecutors preferred draft only if the investigating officer is suggesting that this person is a 204, then it would be a draft. But we generally, because we are prosecution led, if the investigators say he needs to consult with you and he goes to you, I will constantly be updated about what is in the draft.”

The draft affidavit preparation process involves the prosecutor being present but not assisting in drafting the witness statement directly, to avoid the prosecutor becoming a witness.

“I would not assist. I would be present. The reason I would be present is that I would be able to assist the investigating officers and the witness with regards to the structuring of the affidavit. The prosecutor is not allowed to become a witness in their own matter.”

Prosecutors are allowed to consult with witnesses under section 28, but a prosecutor must not become a witness in their own matter.

“Because of section 28, prosecutors are allowed to consult with witnesses, right. ... The prosecutor is not allowed to become a witness in their own matter.”

There was an issue regarding an investigation into a forklift which was not mentioned in the original complaint referral but appeared in the docket and supplementary affidavits.

“One of the issues that I picked up here of the one that was flighted, is there is no mention of a forklift at all, but Mr Raphes will confirm that we received, we just had to trace it, Langlaagte docket for a forklift, and it was in the 27 referral. And the supplementaries that we took was one of them for the forklift and the first three witnesses that were identified were from the forklift documents.”

Mr Raphesu's supplementary affidavit does not mention PKTT, despite it being the basis of an investigation under section 27.

“Mr Raphesu supplementary affidavit that speaks about the PKTT when the section 27 ... says nothing about the PKTT”

Investigators sometimes attempt to impose their own narratives or agendas on witnesses by pressuring them to mention certain topics in their statements.

“investigators had their own stories that they wanted to tell and they wanted to be investigated and they went to a witness and said, give me something that deals with this”

Since March 1, 2023, MS Ramsamy personally never attended consultations alone but always with at least two investigating officers or another prosecutor, as a safety net.

“since the 1st of March 2023, have never gone to a consultation without at least two investigating officers or another prosecutor and myself”

Ethics and morals generally guide prosecutors and investigators not to impose narratives on witnesses, but this is not always followed.

“ethics and morals that would guide someone not to do that ... it is not done that way”

Investigations are sometimes found outside the parameters of initial legal sections (like section 27) but are justified under other sections such as 28(13).

“may not have been in the section 27... but when we do investigations under 28(13), then we end up finding stuff, and that becomes justification...”

There was a discovery of a link between a project authorized under one docket and another, raising concerns about suspects overlapping between cases.

“I had discovered that there is a link from a project that is already authorized to another docket... the link and the suspects are glaring”

In some investigations, an addendum was used to attach new information to an existing section 28(13) without needing a new section 28 authorization.

“I asked her, should we do another new 28? So then I asked, can I not do an addendum and she said it was fine. The addendum was drafted and it was attached and filed to the original 28”

Ms Ramsamy was specifically instructed not to mention PKTT in her section 28(13) affidavit and to keep details vague.

“I was told specifically not to mention PKTT... I was told keep it vague”

Despite PKTT not being mentioned in the section 27 affidavit, its investigation was not precluded and could be pursued via a section 28(13) addendum.

“even though it is not in the section 27 affidavit... we should still investigate it... I would have still asked to do an addendum”

The names of individuals involved in the 2023 section 27 investigation were high-ranking and documents were kept deliberately vague until the investigation was completed to avoid leaks.

“the names in that investigation were so high-ranking... we kept our documents vague... until the investigation was completed... Information leaks”

Fraud and corruption in SAPS pertain to awarding tenders and contracts and circumventing procurement processes, including misuse of SSA funds.

“Fraud and corruption pertaining to awarding tenders and contracts within SAPS and circumventing procurement processes... use of the SSA fund for laundry and those things”

MS Ramsamy has done multiple section 28(13) affidavits, most of them vague as per instructions or practice.

“I have done multiple 28(13)'s ... most of them are vague as this”

High-ranking Crime Intelligence, SAPS, and political figures were alleged to have misappropriated money from SAPS and SSA and thus matters were kept vague.

“high-ranking Crime Intelligence , high-ranking SAPS , high-ranking political individuals that were alleged to have fleeted money from SAPS and SSA”

There are allegations that high-ranking Crime Intelligence, high-ranking South African Police Service (SAPS), and high-ranking political individuals allegedly misappropriated money from SAPS and the State Security Agency (SSA).

“It is high-ranking Crime Intelligence, high-ranking SAPS, high-ranking political individuals that were alleged to have fleeted money from SAPS and SSA.”

The procedure requires that section 28(13) applications (which relate to certain authorizations) must be perused by a chief before issuing any docket-related documents.

“you must run this by the Chief ... the requirement to get the ... or the instruction to get the draft affidavit and the documentation, I am assuming?”

The witness reported on 10 December 2024 that there was no substantiation in the dockets for allegations in the section 27 referral affidavit, and the correct process was not followed to consider the dockets during the section 28(13) application for authorization.

“I reported that there is no substantiation in the dockets for the allegations contained in the section 27 referral affidavit ... Had the correct process been followed, I would have considered the dockets ... when I prepared the section 28(13) application for authorization.”

Fadiel referred not only the section 7 referral affidavit but also referred existing dockets to IDAC, which was not understood by the witness that way.

“Fadiel did not only make a referral to us, Mr Adams ... but he referred those existing dockets to IDAC. I did not understand it that way.”

There was a memorandum of understanding, or referral, involving Mr Adams referred to as the section 7 referral affidavit to dockets, and Mr Perumal said one cannot have the dockets before section 8(13) is authorized.

“Mr Adams is referring in his section 7 referral affidavit to dockets and what Mr Perumal is saying is that you cannot have the dockets before the 8(13) is authorized, then you have authority to go and get the dockets.”

Between Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal, they coordinated and updated each other about everything related to the matter, and Advocate Johnson shifted her position according to Mr Perumal's wishes.

“between Advocate Johnson and Mr Perumal, they would talk to each other and update each other about everything and that is why ... she has completely changed her mind and we are now on the beat of what Mr Perumal wants.”

Advocate Johnson was the supervisor and dictator of the matter, controlling all moves in the process; no actions were taken without her knowledge between the time period involved until September 2025.

“Advocate Johnson said she was going to be the supervisor of this matter. She was the dictator of this matter. There was not a single move for the period that I was involved, right until 2025, September, there was not a single action that was done in the Medicare or the Crime Intelligence that Advocate Johnson did not know about.”

Ms Ramsamy sent Advocate Johnson a WhatsApp message on 10 December 2024 with a summary and preliminary instructions for the team but was not instructed to prepare the report.

“On the morning of the 10th of December 024, three business days after the preparatory investigation was authorized, I sent Advocate Johnson a WhatsApp message informing her that I had prepared a summary and a preliminary instruction for the team. I was not instructed to prepare this report.”

Advocate Johnson instructed Ms Ramsamy to speak to Mr Perumal urgently to issue subpoenas on Major General Lushaba's bank accounts before money could be moved, which confused Ms Ramsamy.

“Advocate Johnson told me to speak to Mr Perumal because she needed us to do our urgent subpoena s on Major General Lushaba's bank accounts before they move money. She said it should be from the time he was acting as the Divisional Commissioner to date. This instruction confused me.”

Ms Ramsamy instructed that no section 28 subpoenas should be issued without her perusal and signature, but Advocate Johnson overruled this instruction and dictated Project Diversion with Mr Perumal.

“She was instructing me to issue section 8 summonses notwithstanding my instructions to the investigators not to do so without my perusal. In effect, she overturned my instructions and this illustrates how Project Diversion was dictated by her and Mr Perumal.”

The decision to issue section 28 summonses was made by the Chief Investigator and Head of IDA, despite lack of prima facie evidence and Ms Ramsamy's concerns.

“It was clear to me that the decision had been made that the summonses would be issued if both the Chief Investigator and the Head of IDA have decided that it should be.”

Ms Ramsamy forwarded Advocate Johnson's message to a Signal group chat including Perumal, Padayachee, and Raphesu before calling Mr Perumal as instructed.

“Before I called Mr Perumal, I forwarded Advocate Johnson's message to a Signal group chat with Perumal, Padayachee and Raphesu in the group. Thereafter, I called Mr Perumal as instructed.”

Urgent summons for bank records do not prevent dissipation of funds and only show movement of funds unless there is evidence of intent to dissipate, which Ms Ramsamy found lacking.

“The bank records would merely show the movement of the funds. It would have been different if we had evidence that there was an attempt to dissipate the funds and sought an urgent order to freeze the account. If there was a prima facie case, obtaining bank statements on an urgent basis would serve no purpose.”

Advocate Johnson had received information alleging that R50 million was being moved from the Secret Service account, prompting urgent summonses for Major General Lushaba's bank account.

“He said that Advocate Johnson had received information that funds in the amount of 50 million from the Secret Service account was being moved. As stated above, the movement of funds being the reason for urgent summons for bank statements simply did not make sense to me.”

The section 28 (13) docket was not authorized with a CIN number initially; the CIN number is an internal inquiry reference issued when the docket is signed off.

“If I remember correctly, they had not been, it was only later on that a CIN number was allocated to the matter. ... A CIN number is our internal inquiry reference number. We generally do not even use the CAS numbers where they are already authorized. But because I did not have a CIN number and we were in possession of dockets, but it did not make sense which docket to use, I had asked her to advise.”

The section 28 (13) summons is supposed to be issued only after it is signed off and there was no project manager included in the team when it was signed on 6 December, which indicates faulty process.

“The CIN number is supposed to be issued on the day that the 28 (13) is signed off. ... If you look at the composition of the team on the 28 (13) signed on the 6th of December, there is not a project manager. The project manager is only allocated after everything is done and that is why I say the whole process of this 28 (13), using Chair's favourite word, is "deurmekaar".”

Project management communication typically does not involve direct email contact with Advocate Johnson; documents go through deputy director or project manager before reaching Advocate Johnson's PA for signature and dissemination.

“when a project manager is allocated to the projects, as is with most projects, I would not even have direct email with Advocate Johnson. It would go to the DD, or me to the project manager... Then from the deputy director to the project manager ... The project manager would then take the documents to Advocate Johnson's PA. And then once it is signed, Advocate Johnson's PA would let the project manager know, he would collect it, he would scan it, and it would be disseminated amongst the team.”

The 'Diversion' project name originated as code to conceal the nature of the case using section 28 CI register to keep the investigation secretive within the system and process.

“I was thinking that we call this matter Diversion. Then we follow the register. Say Diversion and then no one knows what it is and we are using our system sin process.”

Advocate Johnson supervised certain special projects not following ordinary SOPs and titled them as Matter X, Project Golden, and Section 41(6) investigation into internal people within IDAC.

“Projects that ran out of Advocate Johnson's office that were not within the ordinary SOP's, the ones that Advocate Johnson supervised herself, she gave titles to, Matter X, Project Golden, there is even a project, Section 41(6), which she is investigating internal people within IDAC.”

A specific investigation under Section 41(6) relates to one person suspected as a suspect, with documents used to obtain bank statements and cellphone records of multiple employees including M S Ramsamy.

“One person being named as the suspect, but I am also aware because I had handed the documents to the DPCI officer through the protected disclosure that I was busy with prior to this happening. That CIN number was used to obtain bank statements and cell phone records of multiple employees, including myself.”

Section 41(6) refers to a provision of the NPA Act that prevents disclosure of information without authorization from the National Director of Public Prosecution, indicating strict confidentiality in the investigation.

“Section 41(6) of the NPA Act prevents a member or employee or service provider or contractor to NPA from divulging information without the authorization of the National Director of Public Prosecution. It is a certificate that is given to a person where we are, for example, now speaking about WhatsApp's, emails, that are internal.”

Section 28 provisions have been abused, including authorizing investigations, over a period of time.

“The reason I am bringing this up is to illustrate how section 28 has been abused. And I am not just talking about 28(6) and (7), I am talking about just authorizing investigations has been abused for the past...”

Following day, Mr. Raphesu sent a WhatsApp message raising concerns about stalling summonses until consultation with complainant due to affidavits not constituting a case.

“The following day, 11 December 2024, Mr Raphesu sent me a WhatsApp message to raise the same concerns I had. If forwarded this message to Advocate Johnson. Essentially, Mr Raphesu suggested that we stall or park the summonses until we had consulted with the complainant because his affidavits simply did not set out a case.”

Dylan indicated he had spoken to the complainant prior to preparation of the summons and associated documents.

“Dylan had indicated that he had spoken to the complainant.”

Evidence in possession of witness includes documents shared in confidence by complainant, potentially leading to identifying further witnesses or sources for investigation.

“He does have documents in his possession, which I understand were shared with him in confidence. I am of the view that we should request the same from him during our meeting. He might put us in touch with possible witnesses or sources to further our investigation.”

Affidavits referred to as section 28 affidavits are not drafted properly and require consultation with the complainant to improve them.

“these affidavits are not drafted properly. We need to consult with him so that we may be in a better position to do same.”

Consultation with Mr Adams regarding the affidavits is set for 19 December in Gauteng to allow better preparation of summonses.

“the consultation is set for the 19th of December in Gauteng, GP”

Affidavits referred to are the A1 affidavits in the docket, distinct from section 27 affidavits or later affidavits from January 2025.

“He would have been referring to the affidavits, the A1 affidavits in the dockets.”

Affidavits (A1) were copied for concerned parties so they could follow the progress and not just originals kept for work off.

“I had made copies for all parties' concerns so that they could follow as to what was happening, and it did not make sense for the original to be them not to have copies of them to work off.”

The consultation with the complainant regarding Section 28 summonses was scheduled for 9 December 2024 in Gauteng.

“the consultation with the complainant was scheduled for the 9th of December 2024 in the Gauteng”

A project manager position was vacant at the time of summons preparation and only filled around February or March 2025.

“At that point there was no project manager. ... The project manager comes onboard around February, March.”