Witness: Adv Andrea Johnson. Evidence Leaders: Adv M Sello SC.
Loading transcript text…
Certain Generals, mainly three Generals named General Khumalo, Lekalakala, and an unnamed third General, were suspected of misappropriating Crime Intelligence Slush Funds.
“certain Generals , mainly the three Generals , General Khumalo , Lekalakala , the third one escapes me now , were misappropriating Crime Intelligence Slush Funds”
An inquiry file exists concerning manipulation of appointment processes, intending to appoint individuals other than Brigadier Mokwele.
“inquiry file containing all relevant information pertaining to the alleged manipulation of appointment processes with a view to appointing individuals other than Brigadier Mokwele”
An arrest warrant had been issued but suspended in June related to the matter involving Brigadier Mokwele.
“warrant of arrest had been issued but suspended in June”
There was an ongoing investigation into alleged manipulation of security vetting processes, recruitment, and employment regarding persons within Crime Intelligence including Brigadier Mokwele.
“complaint about manipulation of security vetting processes , but then it goes further to talk about recruitment and employment and manipulation in respect of other people besides Brigadier Mokwele”
The investigation involving Brigadier Mokwele's case is still in its investigation phase, operating under CIN reference number, not yet registered as a docket.
“the inquiry file contains evidence , documentation ... it has not been registered as a docket . That is why it still operates under the CIN number”
All A1 statements provided by Honourable Adams MP as at January 2025 have been obtained and furnished to the Commission.
“all A1 statements provided by Honourable Adams MP as at January 2025 ... I obtained them from the investigating team on Friday ... The copies have been handed as they were furnished”
The investigation relates to manipulation of security vetting processes leading to unlawful issuing of security clearances within the Crime Intelligence division of the South African Service.
“This investigation pertains to manipulation of security vetting processes, which resulted in the unlawful issuing of security clearances in favour of personnel within the division Crime Intelligence of the South African Service.”
At the time the summons was signed, the investigating body IDAC had evidence based on a section 27 referral and supplementary affidavits from January 2025.
“According to me, it would have had to have been the section 27 referral and it would have had to have been the supplementary affidavits that had been taken in January of 2025.”
The section 27 referral expresses only suspicion of crime commission without supporting facts, and therefore any conclusions must rely on subsequent supplementary statements.
“We know that our section 27 only expresses a suspicion of the commission of this crime without any underlying facts to support such a suspicion. So the answer then must lie in the subsequent supplements that were received.”
If supplementary statements do not support claims of crime commission, it becomes problematic to conclude that a crime has been committed or contemplated.
“My question then is, what must the Commission do if it lands at a position where the supplementary statements do not support a claim such as reflected here, that on reading both the section 27 and the relevant supplementary statement, one cannot reasonably conclude that a crime such as reflected here has even been committed or contemplated.”
The summons document requests complete applications for security clearances and vetting files for various officers including General Khumalo, General Lushaba and General Madondo, despite documentation gaps in IDAC's records at the time.
“This summons effectively asks for complete applications for security clearances and vetting files for the officers listed therein, starting with General Khumalo, in respect of all the ranks he has held, starting with the Brigadier, Major General and Lieutenant General, and the pattern repeats itself. ... I think he is mentioned by name in the section 27 referral. So is General Lushaba and General Madondo. ... we have that problem of names that do not appear from documentation that IDAC has at the moment it takes this drastic step, appearing in, you know, in such documents as these summonses.”
The summons documents were drafted by investigators including Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee and possibly Mr Mantsha, with Investigator Mlambo also assigned inquiries.
“These would have been drafted by an investigator. It could have been Mr Perumal or Mr Padayachee. ... And or perhaps Mr Mantsha. ... At the bottom of 936, it does say at the bottom there was also one of the investigators assigned was Investigator Mlambo.”
The Van Vuuren referred to in the investigation is a Crime Intelligence officer already within the department and is not the Van Vuuren who applied for a job with Mrs Mokwele.
“Van Vuuren referred to here is a Crime Intelligence officer already within Crime Intelligence. It is not the Van Vuuren that applied for the job with Mrs Mokwele.”
A person named Brigadier Dobie is included in the list, but the identity and role of this person is unclear and may relate to providing documents rather than being investigated.
“I have not come across Dobie, because they read exactly the same as the other. Sorry, yes, it reads the same.”
Brigadier Ncube was part of the panel that recommended Brigadier Mokwele for appointment.
“We have since come to learn that Brigadier Ncube at item 1.4 was involved in the panel that recommended Brigadier Mokwele for appointment.”
The investigation file should provide a clear understanding of why certain officers were included in the summons.
“when we do get that investigation file, we will have a clear understanding of the basis on which these officers were selected to be included in the summons”
The summons authorizing the ID to investigate certain Crime Intelligence officers is prepared by specific individuals (Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee, Mr Mantha, or Mr Mlambo).
“either Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee, Mr Mantha, or Mr Mlambo prepared this”
The person who drafts a summons briefs the ID on the necessity of the summons as part of the investigation, specifically relating to manipulation of security vetting.
“the person who issues or drafts the summons would come and brief the ID on, we need to issue a summons to this person, part of the investigation relates to them manipulation of the security vetting”
The ultimate authorizer of the summons (the ID) must also ensure satisfaction with the contents and evidence supporting the summons before signing.
“It would have to be you as well. Ultimately, you are the person that authorised. Only your signature appears here, not this other person that you are referring to. So we, as we sit here, look to you to furnish the information that you say someone else would have to furnish”
If no basis is found in the file for allegations against certain officers, this raises a legal issue for IDAC and the Commission.
“if we find that there is no basis for what is contained in Annexure B against these officers, what does that mean for IDAC and the Commission and the law?”
The person compiling the summons must indicate the source and basis of the names included for investigation.
“the person who compiled the summons would have to indicate where they have got this from if it is not in the file, and what was the base document upon which these names were extracted and or identified and the basis”
ADV Johnson accepted that he was satisfied with the briefing given by investigators regarding the investigation and the necessity of the summons, even if he did not ask for the underlying documents himself.
“I was satisfied with the briefing that I was given, that as an investigation team, they identified that this is the investigation that is outstanding, this is what they require for the investigation, and this is what it is that must be subpoenaed”
ADV Johnson acknowledged that by signing the summons, he implicitly trusted the investigators and opened himself up to potential manipulation since he relied on their briefing and did not independently verify evidence.
“you open yourself up for potential manipulation by some of your investigators because you trust them implicitly”
There was a basis to investigate allegations that General Khumalo's security clearances were a result of manipulation of vetting processes from Brigadier level upward.
“there was a basis to investigate whether General Khumalo's security clearance given when he was a Brigadier was a result of manipulation of your vetting process”
Colonel Padayachee testified before the Commission that the investigation was confined to the recommendation and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele and he could not account for how other names got included in the summons.
“Colonel Padayachee appeared before the Commission and was engaged on this document testified that this investigation was confined to the recommendation and appointment of Brigadier Mokwele... he could not account for how the names of 1.1 to 1.5 and 1.7 found its way into this summons”
The investigative team collectively compiles subpoena lists and shares responsibility for the names included, not just Colonel Padayachee alone.
“the[y] sit, they compile these subpoenas and they identify as a team what is required... It is a bit difficult to divorce yourself when you are part of a team... they would have to agree as a team”
The offences listed in document 937 include fraud and corruption.
“if you look at 937 and the offences listed there, it is fraud and corruption in the bullet points”
There was a generalised Section 27 referral suggesting that all Colonels in Crime Intelligence were unsuitable for their posts but did not specify fraud or corruption in vetting and clearances.
“my recollection of the section 27 is that he was saying all the Colonels in Crime Intelligence are not suitable. I do not remember seeing anywhere in that section 27 where he says their security clearances and their vetting were tainted with fraud and corruption”
There is no referral relating to vetting or security clearances being tainted with fraud and corruption for the ranks of Colonel, Brigadier, and Major General.
“But there is no referral relating to their vetting or their security clearance being tainted with fraud and corruption”
The vetting problem is mainly related to Mokwele, and the reference to Major General Lushaba involves a separate issue about a housebreaking and a laptop.
“so it is the Mokwele issue where the vetting is a problem. And then reference to Lushaba is in paragraph 6 on 514 is the issue of the housebreaking and the laptop”
Section 28 summons are not legally supported by the evidence in the Section 27 affidavit and associated A1 statements, making any investigation arising from these summons legally problematic.
“Then the investigation is problematic. Whatever follows is problematic.”
Allegation that persons manipulated their own security status, including falsifying affidavits related to vetting.
“the person put in false affidavits about material requirements towards vetting”
There was manipulation and lying by a person involved in vetting processes, accepted by others who engaged in the interrogation process.
“persons who ought to have interrogated and or engaged the process and to have picked up during this process that the person had manipulated and or lied”
One person misrepresented information to another in the CAS vetting process, raising a question whether the second person knowingly approved the vetting despite untruths and manipulation.
“one of them misrepresented certain information to the other and the other did whatever they did to approve the vetting”
Chief Perumal solicited a section 27 affidavit which landed on Advocate Johnson's desk and is the only one he worked with.
“this one that we have been dealing with you say was delivered to, was solicited by Chief Perumal and then eventually landed on your desk and that is the only one you have worked with”
Section 3.13 authorization related to investigation covers "any and all individuals or entities whose identities are currently unknown but which may become known during the course of the investigation" and grants investigators some latitude, but it does not imply that all named individuals are implicated in a crime.
“any and all individuals or entities whose identities are currently unknown but which may be come known during the course of this investigation... it is not limitless... it does not go further to say that they are implicated in whatever crime is being investigated”
Section 3.13 authorization is open to abuse if not controlled properly, as it allows investigators to investigate potentially anyone named without prior justification approved by the repository of authority.
“3.13 is very much open to abuse if you are not controlling it, if they do not come back to you to justify... it means people will be included without it being justified to you who gave the authority”
Investigators may conduct investigations of individuals not authorized by the person being questioned and possibly unrelated to the subject matter.
“they may well be conducting investigations of individuals that are not authorized by you and that may possibly not be related to a subject matter”
Once an investigation is commenced, Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) is alerted and invited to participate so they can determine whether the offences involve proceeds of crime and whether they should be taken forward.
“once an investigation is commenced with, we will send or we will invite Asset Forfeiture into know that there is a new investigation ... their purpose is then to determine ... whether or not the offences as they are, deal with the proceeds of crime and whether or not that must be taken forward”
The Asset Forfeiture Unit is routinely notified of investigations and makes an assessment at the end of the investigation whether a recovery is possible either civilly or criminally.
“every investigation you alert the AFU that you are conducting that investigation ... they will make an assessment at the end ... many matters ... there is not a recovery to be made either in terms of the civil and or the criminal recovery ... but it is practice ... we do refer matters to Asset Forfeiture ... to determine proceeds of crime or instruments of criminality”
The SIU is invited to assist where there are issues of procurement and/or contracts to determine legitimacy of contracts and decide on further criminal investigations or recouping money for the department.
“we also invite SIU where there are issues of procurement and/or contracts ... they do assist us ... determine legitimacy of those contracts ... SIU is able to deal with that contract ... recouping the money ... because that is generally part of that mandate”
Allegations of fraud and corruption related to awarding tenders and contracts involve Generals Khumalo, Madondo, and Lushaba suspected of manipulating procurement processes according to Mr Adams.
“Mr Adams says he suspects that General Khumalo, Generals Khumalo, Madondo and Lushaba were manipulating procurement processes”
Allegations concerning abuse of secret service funds refer to unlawful usage unrelated to procurement.
“He talks to the unlawful use of the, unlawful access and use of the secret funds and the purpose for which those funds are accessed ... he does not talk to procurement ...”
Mr Adams suspects that secret service funds were taken unlawfully and given to former Police Minister Bheki Cele.
“His suspicion that the funds ... became taken unlawfully from the secret funds account to be given to the former Police Minister, Minister Bheki Cele”
Investigation files related to Mr Adams' complaint include investigation of procurement of contracts.
“Part of the file that must be made available is a complaint that was lodged by Mr Adams ... that is where the investigations lie in terms of the procurement of contracts ...”
Investigations relating to specific tenders and contracts arising from the Section 27 referral are documented in a file currently under inquiry and not in the dockets handed over.
“That is a file that is still under inquiry ... It is not in the dockets that were handed over ... tenders or contracts that you investigate or you are investigating as a result of this section 27 referral”
The 360 million SAPS contract awarded to Medicare 24 is different and unrelated to the Langlaagte contracts.
“Medicare was a separate section 27 referral all on its own and unrelated.”
There is a file dealing with Langlaagte and with contracts and procurement that is awaited for inquiry purposes.
“That is the file we are waiting for.”
There is an inquiry into the Langlaagte complaint.
“That is correct.”
Documents regarding Langlaagte contracts should contain signatures from Advocate Manilala or Advocate Ramsami but the document before the Commission lacks these signatures and instead is signed only by Advocate Johnson, which is unusual.
“It is recommended that , there was supposed to be a signature either from Advocate Manilala or Ramsami , and then for me to be able to agree and sign off the ... That is correct ... Their signature , space for me to comment , and then the signature that followed on 3311 ... That is how normally they would be within IDAC ? That is correct ... I honestly cannot tell you why , but it is different ... The lack of signature ... Yes ... And with full application of mind , you though it appropriate to sign ... Advocate Ramsami ... She brought this application to me on the th . We went through the application , and I then signed the application ... I did apply my mind to the recommendation , the signature notwithstanding ... I can confirm it is not , but I take the point that you are making about how it comes across ...”
The document originated from Advocates Manilala and Ramsami but lacked their signatures, which is unusual compared to normal IDAC practice where their signature and space for comments is expected before approval/sign off by others.
“I hear you , but the document does come from them , with the date . It just did not have the signature . But I take your point . It is done , in IDAC they do put it in a memorandum request , and it is usually signed , there is space for comment , and then form to indicate whether approved or not approved , and then the application is also attached .”
There was a hive of activity on the 6th of December 2024 relating to follow-up on the CJC 3905 authorization, including letters sent to Lieutenant General Mbuso Khumalo and General Senthumele requesting dockets.
“following this authorization that we are dealing with that CJC3905 , page 307 , on that particular day , as well , there was a hive of activity . Two letters written to , I think it is Lieutenant General Mbuso Khumalo , requesting the dockets . A letter to General Senthumule . Your authorization of the panel , the designated members to look into this , and the presentation of himself by Mr Rapetsua and the Inspectorate to go obtain the dockets . The 6th of December was a busy day .”
The document in question was not drafted or compiled by Advocate Johnson, but was presented to her for consideration and signing.
“It was not my document ... I did not compile the document ... The document was presented.”
The tracing and investigation of missing dockets is urgent to determine their whereabouts and register an investigation.
“The tracing of the docket su rgen t, y es... The investigation is now registered in terms of 28 (13), and the first exercise out of that in order to go forward is to trace the dockets.”
There is disagreement over the urgency of the investigation, with Adv Sello questioning the relevance of the missing dockets to the complaint and investigation urgency.
“I do not understand why. The referral is not referring a complaint of interception. We settled that one... My suggestion is the dockets become completely irrelevant. This is a new complaint that must be substantiated on its own terms.”
The allegation by Adams concerns missing dockets, leading to a referral and registration of an investigation under section 28(13).
“The dockets, the allegation by Adams is the dockets are already missing. We are given a referral. We need to register an investigation. The investigation is now registered in terms of 28 (13)”
Adv Sello and Brigadier, possibly Colonel Padayachee, discussed the urgency of obtaining the dockets with the military liaison.
“We did not touch on it, although we dealt with it with Brigadier, with Colonel Padayachee about the urgency of obtaining these dockets...”
Investigators found out on the day that the dockets must be in Gauteng and had to follow up by contacting Major General Khumalo, who indicated where the dockets were stored in a safe, but they were only available on the following Monday.
“We found out on that day that the dockets must be in Gauteng... we write to Major General Khumalo. He gives an indication of where the dockets are. ... it happened in a phased approach... when the destination of the dockets was determined... they were in a safe and that they were with a specific general, we went back on Monday.”
The Commission needs to update exhibit files due to potentially contradictory documents filed by Advocate Johnson that require review before testimony.
“... it has become necessary for the Commission to update the exhibit files, because we have what could potentially be documents contradicting the very documents she has filed and I was moving on to that topic now.”
The files and documents labelled CJC 392, 393, and 394 were updated and provided by the witness pursuant to subpoenas, with some documents requiring consultation between Mr Bodlani and the witness.
“The documents provided by the witness pursuant to the request and the various subpoenas, are attached as CJC 392... The documents we have just added that required Mr Bodlani to consult with the witness are then CJC 394...”
Mr Bodlani confirmed that contradictory documents sought must be made available immediately for review and conferment with Advocate Johnson and legal team.
“I made a request to those instructing me, that every document that had been sought must be made available immediately... During the adjournment, Ms Sello confirmed to me that she is going to deal with some of those documents. The witness herself was shocked to learn that they are contradictory documents.”
There were issues with the filing order of documents in file 9, specifically with CJC 393, and counsel has proposed reordering pages to make sense of them.
“We ran copies of CJC 393 as received. But on a proper consideration thereof, it would appear that they were not filed in order. So I have tried to make some sense of them and I suggest the pages be moved around. Advocate Johnson will confirm if I am correct.”
The page numbering in CJC documents is confusing, with overlapping or duplicate A1 brackets, causing uncertainty about the correct sequence.
“So the 3466, if you look at the top, it has got an A1 and a little one in brackets... 3468 has got an A1 and a little two in brackets... 3470 seems to be an A1 with a little three in brackets...”
There is a report by Lieutenant General Jacobs annexed to MK 15 at page 275 correlating Orlando and Cape Town dockets, identifying specific docket numbers in Cape Town.
“We have the report by General Jacobs... annexed to MK 15, page 275. ...this is the report by Lieutenant General Jacobs. ... it sets out a useful table. And that correlates the Cape Town dockets with the Orlando dockets. ... three Cape Town dockets, 1650, 1651, and 1653, referred to in blocks.”
The cover-up was allegedly paid for by misusing secret Service account funds and involved buying new equipment for Major General Lushaba.
“The prostitute was paid for her silence using money from these secret Service account, new equipment was bought for Major General Lushaba, by again abusing the secret Service account.”
Evidence exists supporting the claim of the cover-up involving Major General Lushaba's missing equipment and the use of secret Service accounts for bribery and equipment purchase.
“Evidence to this effect is available.”
Major General Lushaba's Sunnyside case of robbery involving official state firearm, laptop, and cellphone was covered up by instructing officials to ensure no investigation took place.
“A cover-up of Major General Lushaba's Sunnyside case of robbery, whereby official state firearm, laptop and cellphone was stolen, after acquiring the services of a prostitute on 5 August 2022, Lieutenant General Khumalo instructed Major Lekalakala and Brigadier... to ensure that there would be no investigation into the conduct of General Lushaba, as per Villieria case 38/8/22. The prostitute was paid for her silence using money from these secret Service account, new equipment was bought for Major General Lushaba, by again abusing the secret Service account. Evidence to this effect is available.”
Lieutenant General Khumalo neglected protocol and instructed Major Lekalakala and Brigadier Monyane not to conduct investigations against General Lushaba regarding the cover-up.
“It appears that suspect, Lieutenant General Khumalo from SAPS secret Services, neglected protocol and instructed Major General Lekalakala and Brigadier Monyane to not conduct investigations against General Lushaba.”
The appointment of General Khumalo as Head of Crime Intelligence nationally was highly questionable and involved the former Minister of Police, Bheki Cele, while several highly skilled generals within Crime Intelligence were overlooked.
“The allegations relate to the highly questionable appointment of General Khumalo as the Head of Crime Intelligence nationally. The former Minister of Police, Bheki Cele, was also involved in this, while several high-skilled generals within CI were overlooked.”
General Khumalo's vetting processes were allegedly fast-tracked by General Masemola who knew Khumalo did not have a top secret clearance for many years, potentially indicating unlawful conduct.
“Khumalo's vetting processes were allegedly fast-tracked by Masemola, who knew that Khumalo did not have a top secret clearance for many years. I suspect that the vetting processes were manipulated in favour of Khumalo as well.”
An allegation of fraudulent and corrupt conduct related to the questionable lateral transfer of Major General Madondo from KZN to Crime Intelligence Head Office by Lieutenant General Khumalo, assisted by other senior generals, who knew she failed top-secret clearance for many years.
“On about early October 2024 , I received information anonymously surrounding alleged fraud and corruption being perpetrated within the Division Crime Intelligence of the SAPS, the allegations related to the questionable lateral transfer of Major General Madondo from KZN to CI Head Office by Lieutenant General Khumalo, who was assisted by other senior Generalsto do so, knowing that she failed a top-secret clearance for many years.”
Failing to have security clearance at a specific rank is against internal requirements and does not allow occupying that rank, potentially contravening the Intelligence Services Act and the Standing Order of the SAPS.
“They are all supposed to have security clearances as per their own internal requirements, and that not having security clearance at a specific rank does not allow you to occupy that rank.”
Only the vetting clearances of General Khumalo and General Madondo are questioned, not of other listed generals such as Madondo, Lekalakala, Van Vuuren, Bobby, and Ncube.
“In these, the vetting that has been questioned is that of General Khumalo and General Madondo. ... We account for only two ... whose vetting clearances are questioned.”
The fast-tracking of vetting by Commissioner Masemola may constitute fraud since certain processes like background, financial and other checks cannot happen in three days, indicating potential contravention.
“The likelihood ... is that in the manner in which it is done, there could be fraud having been committed, because there are certain processes that happen and it cannot happen in three days. There is checks ... it would mean either something fraudulent happened... the bypassing of the vetting would be a contravention then in terms of the intelligence services.”
General Khumalo is facing charges and potential arrest under case 453/06/2025 related to vetting issues; however, the arrest warrant that was suspended relates to General Madondo's vetting issue and related fraud, not Khumalo's own vetting.
“We know that General Khumalo is facing charges and potential arrest under case 453/06/2025 and that is pertaining to the vetting issue. The warrant of arrest that was suspended relates to the vetting issue of General Madondo. Not General Khumalo's own vetting. It relates to a role he played allegedly in that contravention and the fraud related to that vetting.”
The warrant issued for General Madondo relates to alleged fraudulent documents made by her and not solely about the vetting process itself.
“It would only be the fraud relating to the alleged fraudulent documents, remarks, etcetera that would have been made by General Madondo.”
It is suggested that IDAC is preparing charges and an arrest for former Minister Bheki Cele and General Masemola for General Khumalo's vetting shortcomings.
“IDAC is preparing to charge and arrest former Minister Bheki Cele and General Masemola for General Khumalo's own vetting shortcomings.”
The warrant applications are compiled by investigators who sit with prosecutors and then checked by the prosecutors and their deputy.
“they sit with the prosecutors and they then compile those applications for the warrants. They are checked by the prosecutors and by the deputy in that team.”
Advocate Johnson states he is not involved in the warrant process but is briefed beforehand that there is an impending arrest.
“Not in the warrant process. We are then briefed afterwards that, or before the warrant is executed, sorry, Chair, before it is executed, we are then briefed that there is an impending arrest.”
Advocate Johnson does not currently have the cases but agrees logically charging former Minister Bheki Cele and General Masemola for Khumalo's vetting failures should follow.
“I am not vested with the cases at the moment, but that logic does follow.”
It is inappropriate to investigate and potentially arrest former Minister Bheki Cele and General Masemola solely for General Khumalo's lack of vetting clearance without evidence that Khumalo lacked clearance, a prerequisite for his appointment.
“Is it appropriate to follow that line of investigation, culminating in potential charges and arrest, based on what you have at 3475? No, unless they fall within other offences that are not here. It does not have other offences thus far.”
Statements commissioned by Mr. Perumal dated 6 January 2025 relate to the issue under discussion, with signature and location discrepancies noted between Pretoria and Cape Town offices.
“And this is a statement that was commissioned by Mr Perumal on the 6th of January 2025... ...the practice of being signed both at Pretoria and Cape Town.”
The Commissioner of Oaths signs statements with full names, office, station address, and agency, but errors occur with inconsistent dates and duplicate signatures in Pretoria and Cape Town.
“They sign their full names, their office, the address of where they are stationed and the agency for which they work... ...typical error of being signed both at Pretoria and Cape Town. It is consistent, that error, through all of them.”
IDAC only has a national office in Pretoria, which explains why the official signatures mention Pretoria despite some statements being signed in Cape Town.
“IDAC only has a national office which is Pretoria...”
IDAC has a charge sheet listing fraud and corruption offences relating to the case of Major General Madondo and General Khumalo.
“At 3478, it lists fraud and corruption as the offences...”
General Madondo was laterally transferred from KZN to Crime Intelligence head office by Lt General Khumalo despite having failed to secure top clearance for many years.
“The allegations relate to the questionable lateral transfer of Major General Madondo from KZN to CI Head office by Lieutenant General Khumalo, who was assisted by other senior generals to do so, knowing she had failed to secure a top clearance for many years.”
There is no suggestion that Major General Madondo committed fraud by misrepresenting her clearance status or position.
“There is no suggestion that she committed fraud by misrepresenting or otherwise her clearance position or status.”
IDAC is investigating fraud related to Major General Madondo’s lateral transfer, specifically allegations she committed fraud to obtain the transfer, but the charge is not mentioned in the discussed paragraph.
“I understand that that which is being investigated in 43/6/2025, is fraud committed in getting, she committed fraud...”
IDAC is investigating charges recommending arrest for General Madondo and General Khumalo in June 2026 under CAS 543/6/2025.
“If you look at 3481 and 3482, that is Brooklyn CAS 543/6/2025, and that is the CAS that then refers to Madondo and Khumalo.”
The charges for applying for a J15 arrest warrant are considered finalised and cast in stone at the time of application.
“By the time we apply for an arrest warrant, the charges are finalised... So those are more or less cast in stone.”
There is an ongoing fraud investigation into Major General Madondo related to her alleged fraudulent conduct to obtain a lateral transfer.
“There was in fact a fraud investigation that was undertaken, given her own fraudulent, allegedly fraudulent conduct.”
Advocate Johnson cannot disclose the details of the fraud Major General Madondo is said to have committed without casting aspersions on a matter pending review.
“I have the answer, but I am unable to answer it without casting aspersions on General Madondo on a matter that is still pending review.”
Mr Adams received information about General Madondo's security clearance application from documents pushed under his door in Parliament, which was not lawfully obtained.
“In his affidavit ... he says: “I attach hereto documents which were pushed under my office door at Parliament, and which relate to Madondo's application.””
The information was physically put under Advocate Baloyi's door, evidencing that it was not properly obtained.
“It was put under my door, so we know he did not get it properly.”
The information about Madondo's security clearance was Crime Intelligence information that was not lawfully given to Mr Adams.
“It is Crime Intelligence information, he did not get it lawfully ... and he is telling your investigator ... that this was not given to me by General Madondo.”
If a document is classified, Mr Adams should not have been in possession of it, and if it is not classified it is less problematic but still a concern because it contains personal information.
“If the document is, in fact, a classified document, there are two things. One, Mr Adams should not have been in possession of the classified document. If it is not a classified document ... it is still a problem ... it contains personal information of a person.”
Mr Adams is in possession of Crime Intelligence documents that are not in the public domain and were not lawfully obtained.
“Those steps would be against Mr Adams for being in possession of Crime Intelligence documents that are not ... in the public domain.”
The procedure for obtaining complainant statements involves ensuring that the statement commissioned is genuinely from the witness and not drafted by the investigator.
“The check and balance that we have sought ... is to ensure that it is not one investigator going down to take a statement... It has to be read back to the witness, and when the witness agrees, the statement is signed and commissioned.”
There is a risk that an investigator who dislikes a complainant might unduly influence the statement commissioned against that complainant's interest.
“You can see the danger of an investigator who does not like a Sandile Khumalo finding a complainant and say ... I will commission it for you and on the basis of the very statement I will then commence an investigation against the person that I do not like.”
Mr Adams is also being charged in the same investigation concerning unauthorized access to intelligence documents as General Madondo.
“If General Madondo not having that clearance certificate poses a risk... equally too must Mr Adams... handling documents seemingly that come from Crime Intelligence and for which he does not have lawful access...”
General Madondo was given a lateral transfer without top secret clearance, posing a risk to Crime Intelligence (CI), South African Police Service (SAPS), and the country, according to an IDAC charge.
“We know the complaint is that she got this lateral transfer without a top clearance, top secret clearance certificate. At paragraph 3 it states: "Madondo poses a risk to CI, the SAPS and the country."”
General Madondo was charged by IDAC as part of an investigation into unauthorized possession of intelligence documents.
“I D A C charged General Madondo in terms of CAS 453/06/2025...”
General Madondo was arrested in connection to this contravention but not by IDAC directly; IDAC sought his arrest.
“He is arrested I think amongst others for this contravention... Not by IDAC... It is IDAC who sought to arrest General Madondo.”
General Madondo and Mr Adams do not have top secret clearance certificates but are handling intelligence documents they are not authorized to access, posing risks.
“General Madondo not having that clearance certificate poses a risk to CI, the SAPS and the country... equally too must Mr Adams. You agreed that he does not have a top secret clearance certificate, and yet he is handling documents seemingly that come from Crime Intelligence and for which he does not have lawful access or authorised access.”
IDAC possesses documents marked FA 1 related to Madondo's application for security clearance, which Mr Adams says were shoved under his door at Parliament.
“Mr Adams says... those which relate to Madondo's application for security clearance marked FA 1. That tells me that IDAC has those documents. They are within IDAC.”
Mr Perumal commissioned an affidavit on 6 January 2025 related to the Far 1 annexure, but he is currently unavailable due to hospitalization.
“This affidavit was commissioned by Mr Perumal on the 6th of January 2025... I have been informed that he is not well. He was hospitalized during the course of the past weekend...”
Statements related to break-in at General Lushaba's house were commissioned by Mansà Robert Rapetsu on 6 January 2025 in Cape Town.
“This statement I see is commissioned by Mansà Robert Rapetsu in Cape Town on the 6th of January 2025... regarding the break-in at General Lushaba’s house.”
Investigators Advocate Ramsamy, Investigator Rapetsu, and Investigator Perumal went to Cape Town on 6 January 2025 to obtain statements from Mr Adams, gathering around five statements.
“Advocate Ramsamy, Investigator Rapetsu, Investigator Perumal, went to Cape Town on the 6th of January... obtained statements from Mr Adams... I think five in total.”
Two sets of statements purporting to be commissioned by Mr Perumal do not speak to each other and the witnesses say they do not know these statements.
“the witnesses say they do not know the statements purported to be commissioned by Mr Perumal”
Statements commissioned by Mr Perumal concerning investigations in Cape Town on 6 January 2025 are considered post-fact fabrications, disavowed by both witnesses and attributed solely to Mansà Robert Rapetsu.
“The statements commissioned by Mr Perumal are a post-fact fabrication. Both witnesses disavow the validity of all these statements... they were all commissioned by Mr Rapetsu.”
Statements CJC394 were challenged in validity by witnesses through short voice notes explaining their non-recognition and inconsistencies.
“both have provided short voice notes to explain why it is they challenge the validity of these documents commissioned by Mr Perumal”
Statement 3485 was commissioned by Rapetsu and provided by the witness, not post-factum and distinct from those commissioned by Mr Perumal.
“485 was commissioned by Rapetsu, so should it not be part of CJC 394... 3485 was provided by the witness ... No. It is only those commissioned by Mr Perumal”
Advocates Ramsamy and Investigator Rapetsu took two different statements on the same day, which witnesses say is unlikely as they were together, challenging the legitimacy of the date and signature on some affidavits.
“why would two investigating officers sitting in the same boardroom have taken two different statements on the same day? ... The A1 was not taken in my presence and it could not have been taken on the 6th of January ... Someone was trying to jigga it... it looks like someone was trying to jigga it”
Only four statements were taken on the 6th of January 2025 despite claims of an A1 statement taken that day; the A1 statement was not taken in the presence of Advocate Ramsamy and could not have been taken that day as corroborated by travel and meal observations.
“I can confirm that in my presence, there was only four statements taken ... The A1 was not taken in my presence, and it could not have been taken on the 6th January ... we all travelled together and all meals were done together ... When exactly would Perumal have taken the statements on the 6th if we were together?”
Mr Perumal's commissioning of statements involved signatures that appear to have been tampered with, described as 'jigga'd'.
“he said the signatures were jigga’d, means they were tampered with or they are not a true reflection of Mr Adams 's signature”
Witnesses testifying to CJC394 deny knowledge of statements commissioned by Mr Perumal and state Mr Perumal took statements from Mr Adams, not on 6 January 2025 but at other times when Mr Adams and Rapetsu were together.
“they deny any knowledge of those statements as commissioned by Mr Perumal ... it definitely is not on the 6th of January 2025, because they were together at all times”
There is serious misconduct in the Mokwele docket involving a doctored A1 statement disclosed to court and the accused.
“it is what the Commissioner calls the doctored A1 ... it is serious misconduct ... disclosed to the Court and to the accused”
There was a delay in making the Langlaagte docket available, causing Ms Sello not to apply her mind to it, and the delay is attributable to Advocates Bodlani and Johnson.
“I confirm that the Langlaagte docket has been made available . We delayed making it available . We apologise . The request was made last week . We should have made it available during the course of the week . We did not . A n apology is merited . It has resulted in what Ms Sello is mentioning , that she has not applied her mind to it . That delay is definitely attributable to us .”
A certain statement referred to in Mr Perumal's affidavit is part of the Langlaagte docket, but Advocates have not yet applied their mind to it so they cannot comment on it.
“The statement , the attachment that is referred to Mr Perumal 's affidavit , we are told it is part of the Langlaagte docket . But because we have yet to apply our mind to it as well , I am not in a position to point out as to where exactly is it , nor am I able to say , well , there is a deficiency here and there because I have not seen it at all .”
A document requested from the Minister's Office was inadvertently excluded from a communication listing documents agreed to be provided.
“In our communication to Advocate Johnson , enlisting the documents agreed to be provided , somehow that one fell through the cracks . So we did not bring it to your attention in our communication .”
Advocate Johnson's laptop containing the typed response to the Minister's Office letter was stolen at Windhoek airport in January 2025, causing loss of relevant documents including some called "007".
“My laptop , on which that would have been , was stolen at an airport in Windhoek in January of 2025 . Commissioner s , I lost everything . I had stuff from 007 , everything .”
Advocate Johnson undertook to try to speak to Mr Perumal regarding his ability to attend the Commission and to get feedback from his medical practitioner.
“I did also undertake at lunch to try to speak to Mr Perumal to find out about his ability and / or when to come back . He indicated that he will engage with his medical practitioner and then he will give proper feedback .”
Chief Perumal said that the FA 1 statement would have been in the Langlaagte docket.
“Chief Perumal said that that FA 1 would have been in the Langlaagte .”
The bundle referred to as FA 1 in the docket speaks to procurement of forklifts, but there seems to be a confusion since there is another FA 1 related to General Madondo's vetting.
“That speaks to procurement of forklifts . Correct . But your call the FA 1 we wanted was in relation to General Madondo 's vetting . So , there seems to be a different FA 1 . Each statement will have , naturally , its own annexure . So , that request stands .”
Other statements commissioned on 6 January by Investigator Rapetsu included a statement at page 485 about theft of equipment from Major General Lushaba.
“The one at 3487 , this concerns the issue of the theft of equipment from Major General Lushaba . ... It is commissioned by Inspector Rapetsu .”
Statements commissioned by Investigator Rapetsu appear to be internal Crime Intelligence documents and include a statement about theft of equipment.
“...just from a reading of these documents, they purport to be Crime Intelligence documents. They purport to be internal documents. ...”
Investigator Rapetsu's statement at paragraph 3 alleges that high-ranking police officials' security clearances and promotions were awarded due to alleged corrupt practices.
“Investigator Rapetsu's statement at paragraph 3 just simply says high-ranking police officials' security clearances and promotions were awarded as a result of alleged corrupt practices”
Investigator Rapetsu and Advocate Ramsamy did not obtain any statement regarding General Madondo about the questionable appointment issues.
“Investigator Rapetsu does not seem to have obtained any statement regarding General Madondo”
Mr Perumal's statement specifically mentions fraud and corruption regarding questionable appointments within the police service.
“If you look at the Perumal commissioned statement, paragraph 2 specifically mentions fraud and corruption”
There is no allegation of wrongdoing by the Minister of Police, Mr Bheki Cele, in the questionable appointment of General Khumalo as Head of Intelligence within the statements examined by the Commission.
“It does not contain any allegation of wrongdoing by the Minister of Police, Mr Bheki Cele, being involved in this questionable appointment”
There was an allegation received anonymously around early October 2024 about all alleged crimes emanating from the Division Crime Intelligence of the South African Police Service, including a claim that a forklift was procured without proper procurement processes.
“On or about early October 24, we received information anonymously surrounding all alleged crimes emanating from the Division Crime Intelligence of the South African Police Service... Amongst the information, it was alleged that a forklift was procured by the Division Crime Intelligence without proper procurement processes being followed”
The official Section 27 affidavit is silent on any purchases of a forklift, whereas the supplementary statement contains new details about such procurement issues that were not present in the original affidavit.
“My concern is section 27 affidavit, as we have it, is absolutely silent on any purchases of a forklift. Where would that detail have come from in the supplementary when the purpose of the supplementary was to address shortcomings in the original section 27?”
The Langlaagte docket bears reference to Silverton on the face of the documents, which is confusing because the case originated in Cape Town and Silverton should not be involved.
“it must have been opened in Silverton because it bears reference to Silverton on the face of the documents”
Mr Nkabinde from the Minister's Office referenced four cases in his letter, three Orlando cases and one Langlaagte case, with the Orlando cases mirroring the Cape Town cases, making Langlaagte a stand-alone docket.
“Mr Nkabinde from the Minister's Office addressed a letter to your office, he referenced four cases, three Orlando cases and Langlaagte. And we know that the three Orlando cases mirror the Cape Town cases. So Langlaagte is a stand-alone.”
The Langlaagte case relates to the acquisition of a forklift and is not part of section 27.
“we know the Langlaagte case is about the acquisition of a forklift”
The investigation suggests that a forklift was procured by Division Crime Intelligence without proper procurement processes being followed.
“it was alleged that a forklift was procured by Division Crime Intelligence without proper procurement processes being followed”
Allegation that money was syphoned from the secret fund account of Crime Intelligence to pay a deposit securing delivery of the forklift, with promises unfulfilled.
“he says: 'The supplier unknown to me was paid a deposit securing the delivery of a new forklift ... no forklift was received by vehicle management which was paid for by the use of these secret funds'”
A secret fund account was used to pay for the forklift, but despite promises, no forklift was delivered and further investigation is underway to recover the monies paid.
“Till date, no forklift was received by vehicle management which was paid for by the use of these secret funds and further investigation into the matter in order to recover the monies paid”
The Mokwele matter involved poor grounds for issuing a warrant, investigation, and prosecution, illustrating how IDAC can make a case out of nothing.
“we have seen what happened with the Mokwele matter, which you have conceded the facts are very poor for the issuing of a warrant, for an investigation, let alone for a prosecution, an ongoing prosecution ... the Mokwele matter may well be one of those cases where charges were going to be preferred”
There were suspicions that General Khumalo, Madondo, Madondo, and Lushaba manipulated procurement processes and processes to appoint individuals, but evidence shows approvals and signatures were made by relevant officials including General Lushaba as CFO.
“I suspect that General Khumalo and some other officers in Crime Intelligence, including Madondo and Lushaba, were manipulating procurement processes and processes to appoint”
General Lushaba, as CFO, signed off on the procurement approvals and recommendations for the forklift acquisition, and it is unclear why Generals Khumalo and Madondo are implicated in the forklift acquisition issue.
“at the bottom of 3510, it is signed by Major General CFO ... General Lushaba's signature as CFO ... I do not see how General Khumalo and General Madondo are pulled into this forklift acquisition issue”
Investigations into General Khumalo and others suspected of procurement manipulation are ongoing.
“originally suspected and investigations are underway around them as well”
There was a valid procurement and approval process for the forklift, but the supplier failed to deliver and was paid, requiring money to be recovered from the supplier.
“there was a proper requisition and it was approved at all levels . The issue is the failure to deliver by the supplier and the money must be recovered from that supplier because they failed to deliver but they have been paid”
The failure of the supplier to deliver the forklift after payment is a breach of contract, a civil matter, not criminal.
“The supplier did not deliver. A further investigation into the matter must be conducted in order to recover the monies paid to that supplier ... It appears to be simple breach of contract ... A civil, not criminal matter .”
The investigation into whether suppliers delivered per awarded tenders is ongoing with IDAC, but it is suggested that the matter should be closed and returned to Crime Intelligence to deal with as a contract compliance issue.
“it is currently under investigation ... this matter should be closed ... it should go back to Crime Intelligence ... it is their contract ... it is non-compliance ... it should go back there”
IDAC should close the investigation and return the matter and documentation to Crime Intelligence for further action to recover monies and address non-compliance.
“it gets closed in IDAC ... it should go back there ... also to copy the CFO to indicate that there was non-compliance and monies need to be recovered ... it will be for Crime Intelligence to take action and to ensure the money is recovered”
There is no crime involved in the supplier's failure to deliver; it is a case of malperformance and money lost by Crime Intelligence, so IDAC has no jurisdiction to investigate.
“If there is a case of malperformance by a service provider ... Crime Intelligence lost money ... what is there to refer by IDAC? IDAC should simply say we have no jurisdiction ... It has nothing to do with our mandate”
There is an allegation that secret service funds were used to purchase resources for the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT) base in KwaZulu-Natal, benefiting Mr Bheki Cele and others.
“it was alleged that secret service funds were used to purchase resources for the Political Killings Task Team base in KwaZulu-Natal Province ... resources procured under the banner of the task team were for the benefit of Mr BH Cele and others”
There are no allegations related to the PKTT in the official section 27 affidavits of Investigator Rapetsu, Advocate Ramsamy, and Chief Perumal, suggesting a discrepancy in the allegations against PKTT.
“our section 27 does not have any reference to PKTT at all ... I do not know ... it makes no sense”
There appears to be confusion or discrepancy over the existence of multiple Section 27 affidavits concerning the PKT reference, with at least two different versions being discussed.
“The section 27 affidavit we have been sitting with here and working on is not their section 27 affidavit. The section 27 affidavit ... had references to the forklift purchase and had direct reference to the PKTT, both of which are missing in our version. So I am saying there appears to be two when there should be only one”
One Section 27 affidavit dated December 2025 is referenced which was the only one on that date, but it is not the one in their files; this affidavit referenced PKTT and forklift purchases.
“the supplementary affidavit on 3493, it is dated December 2025. These three people were together in Cape Town on that date. And the simple point Advocate Sello is making is that on that date ... there was only one section 27 affidavit, and it is not the one that is in our files. It is the one that made reference to PKTT and forklifts and other things”
The Section 27 affidavit being reviewed was likely backdated to 21 November 2024 although produced much later, raising questions about which version the commissioners reviewed.
“this section 27 we are looking at was produced at a much later date and then back dated to 21 November 2024”
There is uncertainty about which Section 27 affidavit Advocate Johnson looked at in early or mid December 2024, especially regarding references to PKTT and forklifts.
“I cannot recall ... I can not recall seeing forklift and the PKTT ... No that I am not recalling ... No now that you are putting it to me, I cannot give you a definitive answer. I do not know which one I saw... This one is the most familiar, let me put it that way...”
No one in Advocate Johnson's team ever told him that they had a different Section 27 affidavit from the one being presented before them.
“No, Commissioner ... No one has ever said that? ... No.”
It is recalled that when Advocate Johnson appeared before the Ad Hoc Committee, he did not have the Section 27 affidavit but said he would provide it after his testimony.
“you did not have the section 27 affidavit when you appeared before Ad Hoc, and I think members of Parliament engaged you on the section 27 affidavit, and if memory serves me well, you parted company on the basis that you would be providing the Ad Hoc Committee with a copy after you had concluded your testimony”
Advocate Johnson confirmed that the Section 27 affidavit was not made available to the Commission and that he did not have it at the time.
“I know that we did not make it available, Commissioner”
Advocate Johnson did not provide a reason why the Section 27 affidavit was not made available to the Commission during the hearing excerpt.
“Because it formed ...”
The AdHoc Committee and the Madlanga Commission work differently, with different rules regarding disclosure, especially when investigations are ongoing criminal investigations.
“I see the work of this Commission and its terms of references somewhat different from the AdHoc Committee. And here, the rules are somewhat different. And not disclosing is not an option, but you are able to disclose, and perhaps, as we have been allowed in some instances, Commissioners, to indicate that the disclosure is also made on the basis of confidentiality for certain reasons. This Commission allows us that. And it is on the basis of it having been part of a criminal investigation, and not wanting to give it to them.”
Chief Perumal wrote his own statement behind the backs of the other investigators and commissioned Mr Adams to depose on it, which may lead to conflicting official records.
“Mr Perumal, Chief Perumal, behind their backs, because there is no better way of saying this, behind their backs he goes and he decides to write his own statement that he commissions without the other two knowing, and he gets Mr Adams to depose.”
Advocate Ramsamy made extensive notes from the section 27 and categorized questions for structured investigation follow-up with Mr Adams.
“Advocate Ramsamy had made extensive notes out of the section 27 and having read the inadequate lack of A1s. So she had categorised the questions around groupings of matters to be looked at, aspects to be canvassed with Mr Adams, so that when they went there, it was a structured approach.”
Mr Rapetsu and Chief Perumal should have addressed all issues related to the investigation together and produced a single document instead of separate statements taken on the same date.
“And if either Mr Rapetsu or Chief Perumal felt that, wait, there is something else still to be dealt with on an aspect, it should have been dealt with all at the same time. If there was a need to, it should have been captured in one document and then commissioned, and then we move on to the next and soon and soon.”
If Chief Perumal's statement, not produced with the other investigators, forms the basis for warrants and charges in the Mokwele matter, it would be misleading and undermine the ends of justice.
“If in fact, as we know has happened in the Mokwele matter, if the docket that is before the Court and that is disclosed to the accused and that is the basis for the warrants that were obtained for instituting for the charges, it is in fact Perumal's questionable statements, not the ones that were properly taken. That would amount to, it seems to me, that that would have amounted to defeating the ends of justice, lying to the Court, lying to you, misleading everyone that is involved with this and failure to disclose the true contents of the docket. Am I correct in all of that? I am assuming Perumal's are in fact a manufactured statement that is being used.”
IDAC was not aware of investigations or allegations made against PKTT members such as Mr Matlala and Katiso Molefe.
“IDAC is not aware of these cases that were made, be they by Mr Matlala about the ft, by Katiso Molefe, the ballistic case, or any other case that has been made against any of the PKTT members. They are not all allegations that IDAC is looking at.”
IDAC's investigators withheld details of investigations into PKTT from management, resulting in a lack of awareness of such investigations.
“I can accept that, but then it suggests that your investigators withheld from you some detail on some of these investigations. From the reading of your transcript at AdHoc, it would appear that you are not even aware that PKTT was being investigated, or considered for investigation.”
IDAC had no grounds to investigate PKTT as per allegations heard by Advocate Johnson, indicating no evidence to support interference claims.
“According to me, there is nothing for us to look at in PKTT, regardless of what allegations may have come to the fore.”
The affidavit dated 6 January 2025 by Honourable Adams is an original affidavit that has not been disclosed even to the Defence, and requires them to apply to access it due to a Section 27 referral confidentiality.
“The affidavit of the 6th of January 025 is an original affidavit. It was signed by Mr Adams on 6 January 2025... This document has not even been disclosed to the Defence, and it is one of those documents where even the Defence would have to apply for the document to be made available to them. The section 27 referral cannot be made available”
The affidavit of 22 November 2024 triggers the referral to IDAC and broadly sets out allegations, but the affidavit dated 6 January 2025 has not been disclosed.
“On 22 November we had a referral affidavit. That refers the matter to IDAC and sets out in broad strokes the allegations... you do insist that on 22 November we had a referral affidavit... The affidavit of the 6th of January 025 is an original affidavit... that document has not been made available to any of the accused.”
The Section 27 referral document initiates the intake of a matter and is confidential, only disclosed to the accused if requested, and has not been disclosed to the Defence relevant to IDAC investigations, being the basis for initiating investigations.
“The section 27 is the intake document. According to me, the section 27 referrals are not disclosed unless they are requested by the accused. Now, when I went to Parliament, we had not disclosed this document at all to the accused. We have not disclosed section 27s, the referrals, to the Defence because it is the basis on which we initiate our investigations.”
The Section 27 referral affidavit is considered an internal confidential document similar to memos in the NPA and IDAC, thus not publicly disclosed.
“You say to the AdHoc Committee it is a confidential document similar to how we have memos in the NPA and not just IDAC. So, you are describing an internal ...”
The Section 27 affidavit/referral stems from a complainant and is not an internal document, thus should be considered with the view to disclosing the founding affidavit as well along with any supplementary affidavits.
“But it is not internal. It is not an internal document. It is a document that comes from a complainant. And so, to categorise it as an internal document, as if it is an internal document, is misleading. And it is a document that seems, if you are going to disclose a supplementary affidavit, then it does not make sense that the founding affidavit would not be disclosed.”