Hearing day 149

Mr Johnson does not hold an official position with IDAC as of the date of the hearing and is not the Investigating Director.

“As of yesterday, I do not hold an official position. I am not the ID.”

Mr Johnson made a formal arrangement to ensure the flow of documents to the Commission would continue after his departure by designating Mr Matthew Sesoko, Head of Operations at IDAC, as the next point of contact for document procurement.

“What I did indicate to Counsel is that when I am not there, the next person to be able to approach for documents would be Mr Matthew Sesoko. He is the Head of Operations at IDAC and in terms of the structure, falls immediately below the Investigating Director.”

Mr Johnson called a meeting on Friday to obtain requested information including the A1 Statement of Adams, making a formal request at that meeting and briefing Mr Sesoko to follow up.

“I did call a team meeting on Friday in order to also get information that was requested amongst others, the A1 Statement of Adams, that is how I got it. I did make the request there. Advocate Ramsamy was not in that meeting and the project manager undertook that he will find out from her if she has that file. Given that I had done that, I would just send Mr Sesoko a reminder as soon as we have an adjournment to please follow up on that process.”

The project manager referenced by Mr Johnson is Mr Tlale.

“He is Mr Tlale.”

In the wake of Ms Johnson's departure, Mr Mthunzi Mhaga of the NPA has undertaken to follow up on outstanding documents relevant to the inquiry in keeping with protocols within IDAC and NPA.

“Now in the wake of Ms Johnson's departure from office, he has undertaken to follow up on these documents in keeping with the relevant protocols within IDAC and the NPA.”

There are six independent investigations related to the inquiry, including four supplementary affidavits commissioned by Investigator Rapetsu, addressing the forklift issue, high-ranking officials' security clearances and promotions, concern about General Lushaba, and the use of Secret Service funds to purchase resources for the PKTT.

“... six independent investigations ... four supplementary affidavits ... forklift ... high-ranking officials security clearances and promotions ... General Lushaba ... use of Secret Service funds to purchase resources for the PKTT ... manipulation of procurement processes ... Langlaagte looked at forklifts and procurement ... matter disclosed Sunday evening dealing with appointments and vetting still under investigation ... makes six ...”

Former Police Minister was involved in appointing General Khumalo as the Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence without an interview process and without Khumalo having experience as a senior manager in Crime Intelligence.

“The former Police Minister was also involved in appointing General Khumalo as the Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence without an interview process and without Khumalo having worked as a senior manager in Crime Intelligence.”

Mr Adams suspects that some funds were taken unlawfully from the Secret Service fund and given to Police Minister Bheki Cele.

“Mr Adams states that he suspects that some funds became taken unlawfully from the secret fund and given to Police Minister, Bheki Cele.”

The appointment of General Khumalo as Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence by the former Police Minister was done without an interview process and without Khumalo having worked as a senior police manager in Crime Intelligence, raising questions about the legitimacy of the appointment.

“The fact that the former Police Minister appointed General Khumalo as the Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence without an interview process and without General Khumalo having worked as a senior policeman in Crime Intelligence.”

The issue in paragraph 5 pertains to the appointment of the Divisional Head of Crime Intelligence and is distinct from vetting matters.

“what is set out in paragraph 5 does not relate to vetting. It is a slightly different issue. It is his appointment generally as the Divisional Head of Crime Intelligence.”

The suspicion that funds were unlawfully taken from the secret fund to former Minister Bheki Cele falls within IDAC's mandate to investigate.

“The first part of that paragraph 5, the suspicion of funds being unlawfully taken from the secret fund to former Minister Bheki Cele, it seems to me that out of this whole affidavit, this would be the one that obviously would fall within the mandate of IDAC to investigate.”

No clear evidence or briefing was received by ADV Johnson regarding an investigation into the unlawful taking of funds related to Minister Cele, leading to suspicion that no investigation was done or it was deliberately not disclosed.

“I did not receive a briefing on this ... it is fair to surmise that nothing came out of this.”

ADV Johnson accepts that the suspicion about the unlawful taking of funds from the secret fund to Minister Cele falls within IDAC's mandate.

“Correct. I accept that.”

The investigation was split into six parts, each authorised and presented for completion by the investigation team, but ADV Johnson did not inquire into progress specifically about the Minister Cele allegation.

“They presented each leg of investigation as they got to their completion. I did not specifically ask about this, but I do know it forms part of the authorisation of the investigation.”

The allegation about unlawful fund takings from the secret fund to Minister Cele was apparently deliberately de-emphasized or misdirected within the investigation, raising concerns of selective investigation and prosecution.

“it is quite curious that it is the one that you do not get involved with ... There was a deliberate decision to focus on the others ... it speaks to selective investigations and prosecutions.”

ADV Johnson was not briefed specifically on the Minister Cele allegation due to the matter being authorised and broken up under section 8(13).

“I know that in the section 8(13) that would have been one of the matters as they were broken up and authorised. So I did not ask questions about how far they were with each investigation.”

ADV Johnson did not receive any instruction from his office to avoid dealing with any part of the matters under investigation.

“at no stage was there any instruction from my office that any part of any of these matters should not be dealt with.”

ADV Johnson identifies members of his investigation team responsible for briefings, including Advocate Ramsamy, Advocate Manilall, Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee, Mr Mlambo, Mr Charles Eals, and Mr Tlale (project manager).

“It would have been Advocate Ramsamy ... Advocate Manilall ... Mr Perumal, Mr Padayachee, Mr Mlambo, Mr Charles Eals, and Mr Tlale ... as the project manager, from time to time being in those briefings.”

ADV Johnson was faced with two different sets of statements for the first time yesterday, unable to verify their correctness given he was not present.

“I was faced with that yesterday for the first time ... I cannot tell you whose one is correct, because I cannot make that assumption, given they were all together.”

ADV Johnson was never informed by Chief Perumal that statements had been taken from Mr Adams, Mr Rapetsu, and Advocate Ramsamy.

“No. I never came to know about that.”

ADV Johnson states that there were instances he was briefed by Chief Perumal alone in the absence of other team members.

“That would have happened, yes.”

Mr. Adamson suspected that some funds were being unlawfully taken from the secret fund and given to the former Police Minister.

“Mr Adams indicated that he suspected that some funds were being unlawfully taken from the secret fund and given to the Police Minister”

There was no complaint that a vehicle was procured unlawfully for former Minister Cele from the secret fund.

“"Not about a vehicle for the previous Minister, no." "You say: 'No, not that aspect.'"”

There was a complaint regarding the unlawful use of secret funds to the benefit of former Minister Cele, but not involving purchase of a vehicle.

“"there is a complaint regarding the unlawful use of these secret funds, but for a different purpose, to benefit Minister Cele."”

Advocate Johnson could not confirm if secret funds taken to benefit former Minister Cele were used to purchase a vehicle for him.

“I could not determine from what we heard that a vehicle had in fact been procured for the former Minister.”

Investigations into secret/ slush fund abuse began around 2006 and continued prior to advent of IDAC in 2019, handled by agencies including the Directorate of Special Operations (Scorpions).

“These matters arose way back in 2006/2007 when Advocate Gerrie Nel prosecuted ... There were not such investigations at the time in IDAC, but there had been investigations previously in other law enforcement agencies like the Directorate of Special Operations, DSO or colloquially the Scorpions.”

There were previous investigations before IDAC into the abuse of secret service funds emerging from prosecutions of Police Commissioner Jackie Selebi and later investigations of former Divisional Commissioner Richard Mdluli.

“The matters arose way back in 2006/2007 when Advocate Gerrie Nel prosecuted the corruption matter of the late Police Commissioner Jackie Selebi...Fast forward a few years later, there were investigations then launched against the previous Divisional Commissioner, one Mr Richard Mdluli...”

Major General Solly Lazarus, CFO of Crime Intelligence, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for misappropriation and use of the slush funds.

“charging the CFO of Crime Intelligence, Major General Solly Lazarus, who was found guilty, Chair, and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.”

The Mdluli matter is currently a hard matter in the Johannesburg High Court involving IDAC investigators and prosecutors assisting the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Pretoria.

“The Mdluli matter is within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Pretoria, but there were IDAC investigators, prosecutors, that assisted in prosecuting that matter as it currently stands.”

Lazarus was convicted for fraud and corruption related to use of slush funds, starting with allegations concerning the latter.

“It was about the slush funds, it was fraud and corruption ... he was convicted ...”

Major General Solly Lazarus was the CFO of Crime Intelligence, not the CFO of SAPS.

“He was the CFO of Crime Intelligence, Commissioner Baloyi.”

If any investigations into secret/ slush fund abuse happened prior to IDAC's establishment in 2019, they would have been referred to the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigations (DPCI).

“Any of those matters then would have happened before the advent of the ID in 2019, if there were such matters, they would have gone to the DPCI, the Director of Priority Crimes Investigations, to deal with those matters.”

Secret Service funds were allegedly used to purchase resources for the PKTT task team, which was previously led by Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence Lieutenant General Khumalo, who has close ties with former Minister B.H. Cele, and these resources were allegedly procured for the benefit of Mr. B.H. Cele and others.

“Secret Service funds were used to purchase resources for PKTT, ... led by Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence, Lieutenant General Khumalo, who has close ties with the former Minister, ... benefit of Mr B H Cele and others”

The PKTT task team is not part of the section 27 affidavit and there was no known investigation into PKTT affairs until recently when an allegation in a supplementary affidavit supporting a call for an investigation was found.

“complaints concerning the PKTT do not form part of the section 27 affidavit ... you advised that you were not aware of any investigation into the PKTT ... there is an allegation in the supplementary which supports a call for an investigation”

The investigation pertains to the unlawful promotion and appointment of personnel within the Division Crime Intelligence of the South African Police Service.

“This investigation pertains to unlawful promotion appointment of personnel within the Division Crime Intelligence of the South African Police Service”

There was a complaint that the appointment of Lieutenant General Khumalo as Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence was effected without an interview process.

“complaint was that the appointment, original complaint, was that the appointment was effected without an interview process”

A deviation from the ordinary appointment process, described as 'head hunting', exists within the recruitment framework and requires approval.

“the word deviation is used within the recruitment framework ... it relates to head hunting ... you need approval for it ... it is out of the ordinary”

The appointment of Lieutenant General Khumalo by the former Minister of Police falls outside the mandate of IDAC and does not necessarily imply fraud or corruption within the scope of the investigation.

“this is purely a question of how General Khumalo was appointed by the former Minister of Police, and I think we have agreed that that would not necessarily fall within the mandate of IDAC”

Head hunting as a form of deviation from the ordinary appointment process is lawful if certain prescribed conditions are met, otherwise it is unlawful.

“Head hunting is supported by law provided there is certain prescripts that must be adhered to ... if those prescripts are not adhered to, then it makes it an unlawful exercise”

Information received anonymously around early October 2024 alleges fraud and corruption by General Masemola, National Commissioner of the South African Police Service, and other senior SAPS generals.

“On or about early October ’24, I received information anonymously surrounding alleged fraud and corruption perpetrated by General Masemola, National Commissioner of the South African Police Service, and other senior Generals of SAPS.”

Allegations relate to questionable appointment of General Khumalo as Head of Crime Intelligence nationally, with Minister of Police Bheki Cele involved and highly skilled generals in Crime Intelligence overlooked.

“The allegations related to the highly questionable appointment of General Khumalo as the Head of Crime Intelligence nationally. The following Minister of Police, Bheki Cele, was also involved whilst serving highly skilled Generals within CI were overlooked.”

There is a questionable affidavit by Mr Perumal whose affidavit is not from investigators but was relied upon for fraud and corruption allegations.

“What you are looking at is Mr Perumal's affidavit. That is not the investigators’, plural, affidavit.”

There is concern that the affidavits containing alleged fraud and corruption information may have been fabricated within IDAC as investigators who engaged Mr Adams disavow these documents including the one relied upon.

“There is a question, a serious question, whether or not they were fabricated within IDAC because the two of the three main team of investigators that engage Mr Adams completely disavow these documents, including the very one you have just relied upon.”

Supplementary affidavits by Mr Adams claimed to be true are not accepted as genuine by investigating team members such as Advocate Ramsamy and Investigator Rapetsu who do not know the origin of these documents.

“You have Advocate Ramsamy and Investigator Rapetsu who say they do not know where these documents come from.”

Allegations in affidavits include claims that certain high ranking police officials received security clearances and promotions as a result of corrupt practices.

“Amongst the information it was alleged that certain high ranking police officials security clearances and promotions were awarded as a result of alleged corrupt practices.”

Questions about performance assessments of Crime Intelligence provincial heads and section heads, as well as issues relating to Lieutenant General Jacob's refusal to return to Crime Intelligence and any related civil or labour proceedings, are raised but contested as not relevant to the mandate of IDAC.

“Where in your section 27 does this come from that there are issues about performance assessment, that there are issues about provincial heads and section heads, that there are issues about Lieutenant General Jacob? ... What does it have to do with your mandate what happened with Lieutenant General Jacob, what happened with interviews, what performance assessments of major generals in 2022/2023?”

Appointment of General Khumalo who did not qualify and others as promoted through alleged corrupt practices is questioned and signed summons require information about provincial and section heads, but relevant affidavit does not mention performance assessments.

“Mr Adams does not say anything about performance assessments. He says the appointment of General Khumalo, who did not qualify to be appointed and other Generals, and he does not say who, you sign off on a summons that requires information of provincial heads and section heads. You want the performance assessments. I do not see how that arises from Mr Adams' affidavit.”

The usual process of advertising Crime Intelligence positions should have been followed if other suitable candidates were available, rather than deviating through an approved deviation request.

“it would have given a better picture of whether or not there were other suitable candidates within the ambit of Crime Intelligence, and that you would therefore not have had to deviate but could have gone on the normal process of advertising for those positions”

Lieutenant General Jacob was not mentioned in Mr. Adams' affidavit and it was inaccurate to assert he had refused to return to Crime Intelligence based on the affidavit evidence.

“He is not mentioned at all. You single him out and you know that he has refused to return to Crime Intelligence, even though Mr Adams does not say that in his affidavit. He does not mention him at all, let alone that he has refused to return to Crime Intelligence.”

Even if the approved deviation request was unwarranted, that alone does not indicate corruption.

“Even if you found that this deviation request which was approved was not warranted, why would that, without more, indicate to you that we have a case to investigate maybe there is corruption? Surely it does not follow.”

The assertion that Lieutenant General Jacob refused to return to Crime Intelligence was not from Mr. Adams' affidavit but from information received outside the official documents, which raises concerns over its source.

“You know that he has refused to return to Crime Intelligence. Where do you get that from? It is not in the section 7 affidavit. It is not in the supplementary affidavit, which at this point are the only documents that speak to appointments in Crime Intelligence.”

The investigation sought to determine the reason why Lieutenant General Jacob was not returning to his post, which necessitated appointing a different head.

“So what this sought to determine was why he, what was the reason for him not going back, which necessitated the appointment of a different head?”

Lieutenant General Jacob was the Head of Crime Intelligence at the time.

“Lieutenant General Jacob at the time was the Head of Crime Intelligence.”

Information about Lieutenant General Jacob refusing to return to Crime Intelligence was not documented in any affidavit or statement before the Commission, suggesting it was obtained through unofficial means.

“Someone told you that, told your investigators, and they did not tell you in any of the documents that are before us... It can only leave one explanation that this is information obtained in other ways, which are not properly explained on documents.”

The summons referring to Lieutenant General Jacob regarding his refusal to return had no basis and was outside the mandate of the investigation, yet was signed by ADV JOHNSON who had read and been briefed on the documents.

“when you sign this summons that speaks to General Jacob when there is no basis whatsoever, that is one. Two, on a matter that on the face of it does not fall within your mandate, the issues about why he refused to return, I have to assume you have read these documents when you signed them. They are presented to you. You are briefed. I must assume you ask questions because you read them.”

ADV JOHNSON accepted that the information about Lieutenant General Jacob refusing to return was obtained from unofficial sources rather than the affidavit evidence.

“I accept that.”

ADV JOHNSON stated the briefing for signing the summons was to determine why Lieutenant General Jacob was not going back and whether he was precluded from returning, to legitimize the deviation appointment of a new head.

“My engagement with the investigator who brought the document for signature is the explanation that I did provide... that they wanted to determine why he was not going back, why he could not go back, and because that would then neither legitimate the deviation that you have someone in the post who has now been moved, refuses to come back, and then that deviation becomes legitimate.”

ADV JOHNSON indicated that if Lieutenant General Jacob was being precluded from returning rather than refusing, then the deviation would itself be irregular.

“But if the person is not in the post but is being precluded from coming to the post, it means that the deviation in itself is irregular...”

ADV JOHNSON could not say that Investigator Mlambo was the only person presenting the summons, but Mlambo was the one who briefed him on all the details.

“But I can't say that he was the only person, he came with the summons, and that he was the one who briefed me on all the details by himself.”

ADV JOHNSON was told by investigator Mlambo, who brought the summons, that Lieutenant General Jacob was precluded from returning to his post, which justified appointing Lieutenant General Khumalo instead.

“I see on the face of the summons, it is Investigator Mlambo... And that is why there have to be this deviation of an appointment of Lieutenant General Khumalo.”

ADV JOHNSON suggested that either Mr Perumal or Mr Padayachee would have briefed him jointly with Investigator Mlambo regarding the summons and details.

“I would expect that that detail I got either from Mr Perumal or from Mr Padayachee, who were the leading investigators.”

ADV BALOYIS C implied that Mr Perumal and Colonel Padayachee compiled the list of requirements for the National Commissioner being summoned to interview.

“Chief Perumal and Colonel Padayachee, one of them or both of them would be the people that have compiled this list of what is required from the National Commissioner who has been summoned to an interview.”

Investigator Mlambo carried out mostly administrative functions while also conducting some senior investigative duties.

“Mr Mlambo did carry out a bit more of the administrative function, and we cannot impute this to him.”

ADV JOHNSON acknowledged Investigator Mlambo was described as a senior investigator in documents but mainly performed administrative duties and some investigative work.

“On these documents. So what they would do is when there were summons, they gave it to a central point. That was his duty, but he had other investigative duties where he took statements, engaged with witnesses and so on in the legs of the investigation... he is a senior investigator with senior investigative duties that he does conduct, has conducted and as part of the tasking of everything else in the team.”

ADV JOHNSON explained the need to determine whether Lieutenant General Jacob was precluded from returning or refused to return, as this affects legitimacy of the deviation appointment and proceeding of the deviation.

“We needed to determine whether he was precluded from returning, did he refuse to return? Because if there is documentation where he refuses to return, then that deviation has to go on. If there is documentation where he has been precluded, which is paragraph 5, if you have the civil or labour proceedings pending, that precludes him from going back to that position and they could then also make the decision on whether or not the deviation must proceed.”

ADV JOHNSON clarified if he gave the impression Investigator Mlambo was only an administrative person, that was incorrect.

“If I created the impression that he was an admin person with the rank of senior investigator, that is incorrect.”

There was a theory that Lieutenant General Jacob refused to return to his post, which ADV JOHNSON accepted must have existed.

“There must have been ... You were aware of that theory.”

ADV Johnson signed off a summons on 3 April 2025 enquiring into promotions of commanders and members of the PKTT through deviation.

“on the 3rd of April 2025, you signed off a summons enquiring into promotions of commanders and members of the PKTT through deviation”

ADV Johnson indicated that he learned for the first time in the Commission on 6 January 2025 that the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT) was under investigation or inquiry.

“you indicate that you learned for the first time in this Commission yesterday that there was a complaint regarding PKTT”

ADV Johnson stated he had been made aware of the PKTT investigation in the briefing for the summons but first saw details in the affidavit during the Commission.

“I have been made aware. In the briefing for the summons, I would have been made aware”

ADV Johnson clarified he had no prior knowledge of PKTT being a subject of inquiry by IDAC before seeing the affidavit on 6 January 2025, a discrepancy from being aware in the summons briefing.

“in the affidavit, yes. I had not seen that in the affidavit ... I had not seen that ...”

ADV Johnson stated he could not recall asking about the PKTT as the PKTT but asked questions around applications and promotions related to commanders and members.

“I can honestly not recall asking them about the PKTT as the PKTT. I would have asked questions around the applications”

Commissioner Khumalo asked why IDAC was investigating promotions and appointments within the PKTT and what interest IDAC had in the PKTT.

“What was IDAC's interest in the PKTT?”

ADV Johnson in the Ad Hoc Committee said he knew nothing about the PKTT, its activities, reporting lines, and actual work, stating it was not within his knowledge and purview.

“I know nothing about the PKTT. Keep that in mind when you explain, when you give your answer”

ADV Johnson authorised a section 28 summons dated 3 April 2025 requesting all documents related to promotions of commanders and members of the PKTT despite his claim of first learning about PKTT investigations only in January 2025.

“as of the 3rd of April 2025, as per the section 28 summons ... you authorised that documentation be sought and obtained regarding promotions of the commanders and members of the Political Task Team, Political Killings Task Team”

The summons or investigation documentation issued on behalf of IDAC relating to the PKTT was prepared by Mr. Perumal and approved without clear justification, raising questions about a probable "hidden hand" or undisclosed motives.

“this subpoena was prepared by Mr Perumal ... may be acting on the instruction of a hidden hand”

No investigation existed into the Political Killings Task Team at the time of signing the document; the project manager and Mr. Padayachee confirmed this fact.

“we do not have one into the Political Killings Task Team. The project manager ... confirms the same, as does Mr Padayachee”

The investigation into the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT) was not initiated based on a complaint by Mr. Adams, but rather appears to be driven by other motives or a "hidden hand" within Crime Intelligence.

“this is not Mr Adams' complaint ... this is now something else altogether”

The person who approves summons or investigation steps has ultimate responsibility and must be satisfied about the legitimacy of the inquiry; it is not proper for the preparer to be the one answering questions about the investigation legitimacy.

“the best person to answer is the person that authorises the summons ... you are the final decision maker ... you must have satisfied yourself ...”

Funds from the Secret Service fund were used to purchase resources for the PKTT, which is an accusation not supported by the summons document and cannot form the basis for the inquiry.

“it says nothing about commanders and members of PKTT. It in fact says funds were used from the Secret Service fund to purchase resources for the PKTT. That is an accusation or allegation that is not and can never be the basis for the inquiry”

Minister Mcunu had written a letter purporting to disband or disbanded the PKTT prior to April last year.

“the minister, Minister Mcunu, had written a letter in terms of which he purported to disband the PKTT. Or maybe let me say he purported to disband or disbanded the PKTT.”

Advocate Johnson was not aware or had no engagements regarding the purported disbandment of the PKTT at the time he signed a document in April last year.

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

The disbandment or purported disbandment of the PKTT was controversial.

“disbandment or purported disbandment was controversial.”

Mentioning PKTT in a generalised investigation of all members should have raised curiosity in Advocate Johnson's mind to look more closely at why PKTT was included.

“surely then mention of the PKTT in the manner in which it is mentioned , a generalised investigation of all PKTT members should have raised curiosity in your mind .”

It was generally known in the media space that the PKTT's disbandment was being discussed by the time of signing the document.

“If it was in the media space, yes, I would have most certainly known that that is what was being discussed.”

Advocate Johnson accepted that the mention of PKTT in the summons should have prompted closer scrutiny.

“Correct .”

Advocate Johnson stated he was not aware of an investigation into PKTT despite documents related to PKTT being obtained from IDAC, implying IDAC was investigating PKTT.

“Chair , as I indicated , I was not aware of an investigation into the PKTT . I have made sure I have checked with those who are the custodians of the documents that if I missed something , the project manager would at the very least have been able to refresh my mind and indicate we actually do have an investigation and this is what it is .”

Documents from 3373 to 3383 in the file relate to performance assessments of PKTT from 2018 to 2022, suggesting IDAC was investigating PKTT.

“if you take it from 3373 all the way to 3383 , those are all PKTT documents and IDAC can only obtain these documents if IDAC is conducting an investigation into the PKTT . That must follow .”

The Information and Data Access Centre (IDAC) was investigating the Police Killing Task Team (PKTT), as shown by the performance report detailing cases under investigation, in court, withdrawn, finalised, suspects in custody, convicted, and on bail relevant to PKTT.

“IDAC was not investigating the PKTT, cannot be correct because the performance report ... relates to the activities of the PKTT as a unit.”

Advocate Johnson says he relies on briefing by Perumal regarding the authorisation of paragraph 6 of the summons and cannot give a reasonable explanation from his reading of it alone.

“I rely on a briefing ... I need to engage Perumal ... I have no reasonable explanation ...”

There was no investigation against PKTT at the time the summons with paragraph 6 was authorised.

“We had no investigation against the PKTT.”

Advocate Johnson signed a summons including paragraph 6, despite the briefing referring to IDAC not investigating PKTT being irrelevant, and he cannot explain why paragraph 6 was authorised.

“You have absolutely no recollection why it is you authorised investigations into the PKTT and how its members are appointed ... I do not have an explanation for you, Chair... I had no investigation against PKTT ... I have no explanation ...”

There is a suggestion of a 'hidden hand' involved in the engagement concerning the summons for PKTT-related documents, but no confirmation or direct knowledge of such involvement is admitted by Adv Johnson.

“That there is a hidden hand, because that is an engagement this Commission would be fully entitled to have and might arrive at an answer. ... you have neither any knowledge of that hand, nor are you a part thereof. That is correct.”

Adv Johnson acknowledges that investigators such as Mr Perumal might have knowledge of information related to the summons or investigation that he does not have.

“your investigators, starting with Mr Perumal, could potentially be involved in that, or have knowledge of that underhand. ... And have knowledge of things that we did not have knowledge of.”

Adv Johnson was unaware of any PKTT investigation at the time he approved the summons but takes responsibility for signing it.

“I honestly said I was unaware of a PKTT investigation. I understand it is not reconciling with this and why I signed it. I, however, have to take responsibility for having signed this.”

The Chairperson clarifies that IDAC was not investigating PKTT, implying a distinction between awareness of an investigation and the existence of an investigation.

“IDAC was not investigating the PKTT. Just now, you said you were not aware of an investigation. Big difference.”

Adv Johnson states he checked with the project manager and Mr Padayachee and confirmed there was no PKTT investigation.

“I checked with the project manager. There is no PKTT investigation. I checked with Mr Padayachee. There is no PKTT investigation.”

Adv Johnson had no discussions with anyone from IDAC, Civil Society, or Crime Intelligence about the PKTT and related allegations.

“Have you had any discussion at all about the PKTT and allegations against the PKTT ... ? Not yet.”

Adv Johnson is aware that Mr O'Sullivan may have had some engagement from time to time with IDAC investigators, but he himself has had no such conversations.

“I am aware ... that he would have had from time to time engagements with investigators. ... I have not had conversations.”

The Crime Intelligence matters being dealt with relate to the matters that ADV Johnson has been involved in for many days.

“The Crime Intelligence matters that arise that we are dealing with, that we have been dealing with for the many days that you have been there.”

Mr O'Sullivan, associated with law enforcement, purportedly engaged with IDAC possibly by providing information to IDAC investigators, not discussing ongoing investigations.

“If Mr O'Sullivan spoke to IDAC investigators purporting to give them information. That would have been the only basis on which he would have had to engage.”

ADV JOHNSON has not personally had engagements with Mr O'Sullivan on behalf of IDAC but acknowledges prior engagements in other capacities.

“As the Head of IDAC, no. I had engagements with him in the past, on other matters when we were in the DSO...”

Mr O'Sullivan stated on Newsroom Africa on 27 June 2025 that he met with IDAC several times and gave them documents.

“On Newsroom Africa ... he said there: 'I have met with IDAC several times and I have given them documents.'”

In the Mokwele matter, affidavits were taken from General Khan based on documents found in his name, involving Mr Padayachee and Mr Perumal.

“They then found a document purporting to be in his name... Mr Padayachee and Mr Perumal engaged him ... to take an affidavit. And an affidavit was taken for that matter.”

Commissioner Baloyi correctly stated that irregular appointments in Crime Intelligence were investigated by the Public Service Commission, not IDAC, and related complaints had been previously addressed by the PSC with recommendations to the National Commissioner and Minister.

“... By the time Mr Adams brings these things to IDAC, the Public Service Commission has already investigated them and made recommendations... It is not IDAC's mandate to be investigating these issues because there are other bodies that are responsible for these investigations.”

The complaint about Lieutenant General Khumalo's appointment was lodged by Ms Mary de Haas on 23 December 2022.

“the complaint was lodged on the 23rd of December 22, by Ms Mary de Haas.”

Despite the regularity of Khumalo's appointment, the PSC recommended that the Minister should facilitate corrective measures regarding sound record keeping and sensitising officials.

“Despite the determination that Lieutenant General Khumalo's appointment to the post of Head of SAPS CIU, was regular, the Public Service Commission recommends that the Minister should facilitate ... Corrective measures be put in place to ensure sound record keeping to sensitise officials regarding the importance of good record keeping.”

The appointment of Lieutenant General Khumalo as Head of SAPS CIU was found to be regular by the PSC.

“The process followed by SAPS during the appointment of Lieutenant General Khumalo to the post Head of SAPS, CIU, is found to be regular.”

IDAC had possession of the PSC report on Khumalo's appointment prior to making investigatory and charging decisions, indicating a crossing of lines between HR matters and investigation.

“this report was already within IDAC because it comes from IDAC... so what it seems, Ms Johnson, lastly, from me at least, is that your organisation had this report of the PSC as you made the decision to investigate and to send that summons on purely HR matters.”

ADV Sellos states that an affidavit (section 27) suggested the appointment of General Khumalo was irregular, unlawful or otherwise, with the affidavit dated 3 April 2025.

“That one that suggested that the very appointment of General Khumalo to this position was either irregular, unlawful or otherwise. That was Mr Adams'. Now, we know that section 28 is dated the 3rd of April 2025.”

ADV Johnson admits it would have been irresponsible for IDAC not to have brought the PSC report to her attention and to have had proper adjudication on it before proceeding with charges related to Khumalo's appointment.

“It is irresponsible for us as IDAC, if the investigators had this, not to have brought it to my attention and for us to have had then a proper adjudication of what did we get in, what has happened in the interim, and does this still find place, ...”

Following section 28, IDAC was furnished with full documents for investigation, and there is a question about whether IDAC has formally put to bed concerns raised by section 27 regarding Khumalo's appointment.

“IDAC is then furnished with full documents ... indicating that any complaint or concerns raised by section 27 referral, particularly in paragraph 5 relating to the appointment or the regularity of the appointment of General Khumalo, has been put to bed.”

ADV Johnson states that any matters still under investigation should be set aside as the report puts the concerns outside the realm of investigation.

“The recommendation to the Head of IDAC would be that all these matters, where they are still under investigation, would have to be set aside because this is what it is.”

ADV Johnson says the matter is under review by a special panel and some ongoing investigations will continue outside court processes.

“And that matter is under review by a special panel ... once a court process starts ... they have now been taken on review by the Office of the National Director with a special panel ... those are court matters, you have got investigations...”

ADV Johnson says the recent J50 suspension related to vetting and appointment issues of General Madondo, not to appointments of Generals related to this matter.

“that matter would have been about the vetting and appointment of General Madondo.”

The Chairperson finds ADV Johnson's hesitancy regarding the basis for General Khumalo's intended arrest strange given the public domain nature of the information and noise around it.

“I must say, Advocate Johnson, that I find it quite strange that you are as hesitant as you are with regards to the basis for the intended arrest ... this was out there for all to see in the public domain and there was a lot of noise around it.”

ADV Johnson admits hesitancy and caution in discussing the basis for the intended arrest of General Khumalo due to potential negative implications and ongoing investigations.

“I am not vested with those matters, I become overly cautious about what I am saying and do not want any negative implications. ... That matter is still under review... There are people whose lives are involved and those are not yet accused, those are suspects. So I am cautious.”

As Head of IDAC, Advocate Johnson should have been more hands-on and briefed on the J-50 allegations made a year ago against IDAC.

“My expectation would have been certainly after 6 July last year and allegations made against IDAC, that as Head of IDAC, you would be more hands-on, because the J-50 we are talking about goes to the heart of the allegation made against IDAC a year ago.”

The Head of IDAC could not provide written answers about activities related to IDAC despite summonses, making accountability difficult to assess.

“...when you come here, you are unable to answer because all you can point to are the briefings, nothing in writing that was given to you. And it makes it difficult for us to then assess who is accountable for these decisions, who is accountable for this conduct and if there are rogue elements within IDAC, who holds those rogue elements accountable if it is not the Head of IDAC.”

Before July 6th, nobody expected a Commission and thus the Head of IDAC would not have anticipated needing to answer thousands of documents, but after that date it should have been clear that the Head needed to be aware to answer questions.

“But after July 6th, it should have been obvious that on all these matters, I will be asked to go and explain and answer and I need to be aware of what is going on so that I am able to answer the questions that are posed.”

File 9 contains information on aborted J-50 warrants for arrest of Generals Khumalo and Madondo and is still under investigation with no charge sheet available.

“It must be close by. And just for the record, that this is the file, the docket, we said it is still under investigation. It is fairly sensitive and it concerns the, I will call them the aborted J 50 warrants of arrest of Generals Khumalo and Madondo. I do not know if the request should go to you, but I have noted that in this file, there is no charge sheet.”

The affidavit that initiated the investigation and culminates in prosecution related to General Madondo's security clearance was commissioned by Mr Perumal and may contain questionable signatures possibly not belonging to Mr Adams.

“...the affidavit that initiates the investigation and culminates in the prosecution, correct? ... both the preamble statement and the affidavit, in respect of which it was suggested to Colonel Padayachee that there seems to be something wrong with the signatures there and that it looks like the signature that purports to be of Mr Adams may not be his. The affidavit is commissioned by Mr Perumal.”

General Madondo did not have a top secret clearance for many years and was refused such clearance while holding the rank of Brigadier, even during a promotional panel chaired by the deponent.

“... I was not aware, nor did anyone inform me, that Madondo did not have a top secret clearance, and was also refused a top secret clearance whilst she held the rank of Brigadier, including the time when I, that is this deponent, chaired a promotional panel, which resulted in her appointment as a Major General in the post, in that district... I was also unaware that her application for a top secret clearance was refused.”

Investigation into the lateral transfer of Major General Madondo from KZN to CI, assisted by General Khumalo and others, knowing she failed to secure a top secret clearance, is outside IDAC's mandate because IDAC does not investigate vetting processes.

“And assume all of that is correct. Assume all of that is correct. What does it have to do with IDAC? Is it IDAC's mandate to investigate lateral transfers within SAPS, and whether they were regularly done or not? ...But does IDAC investigate whether somebody's vetting is correct or not? Is that IDAC's mandate? No...”

The docket suggests that General Khumalo knew of and was complicit in the fraud perpetrated by the person who made a fraudulent affidavit.

“the docket suggests he knew she had no clearance, and that she had pending matters... he must have known of the fraud”

General Khumalo is alleged to have known of the fraud and was complicit in it as per the docket.

“That is what the allegation was, yes.”

Advocate Johnson with Advocate Mhaga from the NPA called Mr Sesoko to engage and attempt to retrieve the requested documents related to the secret fund siphoning by Minister Bheki Cele.

“And what I did together with Advocate Mhaga from the NPA, we did call Mr Sesoko... I told him what the Commission is looking for... he undertook to engage them, find it if he can, and will then liaise directly with Mr Mhaga”

Commissioner Baloyi requested documents or information pertaining to former Minister Bheki Cele’s siphoning of secret funds.

“Commissioner Baloyi had specifically requested documents or information pertaining to the former Minister Bheki Cele’s siphoning, I think, of the secret fund”

Section 28 summonses are signed either by the Investigator Director or persons authorized by him or her, who have delegated authority to institute and conduct prosecutions on behalf of the state.

“In terms of section, I think it is 20 of the NPA Act, we delegate authority... The main is the ability to institute prosecutions for and on behalf of the State and to conduct investigations incidental to those prosecutions”

IDAC has the power of investigation and prosecution under section 20 and 22, with power to institute and conduct criminal proceedings and certain separate authorizations for summonses.

“I D A h a s g o t b o t h p o w e r s . Power of investigation and power of prosecution. ... which relates to criminal proceedings, which is the prosecutorial part of the NPA.”

Summonses under section 28, especially 28(6) read with 28(7) of the NPA Act require signature by ID or authorized person and such summonses are used to demand information related to investigations.

“you see at the top of that document it says it is a summons in terms of section 28(6) read with 28(7) of the NPA Act”

IDAC issued a section 28 summons demanding travel documents relating to the PKTT team's travel to the Western Cape for the arrest of Mr Fadiel Adams between 30 April and 8 May 2026, signed by Advocate Manilall.

“demanding details and documents pertaining to the PKTT team's travel to the Western Cape to arrest Mr Fadiel Adams ... It is signed by Advocate Manilall.”

ADV Johnson states that he is not aware of any investigation within IDAC into the arrest of Mr Adams, nor the reasons and costs associated with the travel and arrest.

“I am not aware of why this happened ... I cannot legitimate this because I do not know why this happened ... I have no idea why a team would have been deliberated on something like this and not brought it to the attention of the Head ... I am not aware that there is such an inquiry or there is such an investigation that IDAC is looking into ...”

ADV Johnson does not know why IDAC would inquire about who traveled for Mr Adams' arrest or the costs, seeing no relevance or legal basis in this inquiry.

“I cannot see the relevance of why we would ask who travelled ... I have no idea why a team would have been deliberated on something like this ... I think it is not just about the anything ... what was being sought ... I do not know why this happened ...”

ADV Johnson confirms that IDAC informs prosecution teams collegially when witnesses are arrested in other matters but was unaware of any internal investigation into Mr Adams' arrest.

“We inform that prosecution team, colleague to colleague ... if you take ... when Mr Matlala was arrested in Johannesburg on other matters ... I just would like you to know IDAC is only vested with this matter into Mr Matlala ... and we are not aware of what you are doing, but if you need anything, ours is purely a corruption matter and vice versa.”

ADV Johnson states that the communication to National Commissioner about arrested witnesses is generalized to avoid interfering with law enforcement actions.

“The communication would merely be to indicate this person is a witness in our matters and we are informing you ... It become important when you have a witness who is subsequently arrested, you do inform the other team ... That way, either teams get to collaborate, we do not trample on one another's toes, but it is a collegiality we have always afforded one another.”

ADV Baloyi suggests that if ADV Johnson does not know about investigations from IDAC into Mr Adams' arrest, it implies investigations are conducted without his knowledge, which he questions.

“if you do not know anything about this, it then suggests that there are investigations that are being conducted by an organization that you do not know about. Is that how IDAC operates?”

ADV Johnson states he saw on television that Mr Adams was arrested but is not aware of any official investigation by IDAC regarding that arrest.

“No, I did see on television that Mr Adams was being arrested. That is a matter that must get dealt with wherever it gets dealt with ...”

ADV Johnson clarifies it is possible for investigation teams to seek information that may help their matter within investigations, but he does not know why it happened in this instance.

“if they are already busy with an investigation and within that investigation team, they see it to seek information that they think may help their matter, they are allowed to go ahead ... I do not know why it happened in this instance.”

ADV Johnson states he was never made aware of any summons issued by IDAC demanding details about Mr Adams' arrest and similarly never authorized such summons.

“I take it you have no knowledge of the summons. You never issued, you never authorised the issue of such summons.”

ADV Johnson states there is no legal basis within IDAC investigations for any inquiry into who arrested Mr Adams, why, or the details of the arrest.

“there is no legal basis for the existing investigations in IDAC where Mr Adams made a 27 referral and however many supplementary A1's. It cannot take the matter further knowing who arrested him, why they arrested him, and so on.”

The summons and names related to an arrest are now known to Mr Manilall and IDAC, and the SAPS has responded accordingly.

“the SAPS does indeed respond and now we know Mr Manilall and IDAC have the names of the people that affected the arrest”

IDAC investigations are sometimes initiated without the knowledge of the ID head, indicating lack of control within IDAC.

“did it happen often when you were the ID that investigations are initiated without your knowledge?”

IDAC operates within a structured teamwork approach, and requests for section 28 orders are purposeful and not made without reason.

“there is, the teams work within a very structured approach with their matters... the 28 has to have purpose”

There was no legitimate basis for the initial summons under section 27, making the IDAC process deviant and irregular.

“there is no legitimate basis, therefore process of IDAC has been deviated”

Investigation conducted was unlawful and did not comply with sections 27 and 8(1), thus a judgement from the IDAC judge is necessary as this is irregular conduct.

“this is an unlawful investigation if not in terms of section 27 and section 8(1) ... this matter must go to the IDAC judge because ...”

The use of section 28 powers and processes in this case amounts to an abuse for ulterior purposes and is more serious than mere irregularity.

“it is not just irregular, it is in fact an abuse of these section 28(6) and (7) power and process...”

Control and direction over investigators by the Head of the Investigating Directorate is required but was absent in this instance due to an unlawful section 28 investigation done without their knowledge.

“an investigator may subject to the control and direction of a head of an Investigating Directorate ... this investigation was done without the knowledge of the Investigating Director ... the ID failed to exercise control”

ADV Johnson denies the truth of the allegation but acknowledges there are criminal matters in IDAC's scope and there was no sufficient evidence to arrest the generals mentioned.

“I have heard the allegation. There is no truth to the allegation. ... We did not do that because there was not sufficient evidence in the matters we have.”

The manner in which IDAC responded to Mr Adams' complaints feeds the narrative of a coordinated attack against General Khumalo and perhaps General Mkhwanazi linked to PKTT, as supported by evidence seen so far.

“the manner in which IDAC responded to Mr Adams' complaint at the very least is feeding the narrative ... there appears to be an active coordinated attack, at least against General Khumalo ... General Mkhwanazi, to the extent that he is associated with PKTT, perhaps.”

There is a witch hunt against Lieutenant General Khumalo because no matters were brought to IDAC before Mr Adams' referral.

“There is also no witch hunt against Lieutenant General Khumalo, because there were no matters brought to IDAC prior to the referral by Mr Adams.”

There is an allegation that IDAC is actively participating in a well-coordinated attack against General Mkhwanazi, General Masemola, and General Khumalo.

“There is an allegation that IDAC actively participating in a well-coordinated attack against General Mkhwanazi, General Masemola, and General Khumalo.”

An IDAC summons including PKTT was issued without apparent basis, reinforcing suspicions PKTT was targeted.

“There is also the summons that you signed where there does not seem to be any basis for the inclusion of the PKTT. So that is another dot that feeds into the suspicion of the PKTT being targeted.”

When ADV Johnson took office in March 2022, there were IPID investigators at ID who had transferred their matters, mostly corruption in SAPS supply chain management, PFM, to IDAC.

“When I took office in March 2022, there were already some IPID investigators at the then ID and they had come over with their matters... the matters they came over with ... were ... corruption matters in the South African Police Services ... Supply Chain Management issues, corruption, PFMA and all of those things.”

There was an investigation implicating General Maseola and General Mkhwanazi arising out of IPID, but insufficient evidence to move against them.

“... there was an investigation in which both are implicated, a matter arising out of IPID. There is insufficient evidence for me to move against the both of them.”

IDAC took over cases/dockets from IPID and investigated them, even those traditionally within SAPS jurisdiction, presumably under accepted protocols or memorandums of understanding among agencies.

“IDAC, in its former formulation, took over matters from IPID which fall within the jurisdiction of IPID... There are protocols ... memorandums of understanding or service level agreements to ensure legitimacy for why we are asking from somebody else.”

There are established working relationships and specific agreements among agencies such as SARS, NPA and SIU to manage investigations and operations.

“There is even, for example, a tripartite between SARS, the NPA, and I think the SIU.”

A letter from a predecessor set out why certain matters should come to IDAC and specified which investigators should carry those matters.

“So if one looks at the letter that my predecessor wrote, she did set out why those matters should come to IDAC. And I would assume that if the counterpart to whom she wrote felt, we get you, but we are on it, we are good, if we need resources, we would rather ask you for resources, but we are good on ours. They did not do that. They gave over the matters, plus they gave over the investigators, their very own resources to come and do the investigations in the then ID.”

Files and investigations are owned by the institution mandated to investigate, not by individual investigators.

“The files and the investigations are owned by the institution, which has the mandate to investigate. No investigator owns any investigation.”

After establishment of IDAC, IPID retained its original mandate unless stipulated otherwise in law, so transfer of investigations to IDAC must be specified clearly.

“The establishment of IDAC, an acquisition of certain power by IDAC did not strip IPID of its original mandate, as I understand the law, unless you can show me a provision in the Act, in any Act that stipulates that henceforth the nature of these matters will fall strictly within the purview of IDAC only. I am not aware of such. So if it had the authority, even after IDAC was established, it retained the authority, so I am trying to understand how the investigation then transfers to IDAC. That is why I say the emphasis cannot be on the investigators, it can be on, it can only be on the investigations themselves. And that letter I then expect would have identified the respective investigations that IPID transfers to IDAC, because having effected that transfer, then IPID no longer bears responsibility for the further execution of those investigations and acting upon any outcome.”

A letter dated 16 June 2019 identified cases already being investigated by IPID proposed for prioritization and transfer for investigation by IDAC under section 28 of the NPA Act, but the actual list of cases was not found by the current parties.

““With reference to my letter with subject request for a meeting to discuss the operational cooperation between the Independent Police Investigative Directorate and Investigating Directorate Corruption… I have identified a number of cases that I understand are already being investigated by IPID. I hope to prioritize them as short-term, medium-term and long-term cases for the ID... I propose we setup a meeting to discuss the cases that the ID will investigate within its mandate using the powers conferred by section 28 of the NPA Act.” ... She does identify that there are matters that would come. We did look for that letter because I was also confused that there is a whole table setting out who must come, but there was nothing about the cases.”

The investigators who were seconded to IDAC did not bring their investigations with them as investigations and investigative files belong to the institution, not to investigators personally.

“They do not have investigations. They get seconded. Paragraph 3 tells us which cases go to IDAC. There are no “their” investigations, surely, because when we express ourselves in those terms, it suggests that these investigators own the investigations and that is wholly wrong. It is the institution that owns the investigations.”

The list of cases currently investigated by IPID that are to be transferred to IDAC could not be found despite requests.

“At paragraph 3, there is supposed to be a document that lists the cases currently under investigation by IPID, but which are being requested to be transferred to IDAC. That is the list we do not have.”

When matters were transferred from IPID to IDAC, they had to be assessed to determine if they fall within IDAC's mandate, and many had section 28 authorizations to continue investigations.

“That when these matters came in to, when the matters came from IPID into IDAC, the matters had to be assessed in terms of whether or not they fell within the IDAC mandate, as she said in paragraph 1.2 and in 2.1. That exercise would have had to have been done. These matters are now where. Do they fall within the mandate? And if they fall within the mandate of the ID, those matters would then have had to be declared in IDAC in order for them to continue in IDAC. And I am given to understand that in many of those matters, there were section 28 authorizations for those matters to continue.”

IDAC does not operate in terms of section 28 authorizations; that is an IDAC authorization mechanism.

“IDAC does not operate in terms of section 28. That is an IDAC authorization mechanism.”

There is no record of any investigation within IDAC following an extensive search with Mr Sesoko.

“there is absolutely no record of any investigation within IDAC following your extensive search with Mr Sesoko”

The investigations originally under IPID were transferred to IDAC and continue under that umbrella without needing a section 28(1) to trigger an investigation.

“the investigation continues. It does not need a 28 (1) to trigger an investigation. The investigation is ongoing, except now it is under a different umbrella”

The letter requesting information does not specify who was the Acting Executive Head of IPID at the time of the request.

“the letter does not say who the Acting Executive Head of IPID was at the time”

Mr Sesoko has asked a colleague from IPID to find their response to the letter because he recalls there was a response, but so far it has not been found.

“Mr Sesoko says he did see a response. He has asked a colleague from IPID if they can find their response because he clearly recalls that there was a response to the letter”

Advocate Johnson did not inherit many documents from Advocate Cronje when he took office.

“I did not inherit many documents from Advocate Cronje”

Advocate Cronje was in office approximately April 2019 to February 2022.

“I think it would have been April 2019, thereabouts, to February 2022”

The Medicare contract matter was referred to IDAC in February 2025, in a section 107 referral.

“we are now in November 2025... you say that is when it was referred to IDAC... you say that is when it was referred... I take it is a section 107 referral”

An affidavit was submitted by Major General Charity Madlala Matlou of SAPS Risk and Integrity Management supporting a criminal investigation into the alleged unlawful awarding of the Medicare 24 Tshwane contract.

“Ms Charity Madlala Matlou , who says she is a Major General in SAPS Component Head, Risk and Integrity Management ... I hereby submit this affidavit to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption in support of initiating a criminal investigation into the alleged unlawful awarding of the Medicare 24 Tshwane District (Pty) Ltd”

The Medicare matter was referred to IDAC earlier in 2025 and the General was asked to depose to an affidavit for the referral to proceed, which explains the delay in the affidavit submission.

“I know that they referred the matter earlier in that year and the General was then asked to depose to an affidavit in terms of section 27... They wanted to refer the matter to IDAC and we then indicated that in order for the matter to be referred to IDAC she would have to depose to an affidavit for that referral ... I cannot tell you why she took so long to do that”

There was a letter indicating there would be a section 27 referral to IDAC from General Dimpane, the CFO at the time, but this referral was insufficient without an affidavit.

“there was a letter indicating that there is going to be a section 27 referral to IDAC... I think who was the CFO at the time... General Dimpane... and we then had to indicate that it would have to be an affidavit”

There is heightened activity regarding investigations resulting in prosecutions and it is considered lax that no formal response record was made to the second letter received by Adv Johnson's office.

“There is no record of a formal response thereto. What in fact happens is heightened activity regarding investigations resulting in prosecutions. That is rather lax, is it not?”

A letter triggering a referral and request for affidavit was received by Adv Johnson's office from General Dimpane's office relating to a possible investigation.

“I am saying that the letter would have come from General Dimpane's office referring the matter to us. We would have acknowledged the receipt of the letter”

The affidavit landed in June 2025 and is considered a section 27 affidavit by Adv Johnson.

“So then you went through that process and we landed in June 2025 with this affidavit. Which you consider to be a section 27 affidavit.”

A comprehensive internal audit report is being compiled which will shed light on alleged criminal misconduct, procurement flouting or manipulation and other relevant aspects.

“A comprehensive internal audit report is currently being compiled, which will shed further light on the alleged criminal misconduct, the procurement processes which were flouted or manipulated and other relevant aspects.”

The affidavit alleges that the procurement processes for a tender to Medicare Tshwane 24 may have been flouted or manipulated to the undue advantage of Medicare and its sole director Vusimuzi Matlala, with possible corruption and money laundering causing prejudice of approximately 50 million to SAPS.

“I reasonably suspect that procurement processes may have been flouted or manipulated to the undue advantage of Medicare. I also suspect that corruption and money laundering may also have been perpetrated to the prejudice. ... I have advised the National Commissioner, General Masemola of the SAPS that he should consider terminating the contract... General Masemola ultimately terminated the contract with Medicare on or about the 15th of May 2025. By that time, SAPS had suffered prejudice of approximately 50 million.”

The referral affidavit (section 27) was filed after the procurement contract termination and expresses suspicion that the award to Mr Matlala was unlawful and that certain members of SAPS unlawfully assisted and favoured him during the procurement process.

“The referral affidavit is filed after the contract was terminated. It alleges or at least expresses suspicions that it was unlawfully awarded, that the beneficiary, Mr Matlala, has questionable ties to certain members of SAPS who unlawfully assisted and favoured him during the procurement process.”

Adv Johnson asserts that there is enough reasonable suspicion to make out a reasonable suspicion to investigate the procurement matter involving Medicare Tshwane 24 and Vusimuzi Matlala for flouting or manipulation.

“So based on the reasonable suspicion, I think there is enough that makes out the reasonable suspicion.”

ADV JOHNSON doubt the legal sufficiency of the affidavit alone to prove unlawful awarding but considers it more substantial than a previous affidavit by Mr Adams.

“I know it is a difference of opinion, but I am saying this is more substantial . She does elude to the alleged unlawful awarding .”

IDAC has received and sought a comprehensive internal audit report as part of its investigation.

“In 5, the General refers to an internal audit report. Has that been received or sought by IDAC as part of its investigation ? Yes. We have that.”

Adv Johnson cites paragraph 5 of the affidavit which states an internal audit report is being compiled that will shed further light on alleged criminal misconduct and procurement flouting or manipulation.

“The comprehensive internal audit report is currently being compiled, which will shed further light on the alleged criminal misconduct, the procurement processes here referred to above, which were flouted and or manipulated and other relevant aspects.”

IDAC was not furnished with the comprehensive internal audit report before June 2026, and arrests related to the matter had already occurred by that time.

“I will find out this afternoon still ... no earlier than the 25th of June 2026 ... that was furnished to IDAC in June 2026 ... by June 026 , there had been arrests”

Investigations and prosecutions resulting in arrests were initiated prior to the receipt of the internal audit report by IDAC.

“…upon receipt to this particular affidavit, investigations were triggered, resulting in arrests and I think appearances in court already. And after all that happened, then the internal audit report came in.”

An audit report was made available to IDAC in June 2026, and by then charges had already been laid against individuals involved.

“that audit report was made available to IDAC no earlier than June 2026, and by then they had been charged already.”

ADV SELLO SC suggested there was a coordinated attack by IDAC against Generals Masemola, Khumalo and Mkhwanazi in November 2025, which Advocate Johnson initially denied.

“Mr Nqola asked you whether there is a coordinated attack by IDAC against Generals Masemola, Khumalo and Mkhwanazi, and I think it was Ms Sangoni as well asked about the investigations against Masemola and Mkhwanazi and you said there was nothing at the time. This is November 2025.”

There were no investigations into General Masemola and General Mkhwanazi in November 2025 apart from inherited matters from IPID.

“apart from those inherited matters from IPID , there are none.”

General Masemola’s involvement in corruption related to the contract became known to IDAC only after November 2025.

“General Masemola’s involvement in the corruption relating to the contract came to the fore in so far as IDAC is concerned, only after November 2025.”

General Masemola was not under investigation at Ad Hoc in November 2025 but became subject to investigation later on.

“At the time when I was at Ad Hoc, he was not the subject of the investigation. ... And it is much, much later on in the investigation that it came to my attention that he is now a subject of the investigation.”

Advocate Johnson accepts that the document capturing media coverage of the PKTT disbandment is accurate.

“I would have to accept that it is accurate.”

There were numerous media articles and social media posts about the disbandment of the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT) from January 1, 2025 to April 15, 2025.

“there were numerous articles in broadcast, electronic print, online ... and even social media posts on the subject and the period is from 1 January 2025 ... the wide coverage covers the period up to 15 April 2025”

Advocate Johnson confirmed he followed media publications and had seen publications about the controversial disbandment of the PKTT.

“you said that you do follow media publications, so you must have seen publications around the disbandment of the PKTT ... And you would also have seen that it was a controversial subject, correct?”

Advocate Johnson admitted he should have asked questions about paragraph 6 of Annexure B related to the PKTT but did not.

“I do not dispute that I should have asked questions ... I signed it as I signed it ... I appreciate that I should have and that I did not ask deeper questions and I did sign it.”

Advocate Johnson explained he signed the document either because he engaged with Mr Perumalan and was satisfied or because he was unaware of a PKTT investigation and should have asked deeper questions.

“either I engaged and was engaged with Mr Perumalan and was satisfied ... or I was unaware of a PKTT investigation and so I should have asked deeper questions.”

At the time Advocate Johnson signed a summons, he was aware of the issue about the PKTT and that it was controversial.

“at that time you signed this summons, you were aware that there was any issue about the PKTT ... and also that the issue raised some controversy, correct?”

Advocate Johnson acknowledged that paragraph 6 of Annexure B refers to the promotions of PKTT commanders and members through deviation processes.

“paragraph 1 talks to the deviation of appointment of Lieutenant General Khumalo ... paragraph 6 ... original documentary files and applications for promotions ... commanders and members of the PKTT through deviation, they tied into the deviation process.”

Advocate Johnson accepted there was no sinister reason for not asking deeper questions about the PKTT issue and that he signed the document without asking more questions.

“I do not have a sinister reason for not having asked more ... I did not ask more ... I accept you that I should have asked more ... I can not get away from the fact that I did sign it.”

Advocate Johnson followed the sequence of appointments and deviations related to Lieutenant General Khumalo as a basis to sign the document regarding the PKTT, despite not addressing paragraph 6 entirely.

“I followed that sequence of appointments, deviations ... promotion of Lieutenant General Khumalo by deviation ... So it made sense in that regard.”

Advocate Johnson agreed to adhere to a previously agreed proposition.

“Chair, I agreed with you and I am sticking to that agreement.”

Advocate Johnson's reasoning that the deviation applied throughout the entire complement of the PKTT is not sensible because paragraph 6 of Annexure B addresses the entire PKTT complement, not just deviations.

“6 is about the entire complement of the PKTT ... You would have to be suggesting deviation applied throughout the entire PKTT complement, which simply does not make sense.”

The issue discussed is person specific and covers all PKTT members from commanders to the most junior.

“it is person specific. That is number 1. Number 2, when you look at number 6, it is ...Quite wide ... It refers to all PKT T members, from commanders all the way down to the most junior”

Advocate Johnson thought that talking to Mr. Perumal might have triggered his memory about the issue under discussion but was unsure if it would have led to a better answer.

“I did think that by talking to Mr Perumal, it might have triggered my mind. I am not saying I would have come with a better answer”

Advocate Johnson accepted the Chair's proposal regarding the issue discussed.

“I accept the Chair's proposal.”

The event under discussion happened early last year.

“This happened early last year.”

There was a lot of disagreement between police, police ministry and Provincial Head for KZN about PKTT, but it did not raise alarm bells for IDAC at the time.

“There was a lot of discussions, Chair, some unpleasant, and there was a lot of toing and froing between the police and the police ministry and the Provincial Head for KZN. That was alive and clear, but it did not raise alarm bells for IDAC at the time.”

Advocate Johnson denied that alarm bells were going off in his mind about PKTT issues at the time because it was a police matter and IDAC was not working with PKTT.

“No, Chair, the alarm bells not going on ... This had been a, it was a police matter at the time that it was being canvassed. We were not working with the PKTT at the time.”