Hearing day 139

The ICAC team applied for confidentiality of some docket materials disclosed to the Commission.

“there had been an application by the IDAC team regarding confidentiality of some of the dockets that have been disclosed to us”

IDAC legal team led by Advocate Bodlani engaged extensively with the Evidence Leaders on confidentiality concerns.

“there were extensive engagements between us as the Evidence Leaders and the IDAC legal team led by Advocate Bodlani”

The confidentiality concern relates to one docket that may expose intended witnesses to undue threat of harm if identified.

“The concerns basically relate to confidential material that may be in the docket ... the biggest fear is that our engagement with the contents of the respective dockets does not ... unnecessarily expose intended witnesses to undue threat of harm”

The rest of the dockets have been shared with the respective accused, with no risks attendant upon the witnesses involved.

“as regards the rest of the dockets, we do not have that restriction ... the dockets have been shared with the respective accused in the matters under consideration, and I think we agree that the risk or the risks that have been put forward are not attendant upon the witnesses involved in the respective matters”

There are four dockets in total, with only one docket affected by the confidentiality concern and an approach to exercise restraint regarding that docket is suggested.

“we have whittled it down to there are four dockets in total ... there is only one docket ... to advise the Commission that they no longer persist with the application as couched. We instead approach the Commission to grant us the latitude to exercise restraint when we deal with a particular docket.”

Colonel Brian Padayachee submitted a nine-page affidavit dated 16 October 2025 with annexures 1 to 29 (pages 1 to 107) to the Commission.

“it should have on its spine Brian Padayachee's statement and supplemental statement ... It is a nine-page document ... I confirm, Chair. This is my affidavit ... the annexures that will run in range from Annexure 1 to Annexure 29 ... from pages 1 to 107 ... Do you confirm that those are your annexures ... I confirm ... Do you confirm the correctness of this statement? I confirm”

Colonel Brian Padayachee confirms receipt of Rule 3 notice and subpoena related to allegations made by General Mkhwanazi.

“Do you confirm? I confirm, Chair”

Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi made allegations that IDAC was operating outside its mandate, and that Colonel Padayachee lacked the requisite experience as a detective and as a senior investigator at IDAC; these allegations are substantiated by how IDAC and Colonel Padayachee handled the investigation into General Khumalo leading to his arrest on 26 June 2025.

“General Mkhwanazi made allegations that IDAC , on one, IDAC is operating outside its mandate. And secondly, that you, Colonel Padayachee, do not have the requisite experience as a detective and you are a senior investigator at IDAC. And that three, those facts that he alleges are substantiated by how IDAC and yourself as the investigator have handled the, what I will call the Khumalo matter, the investigation into General Khumalo that led to his arrest on the 26th of June 2025.”

Colonel Brian Padayachee is a retired Colonel of the South African Police Service with 44 years of experience, currently employed as a senior investigator at the National Prosecuting Authority's Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC).

“I am an adult male employed at the National Prosecuting Authority as a senior investigator assigned to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption , IDAC . I am a retired Colonel of the South African SAPS . I have served the SAPS for 38 and a half years ... It is now 44 years of my law enforcement career.”

Colonel Padayachee was headhunted and appointed as a senior investigator at IDAC in October 2021 on contract by the former Investigating Director Advocate Herman Cronje, head of IDAC at that time.

“I was headhunted and thereafter appointed as a senior investigator in October 2021 on contract by the former Investigating Director, Advocate Herman Cronje, who was the head of the Investigating Directorate at that time.”

IDAC was previously located within the NPA and became a permanent unit within the NPA as a result of the NPA Amendment Act, with Colonel Padayachee appointed to a position by President Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa on 1 March 2022.

“The ID, as a result of the NPA Amendment Act, became the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption , a permanent unit within the NPA . I was appointed to a position referred to above by the President Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa on 1 March 2022.”

Colonel Padayachee was permanently appointed as a senior criminal investigator at IDAC in February 2025.

“In February 025 , I was appointed permanently in the IDAC as a senior criminal investigator.”

Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi publicly alleged on 6 July 2025 that Colonel Padayachee was appointed to a senior position in IDAC despite lacking the required skills, experience, and qualifications, and that he used his role to influence and control investigative outcomes and court proceedings, particularly regarding the criminal charges against Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused related to Brigadier Mokwele's employment.

“The notice requires me to deal with the following issues on which Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi testified . First , I was appointed to a senior position within IDAC despite lacking the required skills , experience , and qualifications . I have used my role to influence and control investigative outcomes , court proceedings , in particular the criminal charges against Lieutenant General Khumalo and his co-accused .”

The witness denies allegations that they were appointed to a senior position at IDAC without the requisite skills, experience, and qualifications, calling such allegations baseless.

“the allegations that I was appointed to a senior position within IDAC in the circumstances where I do not have the requisite skills, experience and qualifications is void, empty and bereft of a factual foundation . It is baseless.”

Before appointment, the witness was involved in many successful criminal investigations including the Inchanga Massacre in 2000, and received a commendation from the Provincial Commissioner of KwaZulu-Natal for their involvement.

“Before my appointment, I have been involved in many successful criminal investigations . It is appropriate for me to mention a few. At the time of my appointment , I investigated and / or had previously been involved the Inchanga Massacre in the year 2000 . So involved that I received a commendation from the Provincial Commissioner of KwaZulu-Natal .”

The Richmond Task Team (Opspactwo) was well aware of the violence and mass murders in Richmond, KwaZulu-Natal, including the Dlamini Massacre.

“The Richmond Task Team , named Opspactwo , were well aware of the violence during the Richmond time when I think it was well known throughout the country on the number of massacres that took place in Richmond . The . . . Massacre , the Dlamini Massacre :”

The witness investigated violent gang-related murders in the Edendale Plessislaer area, leading to successful arrests and receiving a Certificate of Recognition by the Mayor of Pietermaritzburg.

“During the violence in the Edendale Plessislaer area in KwaZulu-Natal, ... I investigated and followed leads which led to successful arrests of suspects for a double murder ... As a result , I was awarded a Certificate of Recognition by the Mayor of Pietermaritzburg.”

The witness was surprised when General Mkhwanazi mentioned their name in his press briefing and testimony at the Commission because they had prior telephonic contact before the press briefing.

“I was surprised when General Mkhwanazi mentioned my name in his press briefing and again during his testimony during the Commission. This is because I had prior telephonic contact with him long before his press briefing.”

The witness was deployed to the Richmond Opspactwo during violent mass murders and successfully investigated, traced, and arrested a murder suspect linked to the Cash Money Brothers gang in the Western Cape, receiving commendations from the National and Provincial Commissioners of Detectives.

“I was deployed to the Richmond Opspactwo during the violence and mass murders in Richmond KwaZulu-Natal ... The murder suspect , a member of the notorious Cash Money Brothers , CMB , was involved in several shootings and had evaded arrest . ... I investigated , traced and arrested the suspect in the Western Cape . The arrest received mass media attention and commendations were received from the National Commissioner, Provincial Commissioner Detectives for the successful arrest of the suspect .”

The witness investigated an attempted abduction and kidnapping of a businessman's daughter, a case referenced in Annexure BP18.

“The attempted abduction and kidnapping of a businessman's daughter. I refer in this regard to Annexure BP18.”

The witness has testified in various criminal court proceedings in both the High Court and Magistrate's Court, but cannot detail the merits of ongoing cases that are sub judice.

“I have also testified in various criminal court proceedings in both the High Court and the Magistrate's Court. I cannot dwell into the merits of the cases which I have been appointed to investigate and which have been mentioned before this Commission as they are sub judice.”

The witness applauded General Mkhwanazi as one of the best in 44 years of service at addressing corruption and crime directly.

“He is one of , in the 44 years that I have been in the service and in law enforcement , he is one of the best that addresses corruption and crime directly. So I applauded him.”

The witness had prior telephonic contact and an occasion to interview General Mkhwanazi before his press briefing, who also provided an affidavit in support of an IDAC investigation related to Crime Intelligence investigations. The details cannot be disclosed as the matter is still under investigation.

“Not only had I had contact with him prior to his press briefings , I had the occasion to interview him . He also provided me with an affidavit in support of one of the IDAC investigations related to Crime Intelligence investigations . I cannot disclose the details of General Mkhwanazi's affidavit nor provide the same to the Commission as the matter is still under investigation.”

The witness attaches screenshots of WhatsApp messages and phone calls held with General Mkhwanazi before and after receiving the affidavit, marked BP19 and BP25, to substantiate their communication.

“To substantiate my contact and communication held with Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi , I attach hereto screenshots of the messages and phone calls held with General Mkhwanazi prior to and after he provided me with the affidavit. They are marked BP19 and BP25.”

The WhatsApp messages show friendly greetings including Easter wishes by General Mkhwanazi to the witness using their first name, indicating a trusting relationship not typical for senior officers addressing subordinates.

“... You can see the way we are interacting and relating to each other.”

The witness describes the WhatsApp messages exchanged with General Mkhwanazi as neutral in content, comprising approachable conversations with details about locations and meeting arrangements.

“They appear to be neutral in content. You say you are travelling to Durban and that you would like to meet. ... These were approachable conversations. During these conversations he told me where he was. I met him.”

The witness recounts cordial and friendly interactions with General Mkhwanazi at his office and home, including discussions about corruption and a signed affidavit concerning a Major General suspect in the witness's cases.

“I met him . He was outside the Provincial Commissioner's office . He had his short pants next to his white bakkie , hands in the pocket . I had my hands in my pocket too , although he was a General , and we were chatting ... We had a conversation with regards to what I required of him. ... We met again ... at his house where we had the same conversation. I had his affidavit ... The affidavit concerns a Major General who is one of the suspects in my cases...He confirmed the affidavit . He signed the affidavit ... We had a cordial chat about corruption and everything that is going ...”

The witness states General Mkhwanazi was aware of the upcoming arrests of General Khumalo and other generals and reacted comfortably and calmly, showing no anger during their meeting.

“In that particular meeting, Commissioner, he was aware, because I told him, General Khumalo is going to be arrested . He was aware also that other Generals were going to be arrested too as well. And his response to me was, they must face their own situations . He was comfortable . There was nothing abnormal . He was not angry, and we sat in the lounge for quite some time.”

The witness states that after the meeting with General Mkhwanazi, the operation commenced which resulted in the arrest of four senior officers from Crime Intelligence and that everything was fine with no issues.

“Not very long after that, or a while later, the operation on the first matter commenced , which resulted in the arrest of four senior officers from Crime Intelligence . Everything was fine . There was no issues.”

The witness emphasizes the trust built with General Mkhwanazi demonstrated by repeated meetings at his home and office, including cordial conversations about corruption, indicating General Mkhwanazi was aware of sensitive issues discussed.

“From the time of our first meeting ... I am invited to his home ... So the scenario itself tells you the trust, in your home, where your family is. So what I am saying here, Commissioner, he was aware.”

The first matter involved the arrest of one General, two senior officers, and a Warrant Officer, including General Lushaba (CFO).

“The first matter is one General and two senior officers and a Warrant Officer at that time.”

The second matter involved an arrest of several senior Crime Intelligence members: Generals Khumalo, Lekalakala, Lushaba, Madondo, Brigadiers Mokwele and Ncube.

“The second matter was General Khumalo, General Lekalakala, General Lushaba, General Madondo, Brigadier Mokwele, and Brigadier Ncube.”

General Mkhwanazi was fine with the first case involving General Lushaba and with the second case involving General Khumalo on 27 June 2026.

“I just wanted to put it in context that General Mkhwanazi was fine with the first case of General Lushaba. He was fine with the second case of General Khumalo on the 27th.”

After the arrest of General Khumalo, Colonel Padayachee received two missed calls from General Mkhwanazi but the message sent was not read until 6 July 2026, after a press briefing where General Mkhwanazi gave a briefing.

“During the latter part of the afternoon, this is directly after the arrest of General Khumalo, there were two calls that came, two missed calls... The missed calls were from General Mkhwanazi... The message was not read the Sunday and the Monday... until the 6th of July, when I saw the press briefing and General Mkhwanazi giving the press briefing.”

An affidavit from General Mkhwanazi related to an ongoing Crime Intelligence investigation from April 2025 is in the confidential docket disclosed to the Commission; it has not yet been publicly disclosed.

“That affidavit was made. I took General Mkhwanazi's affidavit, I think it probably was in April 2025... that affidavit is in the docket, and I do not think it has been disclosed yet... it is in the confidential docket... it is in the docket that is disclosed to you, the third docket.”

Colonel Padayachee submits he is qualified for his role as senior investigator at IDAC with 44 years of experience and has no foundation to a conclusion that he used his position to influence investigative outcomes or court proceedings, especially in relation to charges against General Khumalo and his co-accused Brigadier Mokwele.

“I am more than qualified for the work that I am doing as a senior investigator at IDAC... I have taken the trouble to read the transcript of the evidence of Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi. There is no foundation for his conclusion that I use and/or have used my position to influence and control investigative outcomes and court proceedings. In particular, the criminal charges against Lieutenant General Khumalo, his co-accused as related to the employment of Brigadier Mokwele...”

Crime Intelligence has been a corrupt and dangerous environment where no single Divisional Commissioner stayed long without being removed for corruption, and the referral leading to arrests was unprecedented.

“It has been for more than three decades that Crime Intelligence has been the front in the media space on corruption. There is not a single Divisional Commissioner that has held his post and stayed there. Most of them were charged for corruption, for allegations of corruption and removed, and there was always acting, acting, acting. Crime Intelligence is a very closed environment, a dangerous environment too as well. ... it led to the arrest of the executive of Crime Intelligence.”

Colonel Padayachee has known General Khumalo since 2006 and considered him a friend; contact ceased after Khumalo’s promotion and transfer to Pretoria; Khumalo was appointed Acting Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence in 2022/2023, which excited Padayachee.

“I have known General Khumalo since 2006, when he was just promoted to a Captain... I know him well... In 2022/2023, he was appointed as the Acting Divisional Commissioner of Crime Intelligence, and I was excited for him.”

Two police agents who resurfaced in 2012 but had been in programs since 2004 without reporting on duty had their salaries stopped by General Khumalo.

“... the main case where two agents that were in the programmes since 2004 that were resurfaced in 2012 but never reported on duty . He stopped their salaries .”

The witness was requested to assist General Khumalo with particular rogue agents and prepared documents and affidavits that led to the dismissal of an interdict.

“I was called and I was requested to assist with particular rogue agents because of my knowledge and experience ... I prepared the requisite documents and submitted them , and as a result , that interdict was dismissed .”

General Khumalo started to clean up rogue agents in Crime Intelligence who were collecting salaries but not doing any work, which led to interdicts and applications against him being brought.

“General Khumalo , when he came to Crime Intelligence , started to clean up the rogue agents that were collecting salaries but not doing anything . So when he started to clean up , they brought interdicts and applications against him .”

General Khumalo greeted the witness and gave him his number; however, the witness was unable to meet because Khumalo was in a meeting and not in the province.

“General Khumalo greeted me and said how is it , Brian ? And I said hi General ... He gave me his number ... But after that , because when I messaged him or spoke to him , he is in a meeting , I am not in the province , so it eventually just went out .”

The speaker claims to have been a mentor to General Madondo and had long working relationships with General Lekalakala since the 2000s.

“I was General Madondo's mentor. I had known General Madondo from the 000s . ... General Lekalakala , we have a long working relationship since the 2000s .”

The two police agents wanted to be released on early retirement and appointed as full Colonels.

“the main matter there , the these two policemen wanted to be released on early retirement and be appointed as full Colonels ,”

Protector officers blocked the witness after a few remands following court appearances at the Magistrate's Court.

“Obviously , a few remands later , the protectors blocked me , and then I decided let me pull back .”

The witness states there was no malice on their part towards the colleagues mentioned, some of whom are close people they know.

“So I thought that would be worth mentioning before we go on to whatever else has to come next ... there was no malice on my part . These are colleagues , and in some cases , close people that I know .”

COLONEL PADAYACHEE clarifies he is not claiming subjudice but is cautious about the information he provides due to ongoing criminal cases.

“I am not claiming subjudice . What I am actually saying in layman's terms , I have to be cautious .”

The witness is cautious about dealing with the merits of the cases investigated to avoid compromising any criminal cases or witnesses, guided by the Chair.

“My criminal case before court has to be presented and I do not want to compromise anything , witnesses or whatever deeper stuff that I have to present before court ... I will be guided by the Chair on whatever limits that he wants me to go through .”

The summons issued to Colonel Brian Padayachee requires him to respond to allegations about infiltration, capture, exertion of undue influence, and corruption within the South African Police Service, the National Prosecuting Authority, and other criminal justice system components by criminal syndicates, politically connected persons, and unlawful actors.

“The summons requires me to appear before the Commission on Monday 13 July 2026 for the purposes of giving evidence and be questioned about the following. Matters arising from the evidence of Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi during his evidence before the Commission on 17, 18 and 19 September whether criminal syndicates, organised criminal groups, politically connected persons or other unlawful actors have infiltrated, captured, exerted undue influence over or otherwise compromised the South African Police, the NPA, the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, Crime Intelligence, Independent Police Investigative Directorate or any other component of the criminal justice system.”

Colonel Padayachee is summoned to give evidence concerning allegations that the Investigating Directorate for Corruption (IDAC) operates outside its legal mandate under the NPA Act section 7(1)(A).

“Allegations that IDAC operates outside its mandate in terms of prescribed legal constructs, namely section 1(a) of the NPA Act as amended.”

There are allegations concerning Colonel Padayachee's involvement in political interference in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

“Allegations concerning my role in the interference in criminal investigations and prosecutions.”

Colonel Padayachee denies the allegations that IDAC pursued a criminal case against Lieutenant General Dumisani Khumalo and other Crime Intelligence officials as part of ongoing political interference at SAPS, stating that the allegations are baseless and that IDAC has sufficient evidence to sustain the charges.

“I deny these allegations. They are baseless and devoid of merit. The IDAC has sufficient evidence to sustain the charges on the criminal cases against Lieutenant General Khumalo and other officials at Crime Intelligence. This criminal case is currently pending before the Magistrate's Court Pretoria. I deny as baseless any allegations of political interference or hidden agendas in respect of the investigations that are conducted by IDAC against these senior officers within Crime Intelligence and SAPS.”

Colonel Padayachee describes the process when a complaint comes in via a section 27 referral, handled by the Intake Committee which determines whether it falls within IDAC's mandate, including legal prescriptions and preliminary investigations if needed.

“When a complaint comes in via a section 27 referral, that referral is taken by the Intake Committee, which decides whether this falls within the mandate of IDAC. All the legal prescripts, everything is there. That referral is then a section 28(13). If it falls within the mandate and if it still needs more information, a preliminary investigation in terms of section 28(13) is...”

Colonel Padayachee explains that investigators cannot influence the investigations because they are prosecution-driven, and the prosecution team decides who to charge and what charges to bring.

“These investigations cannot be influenced by investigators because they are prosecution driven. There are processes in place which are managed by the prosecution team. They decide who to charge. They decide what charges.”

Colonel Padayachee states that there is no political interference in the investigations he is involved in and that he has never received undue pressure or calls related to those investigations.

“There is no political interference. And this I say so from my personal investigations into the matter. I have never received any calls or placed under any undue pressure.”

This matter came under a referral in terms of section 27 of the NPA Act from Member of Parliament Mr Fadiel Adams.

“A referral. This matter came under a referral in terms of section 27 of the NPA Act... from a Member of Parliament, Mr Fadiel Adams.”

The criminal prosecution team is led by a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions who guides the prosecutors on evidence and charges.

“then leading that team, you will have a Deputy Director of Public Prosecution who is responsible for that. So in terms of prosecution... they decide on the evidence, the investigation and evidence collected, who to charge and what to charge.”

The referral was made by submitting an affidavit as far as Colonel Padayachee knows.

“As far as I know, it is an affidavit that is submitted.”

Colonel Padayachee has no authority or power to influence prosecutions; his role is only investigative.

“I am only an investigator that goes out and investigate. I have no authority or power to influence prosecutions. I go out, I am directed by the prosecutors, investigate, collect the evidence... That is in the domain of the prosecutors.”

Colonel Padayachee stated that the allegation concerning his role in interference in criminal investigations and prosecutions is vague and without evidence showing any interference by him.

“The allegation is vague. It does not contain evidence in fact showing any interference on my part or on any investigations and prosecutions. The IDA cooperates on a prosecution investigation methodology which is headed by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. It discounts personal influence on investigations and prosecutions.”

Colonel Padayachee denies any knowledge or involvement with a 'Khan IDAC cabal' in SAPS or IDAC.

“I have no knowledge of an existence of a Khan IDAC cabal in SAPS. I also have no knowledge of a Khan IDAC cabal within IDAC. It follows that if such cabal exists, I have no party to it. I have never investigated such because I do not know of it and neither am I involved in it.”

Colonel Padayachee denies any involvement or knowledge of a cabal or anything of that sort related to the Khan IDAC cabal allegations.

“I have no involvement in any of it and I have no knowledge of a cabal or party to anything of that sort.”

Colonel Padayachee denies disclosing any investigation or SAPS docket information to Major General Khan regarding an ongoing criminal investigation against Khan.

“I have never disclosed any investigation or any docket to Major General Khan... The allegation that I disclosed the SAPS docket to General Khan relating to an investigation against him... I have a complete denial that I shared any information and docket with regards to him.”

Colonel Padayachee knew Major General Khan as a senior officer in Crime Intelligence but had no official working relationship with him during his time there, and he had reservations about Crime Intelligence senior officers.

“I know Major General Khan is a senior officer... I had strictly no official working relationship with him. I had my reservations during my time Crime Intelligence on senior officers there...”

There were seasoned veteran Crime Intelligence officers including the speaker himself at the merger of the new Crime Intelligence Service, and there were reservations about the rapid promotions such as General Khanca's promotion from Colonel to General.

“there you had seasoned veteran Crime Intelligence officers, as well as from the new Crime Intelligence, which one of them was myself that came in ... And when General Khanca came in, he was a Colonel and then next minute ... General Khanci is now a General. ... I had my reservations”

The reservations expressed relate to promotion irregularities within Crime Intelligence, indicating corruption with personnel recruited irregularly and promoted bypassing ranks.

“there were many things that took place during, and as mentioned by Mkhwanazi, which I support what he says about the corruption within Crime Intelligence ... some of them worked at supermarkets or wherever, that came into the police and ... they came in on the rank of a Captain ... a prominent person's wife was also promoted to a full Colonel ... it did exist during those times. But the manner in which it was done is questionable”

The corruption within Crime Intelligence involves people skipping ranks and being willy-nilly promoted, causing demoralization among long-serving personnel.

“But to go and skip ranks ... there are other people too ... went from Colonels to Generals ... especially starting at CI, that has put us where we are today with a system that has become so corrupt, where people are just willy-nilly promoted ... people that are sitting 20, 30 years in a particular rank with expertise, experience, hardworking, and suddenly somebody comes in and a while later, they are made a General”

Colonel Padayachee was designated by Advocate Johnson, the Investigating Director at head office, to be part of a Section 28(13) preliminary investigation team for a prosecution-led investigation related to Ms Mokwele's case.

“I was designated by the investigating director as the head of office ... I was designated on that ... Advocate Johnson ... the investigation starts from the referral where section 28(13) preliminary investigation starts ... designate investigators, prosecutors to that particular team ... I was designated on that”

In the investigative team, Colonel Padayachee serves as a docket carrier responsible for administration, while the lead investigator role is shared among several individuals, including Chief Criminal Investigator Perumal.

“In the investigating team, the word lead investigator is utilised. I am not the lead investigator. I am a docket carrier ... there are other investigators that assist with that ... Perumal is our chief investigator in that investigation team ... the chief criminal investigator, Perumal is our chief investigator”

Colonel Padayachee clarifies that for the specific case involving Brigadier Mokwele, he is a docket carrier and not the lead investigator, but accepts the terms lead, docket carrier as effectively the same for ease of reference.

“I look at myself as not a lead investigator. I look at myself as a docket carrier ... lead, docket carrier, one and the same thing ... I will accept it as that way”

Colonel Padayachee states that in the Mokwele investigation, he acted as both the lead investigator and the docket carrier, reporting to the chief criminal investigator Mr Perumal.

“the lead investigator or the docket carrier is myself . But I report to all my work and everything that is done has to pass through the criminal investigator, chief criminal investigator.”

Colonel Padayachee was designated by Advocate Johnson, not Mr Perumal.

“Who designated you? Was it Mr Perumal or Advocate Johnson ? - Advocate Johnson .”

Colonel Padayachee clarifies that the terms 'lead investigator' and 'docket carrier' will be used interchangeably but prefers 'lead investigator' to avoid confusion.

“I know it creates confusion, but we will stick with lead investigator.”

Advocate Khumalo suggests Colonel Padayachee might be trying to avoid responsibility by initially claiming he was just the 'docket carrier' and not the lead investigator.

“... it sounded as if you were trying to avoid responsibility about certain things and you were trying to say, oh that is the responsibility of the lead investigator, I am just the docket carrier...”

Colonel Padayachee states the appointment and designations of the investigative team for the Mokwele case are done by the investigating director with their management.

“The appointments and designations of the team is done by the investigating director with their management, that is what I know.”

Colonel Padayachee denies accessing SAPS dockets or disclosing any docket to General Khan relating to any ongoing criminal investigation.

“I do not work with SAPS dockets, neither do I have access to SAPS dockets. I deny that I disclosed any docket to General Khan relating to any ongoing criminal investigation against him.”

Colonel Padayachee is willing to make himself available to assist the Commission subject to timeous notice and legal representation rights.

“I would be willing to make myself available for such.”

The Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) is established in the Office of the National Director to investigate serious, high-profile, or complex corruption, commercial or financial crime cases.

“Theres hereby established in the Office of the National Director an Investigating Directorate to be known as the Investigating Directorate against Corruption to investigate, and carry out, any functions incidental to investigations relating to serious, high-profile or complex corruption, commercial or financial crime cases”

The mandate of IDAC includes statutory offences under legislation like the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 2004, Prevention of Organised Crime Act 1998, and others related to financial governance and dishonesty.

“including contraventions of - (i) the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 (Act 12 of 2004); (ii) the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998 (Act 121 of 1998); (iii) the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities, 2004 (Act 33 of 2004); (iv) the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act 1 of 1999); (v) the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act, 2003 (Act 56 of 2003); (vi) the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 2001 (Act 38 of 2001)”

IDAC investigates cases arising from recommendations of commissions of inquiry, referrals by the National Director under section 28(1)(b), or referrals under section 27, which include offences like fraud, forgery, uttering, theft, and any offence involving dishonesty.

“arising from the recommendations of commissions of inquiry; referred to the Investigating Directorate by the National Director in terms of section 28(1)(b); or referred to the Investigating Directorate in terms of section 27, subject to section 26(2); relating to additional related offences or categories of offences, including common law offences of fraud, forgery, uttering, theft; and any offence involving dishonesty”

Complaints to IDAC come in by affidavit under section 27 of the NPA Act and are reviewed by the Case Intake Committee to determine if they fall within IDAC's mandate, followed by investigation under section 28 if sufficient information exists.

“Section 27 deals with the reporting of matters to the Investigating Director...A complaint that is referred in terms of section 27 comes to the Head of Office, the Investigating Director, then to the Case Intake Committee who decide if it falls within mandate...If sufficient information on referral, a full-blown investigation can be conducted in terms of section 28”

The preliminary investigation process involves designated prosecutors and investigators authorized to start and conduct the investigation, leading to a full-blown investigation approval under section 28(1) where additional expertise is added if needed.

“There is a list of all these people that are put in there. That is their, that designation is their authority to proceed and conduct the preliminary investigation ... a full-blown investigation, section 28(1) is approved ... these additional people are added onto the designation and authorisation of this full-blown investigation.”

The chargesheet and supporting note are presented to the Deputy Director of the team for verification, who then presents it to management for approval before the matter is enrolled in court and prosecution begins.

“That chargesheet and the memo is presented to the Deputy Director of that team. He looks at it to see that, okay, the facts, the evidence is supported by facts ... That is then now taken to management, is presented before management, management will decide ... the matter is ready to be enrolled.”

The chief criminal investigator leads a team assembled to conduct the investigation, interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence which is analyzed by prosecutors who decide if sufficient evidence exists to charge an individual.

“The chief criminal investigator assembles his investigators ... you go out, you interview, obtain witness statements, other related evidence ... The team, put together with the prosecutors, look at this evidence, they analyse this evidence, the prosecutors look at it, and if they see that there is sufficient evidence based on facts, then they will start with a chargesheet on who they are going to charge and what charges they are going to put.”

The enrolment process includes preparing arrest warrants (J50s) or summons to appear (J175s) depending on the circumstances, and preparing bail affidavits particularly for Schedule 5 offences where the burden is on the accused to be released on bail.

“It is a summons to appear ... your warrants are prepared ... you then ready for Court ... you will plan your operation to execute your summons or your J50s ... Then you will start preparing bail affidavits ...”

Section 7(1A)(a) of the relevant Act is interpreted to apply to investigations involving serious, high profile, or complex corruption cases and commercial or financial crimes, and any one of these triggers justifies application of the section.

“What is your understanding of the triggers or the entry points in accordance with paragraph A of the subsection, that is 7(1A), capital A, A, the smaller A being paragraph A of the section ... It refers to investigations relating to ... three triggers, serious, high profile, or complex ... the question ... must this be read conjunctively or disjunctively ... So my understanding of it is that it is just serious and complex corruption ... any one of the three. Anyone.”

In practice, the focus is on serious corruption rather than emphasizing the 'high profile' nature of a case, as 'high profile' alone may not be sufficient for applying section 7(1A)(a).

“In terms of the practice that I am used to, it will be serious corruption ... High profile ... I would go more on the corruption and emphasise on the serious corruption and not bother about whether it is high profile ...”

The Case Evaluation Committee sets criteria on what cases fall under their mandate, influencing which corruption cases are taken on; factors like public interest, high-level government corruption influence seriousness assessments.

“The Case Evaluation Committee ... they have their set criteria ... And I think maybe what they decide, we have to go with ... When I look at certain factors, it is public interest, it is out there, it is high-level government corruption, it is in a space there.”

The Evaluation Committee determines the seriousness of matters based on various factors unknown to Col. Padayachee, who has no authority over that matter.

“you said the Evaluation Committee determines what is serious based on a number of factors that you do not necessarily have to know about”

There is no permanent Evaluation Committee on the organizational structure of IDAC; instead a Case Intake Committee is formed for cases.

“From what I know is that a Case Intake Committee is put together. It consists of the ID, the Investigative Director herself and her management. ... From her self and her management, she will put something like this. But I cannot say because I have no knowledge on that part ... it is not there”

Col. Padayachee does not have authority or in-knowledge about how the Evaluation Committee operates and is a couple of tiers below management.

“I do not have any authority on that matter. I cannot comment on that because I do not have the in-knowledge of how they operate on management. I am still a couple of tiers below that”

The Head of Office of IDAC constitutes the Case Intake Committee, and the committee exists on an ongoing basis as needed, not fixed or ad hoc.

“But I know it would be the Head of Office that would constitute such a committee because it stops with the Head of Office ... I think it is something that is ongoing when the need arises or whatever matters come in”

IDAC management hierarchy consists of the Head of Office, Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions, and chief investigators; below them are senior and junior state advocates and investigators, with Col. Padayachee at the third tier.

“You have the Head of Office. Then you have the Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions. And then you have your chief criminal investigators, chief financial investigators, and your chiefs and the others... Below that you have your senior state advocates... So that is where I fit on that level ... third tier”

Col. Padayachee drew a distinction between preliminary investigations and full investigations under sections 7, 27, and 28, including the appointment of teams leading up to drawing of charge sheets and application for warrants of arrest.

“In dealing with section 7 and section 27 and section 28, you drew a distinction between preliminary investigations, and you then referenced the appointment of this team, including prosecutors, leading up to the drawing of the charge sheet, and then applying for the warrants of arrest”

Col. Padayachee explained the process from referral to investigation, stating that the Intake Committee decides if a matter falls within IDAC's mandate and the Investigating Director then authorises a preliminary investigation under section 28(13).

“Once the Intake Committee decides whether or not this falls within the mandate of IDAC, the Investigating Director, the management and the Investigating Director authorises a section 28(13) investigation, which is a preliminary investigation”

If sufficient evidence is present in the referral, there is no need for a preliminary inquiry and a full-blown investigation commences under section 28(1).

“If there is sufficient evidence, information, everything, then there is no need to go an inquiry, you can go into a full-blown investigation”

A criminal case can be registered during both the preliminary investigation and full investigation phases if prima facie evidence exists.

“A criminal case can be registered during both phases ... while you are busy with the preliminary investigation, you are going to find that there is prima facie evidence, etcetera. Then you will register a case”

The preliminary investigation phase serves to verify information and determine if there is prima facie evidence before moving to a full investigation phase under section 28(1).

“Because the initial part of it, the preliminary, is to verify. Verify that info, do your necessary investigation, and then when you see that there is substance, there is a prima facie here, then it goes into a full-blown investigation, which is in section 28(1). So the preliminary is just to confirm, identify this, this, etcetera”

If SAPS decide to refer a case to IDAC for some reason, they do so, but IDAC looks at complaints where complainants feel alleged corruption or other issues are not properly investigated by SAPS and then Intake Committee decides if it falls within IDAC mandate or should go back to SAPS.

“we would normally get , if SAPS decides they have a case which they want to refer to the Investigative Director for some other reason , yes , but when you look at a complainant that has referred a matter to SAPS and is not satisfied because alleged corruption or something that he suspects with regards to his case not being investigated properly ... and that is where the case Intake Committee , I think that they will look at those factors there ... to decide whether , look , it falls within our mandate , no , this should go to SAPS .”

In some cases where SAPS is already investigating, IDAC does not take over and the cases continue with SAPS investigations.

“in other examples where something is , that SAPS is already investigating , they are running with that investigation .”

In the Mokwele matter, one leg of the matter is already being investigated by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (DPCI) and IDAC is not involved in it because it falls under DPCI's space; IDAC liaises with DPCI who are busy with their investigations.

“DPCI is already engaged with that , so we are not involved with it because it is also reported that this particular thing took place and when we looked at it , it is in DPCI space , we liaise with them , they are busy with their investigations , so that does not form part of our leg .”

In a situation where a docket was opened by complainant at various police stations but then closed without further action, upon a section 27 referral, IDAC requests and takes those dockets from SAPS to assist investigations.

“dockets was opened by a complainant at various police stations and then he was not happy and these dockets , he did not hear about them and these dockets were closed . So , when that section 27 referral came , we looked at these cases , were requested the case dockets from the SAPS ... and we took those dockets to assist us in our investigations .”

In the Mokwele matter, Member of Parliament Adams initially reported at police stations before escalating the same complaint via section 27 referral to IDAC.

“Member of Parliament Adams goes to a police station to lay a complaint against General Khumalo and others relating to the Mokwele appointment . He does that . And then he decides to refer to IDAC in terms of section 27 , the same complaint . He completes an affidavit and he submits it to IDAC in terms of section 27 .”

Upon IDAC's receipt of the section 27 referral related to the Mokwele matter, IDAC requests the dockets from SAPS, finds them closed with little evidence, and takes over the investigation from SAPS.

“a request is made for the dockets with SAPS ... the dockets were opened in Cape Town and other police stations ... the dockets were given over to us ... there was hardly anything in those dockets ... so we started to investigate further ... So you took over the SAPS investigation . Yes ... does it mean that in investigation or that complaint , which was lodged at SAPS , is now closed ? Is that how IDAC deals with it ? It is now closed ? We are now investigating it ? Yes .”

The dockets from SAPS are now in possession of IDAC, and IDAC is responsible for those dockets, continuing all reporting to the criminal accountability system (CAS).

“on the SAPS system , it will show that the dockets are now in possession of IDAC . And IDAC is responsible for that docket . And all the processes that flow must be still reported to keep the CAS system or criminal system updated .”

IDAC does not negotiate with SAPS to take over a docket; rather, IDAC asserts its authority upon receiving a section 27 referral to take charge of the investigation.

“IDAC does not just go and take dockets . IDAC is tasked with an investigation into which there are allegations made ... We requested those dockets , officially requested those dockets to see and verify what the section 27 or the complainant is saying ... We requested those dockets ... And that those dockets do exist .”

There were about six or seven dockets in the Mokwele matter related complaints, but they were essentially duplicates describing the same case, reduced to four different complaints for investigation, with one already investigated by DPCI; IDAC did not interfere with that docket and took the remaining dockets for investigation.

“When you look at it , you know , the Cape Town dockets and the dockets that were opened here in Gauteng , it is about basically one and the same thing ... it is like duplicated ... I narrowed it down to four different complaints . One of those dockets ... was already being investigated by , I think it is DPCI ... It had to do with something that was purchased . They were busy with that . So that docket there , the actual docket that was opened , we did not interfere with that docket . We took the remaining dockets and , ja , we conducted investigations from there .”

There were three dockets opened in Cape Town related to the issues discussed, with varying CAS numbers and locations including Orlando and Villeria stations in Gauteng and possibly Protea.

“There were three dockets opened in Cape Town and they were... The Cape Town dockets was like 1651, 1652... Then Gauteng, I am going to say Gauteng because it is Orlando station and Villeria.”

An original docket with CAS number 404 from Villeria was misnumbered on the docket as 278, causing confusion in investigation processes.

“We had an original CAS-404, Villeria CAS-404. So we conducted our investigation under this CAS-04, and... We checked on the CAS system of the station that this CAS does not exist... The correct CAS number was 278 for that docket. So that 404 should have been scratched out and 278 should have been written on the docket.”

The complainant, Mr Adams, made a complaint to IDAC regarding the lack of progress on the dockets.

“Colonel, you say that the complainant, Mr Adams, came to IDAC and complained about the progress or lack on the dockets.”

Mr Adams made a complaint to IDAC alleging corruption related to the opened dockets and disappearance of dockets.

“I think the issue of the complaint is that he alleges that he opened cases but nothing, his dockets disappeared. And then he alleged the corruption in that referral, which we took our lead from.”

IDAC requested the dockets from SAPS in writing, addressing the Head of Detectives, but SAPS could legally refuse the request.

“What I would say from my interpretation is the dockets were requested from SAPS. It was requested... I believe that request was done in writing... I think it was to the Head of the Detectives... As far as I can recall, we were lying at the inspectorate... There is a possibility of SAPS refusing...”

The complaint to IDAC pertained to allegations of corruption, not the failure of SAPS to investigate the opened dockets.

“The way I look at the 27 referral was to look at this complaint of corruption. The corruption, not the failure of SAPS to investigate.”

The referral under section 27 was found to have reasonable grounds and accepted, and this decision was made by the Case Committee within IDAC.

“That referral was sent to the Case Committee. They looked at that referral. They made a decision that it falls within the IDAC space. The decision on accepting it, and that it has grounds, reasonable ground, or whatever, that reasonableness, the grounds, is determined by that committee that sat there and made that decision”

Section 7(1) of the referenced Act, which defined 'specified offence', has been deleted, creating ambiguity about what constitutes a specified offence under section 27.

“section 7 (1 ) has been deleted. It used to contain what is a specified offence. Now it was deleted. So when IDAC receives this referral, in terms of section 27 from Member of Parliament Adams, what does it determine to be a specified offence”

The docket referred to as CJC 377 is an IDAC docket, provided directly by IDAC to the Commission.

“this docket was received by the Commission from IDAC... it is not a docket that we tendered or we provided. It comes directly from yourselves ... I confirm that.”

In IDAC, a docket is opened by IDAC when seized with an investigation, and the first document in it is always an A1 statement, which opens based on a section 27 referral.

“I have come to understand that with any docket opened, the first document is an A1 statement... opened on the strength of a section 27 referral... The docket is opened by IDAC... it will be an A1... A1 statement”

Section 27 complaints are not entered in the docket but are handled at management level within IDAC, involving the Head of Office, physical interviews, and referral.

“That section 27 is the complaint . It is there with the Head of Office . We go and physically interview . He has made , referred this complaint .”

IDAC dockets are normal police dockets, registered at the relevant police station (Brooklyn Police Station) but the section 27 complaint itself is managed separately before docket registration.

“It is registered at Brooklyn police station . IDAC does not have access to their own systems of registering dockets . So , it is registered at the police station ... It is a normal police docket .”

CAS numbers in docketing represent the month and year the case was opened at the police station, not when individual affidavits were taken in preliminary investigations.

“... the last figures , 025 , denote the year in which that case was opened .... The numbers before the year , 06 , denote the month in which it was opened ... It is the month . It is the register serial number according to the system ... Once you have got all your affidavits and all your evidence , and then you register a case docket , which could be months later ... The CAS number now is on the date when the docket was registered , but the affidavit was taken in January ... That affidavit was taken during the preliminary investigations , so that is why the date is January .”

During preliminary investigations, affidavits are taken but do not have CAS numbers; the CAS number applies only when a docket is registered.

“... during the preliminary investigation , a number of affidavits are taken in the early stages of the investigation ... your witness statement does not have a CAS number ... Nothing is CAS’d ... once you have got all your affidavits and all your evidence , and then you register a case docket ... you will register your case docket .”

A section 27 referral leads to a section 28(13) preliminary investigation inquiry stage before docket registration and full criminal investigation.

“You have a section 27 referral that is sent in , and then your section 28 ( 13 ) preliminary investigation commences . So it is an inquiry , it is an inquiry stage ... Your docket is not registered at that stage ... So once you have done all of that , and then you are now going into your full - blown investigation , it is now ready , you will register your case docket .”

IDAC receives complaints as referral complaints, which are then investigated preliminarily before a case docket is registered and a CAS number assigned.

“With IDAC , we get a complaint , a referral complaint .”

With the SAPS, a person reports to a police station or community service centre, a complaint is registered and a case number is given immediately, even before investigation.

“With the police and the SAPS , a person goes to the police station , to the Community Service Centre , and they report a complaint , and they register , and they register his case .”

An inquiry number exists for the referral and is registered on the system to track the investigation.

“Yes, there is an inquiry number.”

Every investigation uses an inquiry number for summonses and document requests, which will later be associated with a CAS number once the case is registered at the police station.

“It will refer to an inquiry, it will be that 28(13) is registered as inquiry, it will have an inquiry number. So, that is the inquiry number that I will use for my investigation, for summonses, to request documents, I will use that. So, once my case is registered, finally at the police station, that inquiry number will fall out, and I will be using a CAS number.”

The affidavit of Mr. Fadiel Adams was commissioned by Chief Investigator Dylan Perumal, who was physically present in Cape Town when the affidavit was taken, despite the office address of the Commissioner of Oaths being Pretoria.

“That affidavit was commissioned by Chief Investigator Dylan Perumal. ... I believe Chief Investigator Perumal was physically in Cape Town.”

The affidavit signed by Mr. Fadiel Adams bears the Pretoria office stamp, although it was commissioned in Cape Town. This is unusual as stamps normally indicate location of commission and it is not obligatory to stamp an affidavit.

“He stamped it with a Pretoria date stamp, even though he is in Cape Town. ...we do not necessarily put a stamp on the affidavit.”

Affidavits by Perumal have been thrown out of court for non-compliance on these kinds of issues.

“a f f i d a v i t s h a v e b e e n t h r o w n o u t o f C o u r t f o r n o n - c o m p l i a n c e o n t h e s e k i n d o f i s s u e s.”

There is an issue with a statement attributed to an investigator, with conflicting dates and signatures, raising questions about its authenticity, in particular whether the statement was taken properly in presence of Mr Adams and where it was taken (Cape Town or Pretoria).

“w h e r e y o u s a y t h e s t a t i o n i s B r o o k l y n , t h e r e i s a d a t e i s s u e , t h e r e i s a c a s e n u m b e r i s s u e t h e r e , b u t w h e n y o u l o o k a t t h e b o t t o m o f t h e d o c u m e n t , i t h a s a d i f f e r e n t d a t e .”

The form related to the affidavit is kept by IDAC, which has copies and is in the process of rebranding related documentation from SAPS to IDAC, including exhibit bags.

“I D A C i s i n t h e p r o c e s s o f d o i n g , i n t e r m s o f t h e d o c k e t s a n d a n n e x u r e s w h e r e i t s a y S A P S , w e a r e c o n t i n u o u s l y d e l e t i n g S A P S a n d p u t t i n g I D A C o n i t . Fo r e x a m p l e , e x h i b i t b a g s , I D A C h a s n o w g o t i t s o w n e x h i b i t b a g s , s o w e a r e a n o f f i c e i n p r o g r e s s w h e r e w e a r e g e t t i n g a n d m o v i n g a w a y f r o m S A P S .”

The actual signature line for who took the statement should include name, rank, and surname; however, in some instances the signature is missing identification details.

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

The date at the bottom of the affidavit document indicates the day the affidavit was taken, which in one document is 6 January 2025, different from the date at the top which has the CAS number.

“I t t a l k s t o t h e d a y t h e a f f i d a v i t w a s t a k e n .”

An affidavit can be taken and still be recorded as an inquiry if the CAS number is missing, but the docket must have the CAS number for continuity.

“i t s t i l l g o e s o n t h e i n q u i r y , C o m m i s s i o n e r . ... But because the docket at a later stage was registered, in the docket you have got to make sure everything from back to front has got the CAS number .”

There is uncertainty or discrepancy about who actually took the statement of the complainant, whether it was Mr Adams or Chief Investigator Perumal; Colonel Padayachee admits he was not present when the statement was taken.

“I say, I use it in the context that IDAC takes the statement of the complainant . But the particulars statement that is before the Commission now , I was not present .”

Colonel Padayachee denies having taken the statement attributed to him and was not present when the statement was taken, correcting earlier misunderstanding.

“I did not take the statement , and I was not present during the statement .”

The signature on the affidavit appears to have been placed in the wrong place and, comparing signatures, the signature on the bottom of the page appears to be Mr Adams and not Chief Investigator Perumal.

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

The signature for the statement must be that of the person who took the statement, not the person giving it.

“the signature that has to be appearing at 6 8 1 and 6 8 2 has to be the signature of the person taking the statement . Not the person giving the statement .”

Mr Adams signed twice on pages 681 and 682 as well as his own statement, but his signature on page 681, where Chief Perumal was supposed to sign, appears to be the same as on other pages, suggesting Mr Adams signed in place of Chief Perumal.

“it would appear at first blush that Mr Adams signed both ... page 1 and page 2 and his own statement ... it looks like the signature at 681, so it is the same signature ... where Chief Perumal was supposed to have signed on 681, Mr Adams signed”

Chief Perumal declined to comment on whether he signed Mr Adams' statement, saying he is not a handwriting expert and it would be unfair for him to comment.

“I cannot comment on that ... I am not a handwriting expert and I cannot comment on that but he himself can comment. Did you sign here or did not? If I am understanding you correctly.”

The investigator Colonel Padayachee did not inquire who completed the cover page document for the affidavit as he was out of the country in January 2026 and only came back later, and he did not ask about the completion of the statement then.

“I was not around. I was out of the country ... at some point I came back. I did not ask about the completion of the statement.”

The complaint of fraud and corruption relates to the irregular appointment of Brigadier Mokwele, a civilian with no policing or management experience, appointed as Head of the technical support services in Crime Intelligence.

“Description of offence ... fraud, corruption, irregular appointment of Brigadier Mokwele ... no policing experience and no management experience and was appointed as Head of the technical support services.”

Irregular appointment, misrepresentation, and gratification were described as the departure points for the fraud and corruption described in the complaint, but irregular appointment is not a charge in itself; it explains the fraud and corruption.

“the first departure point is an irregular appointment ... misrepresentation, a gratification ... so where is fraud and corruption ... irregular appointment is more an explanation of the actual fraud and corruption”

Mr Adams filed an affidavit on January 6, 2025, alleging anonymous information about fraud and corruption within Crime Intelligence involving high-ranking police officials manipulating promotional and security vetting processes to benefit a civilian appointed as brigadier despite no policing or management experience.

“On or about early October 2024, I received information anonymously surrounding alleged fraud and corruption being perpetrated within Crime Intelligence ... manipulating promotional and security vetting processes to unduly benefit a civilian person ... appointed as a Brigadier in South Africa ... no policing experience and no management experience and was appointed as Head of the technical support service.”

The complaint of fraud, corruption, and irregular appointment arises from a statement (A1) and was not directly made by a complainant to IDAC; rather IDAC inferred it from the referral documents.

“The complainant did not say, I believe that there is a case of fraud and corruption ... IDAC's thinking and how it got to where it arrived ... coming from the A1 statement ... so IDAC made an inference ... it did not come from a complainant.”

The allegation of fraud and corruption centers on an irregular appointment process leading to the appointment of a civilian to a post, which is fraudulent and prejudicial to the state, involving unlawful and intentional misrepresentation of certain facts.

“Your fraud and your corruption is the unlawful and intentional misrepresentation of certain facts and which it prejudices the state ... that is your fraud.”

There are allegations of manipulation of promotion and vetting processes by high-ranking police officials to unduly benefit a civilian person without policing experience, by appointing her to a Crime Intelligence post.

“allegations related to officials involved in manipulating promotional and vetting processes to unduly benefit somebody”

IDAC only starts an investigation if there is a referral based on reasonable suspicion supported by facts and jurisdictional facts under section 27 must be established before commencing investigations.

“as part of IDAC, you only start investigating if this is a referral, if there is a basis for a reasonable suspicion”

The Chairperson states there is no factual basis given to support the claim of manipulation of promotional and security vetting processes to benefit a civilian person, and asks what facts support the allegation.

“what are the facts for saying that there was manipulation? There are none”

The Chairperson emphasizes that section 27 jurisdictional facts must be established before a referral and investigation can proceed.

“You do not even begin. I think when I engaged you earlier, I said, you do not start, if these section 27 jurisdictional facts are not satisfied, you cannot say, let us commence with an investigation”

The manipulation of promotional and security vetting processes to benefit a civilian without policing experience is presented as a serious allegation that requires investigation under section 27 referral and a preliminary investigation under section 28 (13).

“serious allegation being made here, that there is manipulation of processes by high-ranking officers giving a civilian with no experience and appointing her in a Crime Intelligence post”

COLONEL PADAYACHEE admits that the referral was sent to management who approved the section 27 referral and authorized the section 28 (13) preliminary investigation, and that he took his cue from there.

“this referral was sent to management who approved the section 27 referral and then authorized a section 28 (13) preliminary investigation. So I take my cue from there when that preliminary investigation is initiated”

COLONEL PADAYACHEE states that he continued with the investigation because he was satisfied that the jurisdictional facts had been met at the time.

“Sir, I would have to ok, that is why I continued with the investigation when I was tasked with it”

Colonel Padayachee was satisfied that the jurisdictional facts had been met for a Section 27 referral in relation to an appointment to a technical post without qualifications, which he interpreted as fraud and corruption needing investigation.

“I am going to say yes. Yes, Commissioner. ... It is what was being said there, a person has been appointed in a technical post without qualifications. It is a civilian. For me, that amounts to fraud and corruption that needed to be looked at to be verified.”

The appointment to the technical post potentially involved granting and receiving a gratification as defined under PRECA, which Colonel Padayachee considers a form of corruption.

“When we look at the 27 and the mandate falling in terms of the statutory offence of PRECA, the appointment is one, is the giving of a gratification, and two, the receiving of a gratification in terms of section 3(a) and 3(b) of PRECA.”

Colonel Padayachee testified that the jurisdiction for IDAC to get seized of the matter is through a Section 27 referral based on a reasonable suspicion of a specified offence related to fraud and corruption in the appointment.

“Yes ... That has been your testimony. ... That is what gave us jurisdiction. That is what got us started.”

Colonel Padayachee acknowledges difficulty with the statutory requirement of Section 27 as the specified offence referenced in previous legislation no longer exists, yet maintains satisfaction that jurisdictional requirements were met.

“I am still struggling with it, Commissioner ... 7(1) has been deleted ... 7(1A) does not deal with specified offence ... I am still satisfied that it is present.”

The complaint refers to manipulation of promotional and security vetting processes within SAPS.

“The conduct is the one described in paragraph 2, the manipulation of promotional and security vetting processes.”

The conduct severely undermines the rules of SAPS regarding promotions and vetting of senior managers.

“This type of conduct severely undermines the rules of the SAPS regarding promotions and vetting of these senior managers of SAPS”

Several highly skilled and qualified senior police officers were overlooked by CI management.

“Several highly skilled and qualified police officers were overlooked by CI management.”

General Khumalo and other senior officers in Crime Intelligence, including Madondo and Lushaba, were manipulating procurement processes to appoint and promote certain members to higher strategic positions within Crime Intelligence.

“I suspect that General Khumalo and some of the other senior officers in Crime Intelligence, including Madondo and Lushaba, were manipulating procurement processes and processes to appoint and promote certain members to higher strategic positions within Crime Intelligence.”

General Khumalo, Generals Lushaba and Madondo and other senior Crime Intelligence officers are suspected of systematically capturing the Crime Intelligence division.

“General Khumalo and the other persons listed there, including Generals Lushaba and Madondo and other senior Crime Intelligence officers, are busy with the systematic capture of Crime Intelligence division.”

General Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo and others appointed members who were actively siphoning money from secret fund accounts in the country.

“General Khumalo, Lushaba, and Madondo and many of those who they have appointed are actively siphoning money from these secret fund accounts in the country.”

The referral affidavit must comply with section 27 of the NPA Act, stating the grounds of suspicion and nature of the suspicion.

“Section 27 then must state the grounds on which the suspicion is based.”

Colonel Padayachee only deals with section 27 referrals at the tail end when preliminary investigation is authorized and is mindful that management level deals with section 27.

“I only get to deal with it at the tail end when the preliminary investigation is authorized. But be that as it may... I will respond as such, that reasonable grounds, looking at the referral, there is allegations and serious allegations being made...”

Colonel Padayachee is the investigating officer authorized to handle a preliminary investigation into serious allegations concerning Crime Intelligence, relying on information from management and the chief criminal investigator, rather than directly on the section 27 referral affidavit.

“I am the investigating officer here at the tailend that receives the authorization. I am authorized there to be involved in the investigation. I look at the allegations, go out and see whether what is said here is true or not true. They are serious allegations.”

Management, specifically the head of office together with her management team, makes the decision to investigate the allegations and authorizes the investigation which is then carried out by officers on the ground.

“Management would be the head of the office and her management on that level, like your committee or your management which … but it is the head of office together with her management that make the decisions.”

Colonel Padayachee does not have sight of the section 27 referral affidavit initially and relies on verbal briefing from his chief criminal investigator who directs the investigation team.

“The section 27 referral, I do not see it. ... My end where I come in is the designation 28(13). It comes up to say I am now appointed on this preliminary investigation. ... The chief criminal investigator who we report to ... has the puzzle of what this whole allegation investigation is about. He briefs us, and we follow his directives from there ... we are the work soldiers out there. Management make a decision, authorize it, it comes down, we comply.”

Despite the chief investigator's briefing, the referral affidavit that is the primary source document for the investigation is not provided directly to the investigators like Colonel Padayachee, which the Chairperson finds illogical.

“The chief investigator tells you orally what happened, what referral is about, and you are then required to investigate. Even if they are very good at relaying information that they have come across, the bottom line is the best source is the document they relied on in briefing you. So what I am saying is, does it make sense for you not to be given that source document? Does it make sense?”

Colonel Padayachee admits he did not have sight of the referral affidavit at the time he was tasked but later obtained a copy which he provided to Counsel.

“At that particular time, I did not request it. I did not ask for it. ... I did not have sight of it initially, sir. ... I did have sight of it after and I was the one that had given Counsel a copy of the section 7.”

The section 27 referral affidavit contains several allegations including siphoning of funds from secret accounts, secret funds given to certain ministers, and appointment of an outsider to the position of Brigadier, but the investigators were instructed to focus only on the Brigadier appointment issue.

“It makes several allegations. Some of them are siphoning funds from these secret accounts in the country. Some of them are secret funds being given to certain Ministers. Some of them are, so there is a lot of them. And then there is this one that deals with the appointment of an outsider to the position of Brigadier. Now, when your chief investigator or management were giving you a task, what did they say you must investigate? Did they say ignore all the other allegations in the section 27 affidavit, focus only on this one?”

Colonel Padayachee leads a team responsible for multiple investigations, including two currently in court, and others involving appointments, the Leshaba matter, properties, and a secret service fund.

“I spoke about myself in a team with investigation. There are several investigations. Two of them I have, which are in court. There is another investigation that was finalized. And there are other investigations that are still being investigated and to be finalized. To name them was the appointments, the incident of the Leshaba matter. There is the properties. There is a secret service fund.”

There is a suspicion that General Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo, and many appointed persons are siphoning money from the secret service fund in the country.

“My suspicion is that General Khumalo, Lushaba, Madondo, and many of those who have been appointed are actively siphoning money from the secret service fund in the country.”

The suspicion regarding siphoning money from the secret service fund is expressed as a suspicion, not as a confirmed fact or allegation with specified reasons or evidence.

“It is a suspicion. It is not an allegation. ... He is not alleging any facts. In fact, he is not saying, I allege that they are siphoning money. He says, I suspect they are doing that.”

Documents received during a preliminary investigation showed possibilities of money being utilized unlawfully from the secret service fund, providing a basis to investigate the secret service fund.

“On the basis of documents that were received, there was investigations done where the secret service fund came into the frame of it, which gave us a basis to say we need to look at this while we are busy with this investigation.”

Documents did not specifically show or point to General Khumalo or Madondo's involvement in siphoning funds but indicated there were possibilities of money being siphoned unlawfully from the secret service fund.

“The documents did not show and point to Khumalo, Madondo or what. The documents showed that there were possibilities of money being utilized unlawfully from the secret service fund, money being siphoned.”

Complaints in section 27 affidavits included many matters; however, there is only one affidavit, related to the appointment of the Brigadier, obtained from Mr Adams.

“The only affidavit is the one dealing with the appointment of the Brigadier. ... There are other affidavits in the other dockets and investigations that are dealing with that separately.”

Crime Intelligence is a challenging environment with some witnesses no longer cooperating, which complicates investigations.

“Crime Intelligence is not an easy environment and there are a couple of my witnesses who are no longer taking my calls.”

Investigators generally proceed with investigations once they receive a referral from top management without questioning it at the outset.

“once you have received something coming from, let me just loosely say the top, you just go ahead and investigate and you do not question that.”

If there is something in an investigation that is found unlawful or wrong, including being totally unfounded, COLONEL PADAYACHEE states he would refuse to continue involvement.

“If there is something that I do not agree within an investigation and I find that it is unlawful or that there is something wrong here and that there is an agenda, then I will refuse.”

Investigations under Chief Investigator Perumal cover broader issues arising from a referral, including multiple investigative offices and cases.

“And that, those other investigations will fall under the ambit of Chief Investigator Perumal who is responsible for the broader investigation with the different investigating offices.”

There was a planned workflow of investigations starting with the Lushaba matter followed by the Mokwele matter and then Madondo matter, but investigations were halted due to allegations which led to stepping back.

“We had a plan of action into what we were going to do with our investigations. So we started with the Lushaba matter, first case matter. And then there was going to be a short break and then we go with the second matter which is the Mokwele matter. And after that there will be a short break and then we would have went onto the Madondo matter and then followed through with the others. So if, for example, if there was, what we have done is that we respected that there was going to be a Commission of Inquiry or the Commission of Inquiry, the Commission and the other committee that, with respect, we stepped back because of the allegations and we stepped back.”

There is a problem with the work process in investigations as the workflow is broken down into different investigations but the relevant team members may not have access to all the affidavits and information, leading to challenges in understanding and completing investigations.

“I still maintain that he would have shared this affidavit to give you insight into what the suspicions are and why you are having the investigations, otherwise, there is a team that is just flying blind.”

There are multiple investigations referred to as the Crime Intelligence matter, including the Lushaba matter, the Mokwele matter, and the Madondo matter, with a fourth matter still under investigation.

“You have the allegations on the different matters that are there. So the first one you had was ... the Lushaba matter. ... The second scenario is the Mokwele matter. And then you have the Madondo matter. I am not going to say about the fourth one, because that is still in the oven.”

Investigators follow a systematic briefing process led by the chief criminal investigator, who provides task assignments and guidance on evidence and prosecution.

“So when the chief criminal investigator does his briefing, we listen to what he has to say. We ask questions or whatever. We get our taskings and then we go out and do what we have to do, which is then, the prosecution now guides to as well, into what we should ...”

Chief investigator is the appropriate person for the Commission to engage with for understanding investigation workflow and section 27 referrals.

“The chief investigator of the team who is responsible for the whole investigation will be in a better position with regards to that and the 27.”

The referral affidavit speaks of manipulation of procurement processes to appoint and promote individuals without following due process.

“Paragraph 4 speaks of manipulation of procurement processes and processes to appoint and promote.”

Minister Cele appointed General Khumalo without an interview process and despite Khumalo not having worked as a senior police manager in Crime Intelligence.

“Then it introduces Minister Cele and the appointment of General Khumalo himself and there is an issue, a question, no, no not an issue being raised that he was appointed without an interview process and without having worked as a senior police manager in Crime Intelligence.”

There was an incident at General Lushaba’s house involving theft of classified items and a cover-up of this incident.

“Paragraph 6 starts with the following words. "The cover-up of the incident alleged took place at General Lushaba house where his state property was stolen is also concerning."”

A lady was taken home by General Lushaba in connection with the incident opened in August 2022.

“In this matter, a lady was taken home by General Lushaba...”

The referral affidavit alleges a cover-up of the incident concerning General Lushaba at his house submitted on 21 November, which triggered the investigation.

“But now on the 21st of November, as this affidavit is submitted, all the affidavit tells you is about their cover-up of their incident allegedly concerning General Lushaba at his house.”

Colonel Padayachee admits that he is involved in the investigation and finds it natural that information about the Lushaba matter comes out to him.

“My apologies, Commissioner. It is because I am involved in the investigation that these things come out naturally.”

Investigations should be based on sufficient and satisfactory affidavits that comply with legal requirements, not just on suspicions or unsubstantiated allegations.

“what you appear to have done is then to dig and get to what you then considered to be the cover-up and the incident. That is not how you should do it. You must understand from the statement what exactly is meant. Section 7 requires an affidavit. Is there enough in the affidavit to satisfy those requirements? You simply cannot just talk”

Investigators' power to investigate is conditioned on the affidavit's sufficiency; investigations are invasive and require restraint if the statement isn't sufficient.

“what you end up doing in your investigations is highly invasive. So you would like to be satisfied that you have the sufficient grounds to be that invasive and start investigating individuals. Would not that be fair? So if the statement does not give you a basis, one would expect a level of restraint before you start using your power to investigate people.”

The investigation focuses on whether the Investigating Directorate (ID) operates outside its prescribed legal mandate as per section 7(1A) of the NPA Act, analysed solely on the affidavit's contents without considering subsequent facts.

“what we are trying to establish is whether IDA Cooperates outside of its mandate in terms of the prescribed legal prescripts, namely section 7 (1A) of the NPA Act. So our engagement is aimed at establishing that. That is why we are looking at the affidavit as it stands, and we are saying, would IDAC, looking at the affidavit, without the subsequent knowledge of facts that you came to learn about a year later ...”

Section 7 referral requires reasonable suspicion based on the affidavit, not mere assertions or suspicions without substantiation.

“So you do not have to look at what did you subsequently learn. You are simply looking at what does the affidavit say. Looking only at what it says, are we in the section 27 territory?”

Paragraph 6 of the affidavit mentions crimes such as cover-up and theft of property, which needs careful consideration to determine applicability under section 7(1A).

“When you look at it in terms of what crimes were committed in terms of the relevant mandate, you cannot just extract it from this affidavit just like that because it talks about a cover-up, right, and the theft of property. So when looking at the paragraph, you cannot say that what is required in terms of (1A) is in this just by looking at it as it is. That, yes, that is the way I look at it.”

Paragraph 5 of the affidavit refers to corruption allegations, which may meet thresholds different from the cover-up and theft described in paragraph 6.

“I will have a different view by just reading it and the view that I would have here that it does conform to that, because it touches on corruption. So what is different from 6, where it is talking about a cover-up and the theft, whereas 5 speaks to corruption.”

The word 'suspect' or 'suspicion' in allegations triggers only a possibility, requiring more substantiation for investigation powers under section 7(1A).

“I think from the words suspect, or suspicion, it does hang in there, you know, in terms of bordering on that, because you need more information, substantiated on that you know. It is just saying I suspect.”

Allegations in paragraph 5 of the affidavit are based on suspicion that funds were given to Minister Cele, but are not substantiated or explained in detail.

“In paragraph 5, Mr Adams says: 'I suspect that some of the funds are being given to Minister Cele.' He has made sufficient allegations to trigger your section 27 powers, or in fact, (1A) powers. He says it is a suspicion. He does not say what is the basis for the suspicion.”

Investigator states that on the face of the affidavit, the paragraphs containing suspicions do not meet the reasonable suspicion threshold of section 27 to proceed with investigations.

“... just on the face of this, that does not, are you prepared to accept that it does not seem to meet the requirement of what section 27 contemplates, which is there has to be a reasonable suspicion?”

Paragraph 7 alleges suspicion that money is siphoned by certain named individuals from secret funds, again without substantiation.

“In paragraph 7, he says I suspect that money is being siphoned by the three that he has named, and many others from the secret fund.”

Colonel Padayachee indicates reasonable suspicion but defers detailed opinion to management, preferring management to explain further.

“COLONEL PADAYACHEE”

Investigator states the words 'suspect' and 'cover-up' in the affidavit do not provide strong grounds to meet section 7(1A) requirements for actuation of investigation powers.

“When I look at it and I see the words suspect, I suspect, cover up. It is just my opinion that when I look at it in comparison with what section (1A) said, it is my opinion that these words do not give much.”

Chairperson criticizes investigator's approach, emphasizing that unsubstantiated suspicion is not enough to meet section 27 legal requirements for investigations.

“The problem with your approach is that you seem to believe that once an allegation has been made, the section 27 requirements have been met. Just because Mr Adams says he suspects without substantiating, then for you that is sufficient.”

Colonel Padayachee agrees that a mere suspicion without substantiation does not satisfy section 27 requirements.

“COLONEL PADAYACHEE”

Chairperson states the investigator's position worsens by proceeding with investigation without seeing the referral affidavit, implying that seeing a well-grounded referral is crucial before investigation.

“How could you go ahead with an investigation without even check for yourself that there was a well-grounded referral? So your position actually gets worse if you go ahead with an investigation without having seen the referral affidavit.”

Colonel Padayachee admits he continued the investigation without insisting on seeing the referral affidavit.

“That is why I was continuing on what I was saying, Chair.”

Colonel Padayachee acknowledges and agrees with the Chairperson's criticism regarding investigations without seeing a proper referral affidavit.

“I take what you say, Chair, and I understand what you say.”

Colonel Padayachee agrees with the Chairperson that failure to insist on seeing the referral affidavit before investigation was wrong.

“I would agree with you, Chair.”