Witness: Mr Mantsha Robert Raphesu.
Evidence Leader: Adv Pooe.
180 claims
131 transcript pages
2 published files
transcript: done
Loading transcript text…
Extracted claims
unrated
judicial process
90% conf.
Investigators do not independently choose their projects; project assignments and team composition decisions are made by management including chiefs, DPPs, and the Head of office, Mr Sesoko.
“the investigators do not have a say or they do not choose which project they belong to. So what will actually happen is the, let me just call them management, the upper level where chiefs, DPPs, and the Head of office, and Mr Sesoko sits. They are the ones that decide who belongs where, who is going to work where”
Teams generally include a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDP), but occasionally there may be no DDP in the team, though this is not frequent.
“in the composition of the team, there should be always a DPP, but there will be instances where maybe there is no DPP. Sometimes it happens ... No, it is not often”
Project team members including the DPP, prosecutors, sometimes financial investigators and data capturers are designated and announced in meetings after management decisions.
“you will be called to a meeting where you will be told there is this project, then names of people that will be working on that project will be put on the designation where everybody will know who is going to be working on that group ... you will get who is going to be the DPP on that project. You will also get the name of the prosecutors allocated. Sometimes it will be financial investigators allocated to assist. There will be also data capturers that will be part of that team”
Information for cases investigated usually comes from commissions of inquiry, notably the Zondo Commission, and also from Section 27 referrals, which are briefed to investigation teams.
“the sources of information will come from the commissions of inquiries. Mostly cases that we are working from, they are coming from the Zondo Commission ... with regards to section 27 ...”
Lead investigators and lead prosecutors or chief investigators form part of management and conduct briefing and cascade information to investigation teams, who do not know all the operational details at their level.
“the lead investigator and the lead prosecutor or chief ... So the two are part of what I was referring to as management. So at our level, we will not know the contents of what the operation is going to be about. So they are basically cascading what has been discussed in the management level, putting it down to us so that we can be able to understand and because they are bringin...”
Investigators get access to commission records and statements to complement briefing information, but with Section 27 referrals there is often no other source of information beyond the briefing, making them more challenging to work on.
“you can go back to the records of Zondo Commission, then you can try to suss out or maybe to get more information ... section 27, it is a bit challenging because you rely more on the briefing, but you do not have any other source ...”
There is no formal policy governing access to Section 27 information; access depends on the discretion of the chief or prosecutor who may or may not authorize sharing information.
“No, I do not know of any. Sometimes when you are working on a matter, you cannot, let me not say you cannot, there are sometimes where we will request for more information. It will depend on your chief or your prosecutor whether they want to give or not. So there is nothing that is saying you should be given or you should not be given”
In a past Section 27 referral investigation, the lead prosecutor provided all necessary and relevant information forthwith, but in the current Section 27 referral (Fidel Adams matter), information was not forthcoming and investigators were told they would not receive Section 27 documents by Advocate Ramsamy.
“the lead prosecutor that we worked with on the first one, she provided all the information that was necessary ... But when it comes to this one, the information was not forthcoming ... It was made clear that we will not be getting that section 27 ... The advocate, Advocate Ramsamy, indicated that we should not be provided with that document”
Investigators occasionally draft short reports on investigative developments and advise prosecutors accordingly; they communicate lack of evidence if preliminary reports indicate it.
“sometimes, in all my cases that I am working on, I will just do a short report indicating what I have done and what I have uncovered, and I will advise the prosecutor on the developments ... If your preliminary report points to a lack of evidence, is that something you communicate to the prosecutor at that stage? That is correct”
Preliminary investigations upon receiving information are conducted by investigators independently, aiming to gather sufficient evidence before further steps.
“We tend to take it upon ourselves to do a sort of a preliminary investigation ... Even with this section 27, we often try to get whatever that we can ... we go and search for more so that at least we have something that we work on ... Usually when we receive matters where the information is not ...”
Investigators below senior investigator level are not allowed to gather information prior to authorisation of an investigation under sections 28(13) or 28(1).
“No, from our level, we are not allowed, senior investigators downwards.”
Investigators only get involved in Section 27 referrals once Section 28(13) or Section 28(1) is authorized and designation is made, after which team meetings inform the members of their roles.
“when the 27 is referred, we are only getting involved when the section 28(13) or section 28(1) is authorised. It will then mean once the designation is made, your name is put there, then there will be a meeting ... you are going to be informed that this is the team that is going to be working on this matter”
Ordinarily the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or if non available, the chief and lead prosecutor attend and allocate the matter at inception, not the Investigating Director Advocate Johnson.
“Ordinarily the DPP's are the ones that take over those duties. And if may be there is no Deputy Director, then it will be the chief and the lead prosecutor.”
The affidavit discussed a complaint concerning the Political Killings Task Team (PKTT), including lavish accommodations, laundry costs amounting to between 400 and 500 thousand, and luxury vehicles bought through the Secret Service slush fund allegedly used by former Minister of Police Cele.
“The document was talking mainly about a complaint about the Political Killings Task Team... how lavish was it, and there was an issue about the laundry and the costs... There was also an issue about luxury vehicles that were bought through the Slush Fund... The vehicles were bought for the PKTT, but the allegation were that the vehicles were utilized by the former Minister of Police, Minister Cele.”
Properties or hotels were allegedly bought around KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and Johannesburg area, specifically Midrand or Kyalami and Pretoria North, reputed to be lodges and hotels.
“There were properties or hotels that were bought around KZN and Johannesburg area... the area that was mentioned was the Midrand or Kyalami... There was also some mention of Pretoria North... those properties were said to be some lodges and hotels.”
The complaint included allegations of a cover-up regarding political killings investigations, specifically mentioning Sergeant Dumisani Dlamini and the late Sindiso Magaqa and improper investigations by the PKTT.
“The information that was there regarding the political investigation was...a complaint about the cover-up of some sorts on cases that were mentioned...I remember the name of Sergeant Dumisani Dlamini and... the late Sindiso Magaqa's name was also there... a complaint to say something like a cover-up or improper investigation...”
The Investigating Director (ID) gave evidence indicating that the PKTT was not part of the ongoing investigations referred to in section 27, which was in conflict with the complaint document seen by Mr. Raphesu.
“the ID gave evidence relating to the investigations that were ongoing and she mentioned that the PKTT was not part of the investigation... I was shocked because the section 27 that I saw that information was there.”
The section 27 affidavit Mr. Raphesu saw in file two at page 512 is different and has material features not seen in the document shown to him by Ms. Ramsamy on 6th December.
“And you note that there were material features that you do not see in this one that you saw in the one that Ms Ramsamy shared with you? ... That is correct, Chair.”
The affidavit that Ms Ramsamy gave to Mr Raphesu contained various matters related to the PKTT, including references to Orlando CAS numbers and Villieria but not Cape Town CAS numbers.
“the affidavit that Ms Ramsamy gave you contained various matters related to the PKTT”
The affidavit referenced the purchase of hotels, lodges, and properties using the Secret Service account and vehicles for the former Minister of Police.
“the purchase of hotels and lodges and properties using the Secret Service account and vehicles for use by the former Minister of Police”
Mr Raphesu briefly browsed the affidavit for between 5 to 10 minutes and did not finish reading it before pushing it back to Ms Ramsamy as she was about to leave, because it was supposed to be handed over to Advocate Johnson's safe.
“the time might be maybe between 5 to 10 minutes ... then I pushed it back to her when she was about to leave ... she was supposed to have handed it over to be kept at the safe of Advocate Johnson”
The instruction was that the affidavit document was to be filed and locked in the safe at the IDs office, so it had to be taken back by Ms Ramsamy before Mr Raphesu could finish reading the whole thing.
“the instruction was she was supposed to bring the docket ... to be locked in the safe at the ID's office ... before I could finish reading the whole thing, she had to take it back”
Mr Raphesu did not finish browsing the affidavit because there was no time; he concentrated on information he wanted to grasp quickly because Ms Ramsamy needed to take the document back to hand it over.
“I understood it to say that there was no time, I must just browse it quicker, so I concentrated on the information where I wanted to grasp quick”
There was a common understanding of non-verbal communication between Mr Raphesu and Ms Ramsamy; if she was looking around when handing a document, it meant he should be quicker and that he was not supposed to be looking at that document at that time.
“when she gave you the document, she was looking around ... you understood to mean you were not supposed to be looking at that document at the time”
Mr Raphesu and Ms Ramsamy were comfortable confiding in each other due to previous work experience, but they did not use a secret language.
“you two are comfortable in confiding ... I will say it is not something that we will discuss and use, but it is common cause ... you will know what you have to do”
Mr Raphesu stated that on the previous 27 project, they had problems with Chief Perumal who sometimes tried to come with tricks, so they had to unite to deal with his dodgy ways.
“we had problems with Chief Perumal. So he sometimes wanted to come with tricks and other things. So we had to unite so that we can be able to deal with his dodgy ways”
Chief Perumal instructed or tasked Mr Raphesu to locate dockets that bear a case number of Villieria and also indicated the dockets might be locked in a safe in the Station Commander, Commissioner's office at Villieria.
“Chief Perumal was explaining ... He mentioned that he is basically tasking me or giving me instructions to locate the dockets ... The dockets ... bear a case number of Villieria ... dockets might be locked in a safe in the Station Commander, Commissioner's office at Villieria”
Mr Raphesu confirmed the matter under discussion related to a briefing that emanated from a member of Parliament, which would have been Mr Adams to confirm.
“the matter emanated from a member of Parliament and that to confirm would have been Mr Adams”
During the briefing, Mr Raphesu saw that his name was put as a lead investigator, alongside Deputy Director of Public Prosecution Advocate Manilall and financial investigator Mr Wynand Wessels, but neither Manilall nor Wessels were present at the briefing.
“I saw that my name was put there as a lead investigator ... There was a DPP ... Mr Advocate Manilall, Santos Manilall ... There was a financial investigator ... I think it is Mr Wynand Wessels ... They were not at the briefing”
Chief Perumal briefed Mr Brian Padayachee before the meeting, surprising Mr Raphesu who expected to receive the briefing as well.
“Chief Perumal indicates that he had already briefed Mr Brian Padayachee. So I was then surprised to say, if we have now been briefed about this now, and he is saying that he has already briefed Mr Padayachee”
The matter for the initial briefing was that every member of the team was briefed together at the same time, which did not happen that day, causing concern to Mr Raphesu.
“in the initial briefing there, was every member of the team there briefed together at the same time? ... That is correct”
Mr Suneel Bellochun was heard fighting/exchanging words with Chief Perumal about being promised the lead role on a matter.
“Mr Suneel Bellochun, it looked like he was promised that he was going to be a lead on thismatterso he was asking Chief Perumal, why am I not a lead in thismatter”
Mr Padayachee was not supposed to have met the complainant before the investigation was authorized, as is usual for senior investigators to avoid involvement in such matters.
“he was not supposed to have met with the person who is referring thematterat that time, because all of us at our level, we do notget involved in those things”
Mr Raphesu called Mr Sesoko to inform or query if he knew about a new project, hoping to get more clarity on the situation involving meeting allocations and fight for lead roles.
“On the way to Villieria, I decided to phone Mr Sesoko to inform him, or maybe to ask him if he knew about this new project”
Mr. Raphesu was shocked that the Head of Operations did not know about an issue he expected him to know about, reflecting concern over his apparent lack of knowledge.
“Th e w a y h e w a s r e s p o n d i n g , h e w a s n o w a s k i n g m o r e q u e s t i o n s w h e n I w a s s u p p o s e d t o b e a s k i n g h i m t o s a y w h a t i s h a p p e n i n g . S o I w a s a c t u a l l y s h o c k e d t h a t h e d o e s n o t k n o w a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h i s .”
Mr. Raphesu expected the Head of Operations as Head of Investigations to know about matters in his operational space.
“H e i s t h e H e a d o f t h e o p e r a t i o n a n d f r o m w h a t I u n d e r s t o o d t h a t h e s h o u l d k n o w a b o u t w h a t i s i n h i s s p a c e a n d o t h e r t h i n g s .”
Mr. Raphesu drafted an affidavit to clarify collection and chain of custody of dockets relating to the Lushaba matter.
“I w a s r e q u e s t e d t o d r a f t t h i s s t a t e m e n t f o r t h e b a i l , w h e n t h e y w e r e d o i n g t h e b a i l . N o , n o , n o , w h e n t h e y w e r e d e a l i n g w i t h t h e i s s u e o f t h e a r r e s t o f t h e s u s p e c t o n t h e L u s h a b a m a t t e r , t h e r e w a s a n i s s u e r e l a t i n g t o t h e c a s e n u m b e r s , s o I h a d t o d e p o s e t o t h i s a f f i d a v i t j u s t t o i l l u s t r a t e w h i c h d o c k e t s I c o l l e c t e d f r o m t h e o f f i c e o f t h e I n s p e c t o r a t e .”
Mr. Raphesu's draft affidavit was unsigned because it was a draft for his own use; the signed affidavit was submitted in court and disclosed with the docket.
“N o , t h e a f f i d a v i t i s n o t s i g n e d b e c a u s e i t w a s a d r a f t f o r m y s e l f . T h e o n e t h a t I s u b m i t t e d a t c o u r t , I T h o u g h t t h a t i t w a s d i s c l o s e d w i t h t h e d o c k e t .”
Mr. Raphesu voluntarily prepared and gave the second affidavit to his supervisor, Chief Booi, to clarify what happened and dispel issues raised at the Ad Hoc Committee.
“I v o l u n t e e r e d t h e a f f i d a v i t t o m y s u p e r v i s o r a t t h e t i m e w h o w a s C h i e f B o o i . S o I j u s t g a v e t h e a f f i d a v i t e x p l a i n i n g w h a t a c t u a l l y h a p p e n e d b e f o r e t h e y c o u l d a c t u a l l y a s k f o r i t .”
Mr. Raphesu prepared the affidavit to address claims made in Parliament suggesting he did not follow proper procedure regarding letters in the docket process.
“What was said was trying to purport that I did not follow the procedure and I went to people's offices with letters and I did not want to provide them with the letters .”
Mr. Raphesu explained the claims about improper procedure were discussed in a conversation between Advocate Johnson and Honourable Mr. Sauls in relation to affidavits filed by Colonel Phillips and Lieutenant General Jacobs.
“It was a conversation between Advocate Johnson and Honourable Mr Sauls, if I remember, but it was in relation to the affidavit that was filed by Colonel Phillips and Lieutenant General Jacobs.”
Mr. Raphesu was instructed by Chief Perumal to collect dockets urgently because Chief Perumal needed to take them to East London before he moved to Villieria.
“I w a s i n s t r u c t e d a f t e r b r i e f e d b y C h i e f P e r u m a l t o c o l l e c t t h e d o c k e t s , h e s p e c i f i c a l l y t o l d m e t h a t I m u s t g e t t h e s e d o c k e t s b e c a u s e h e w a n t s t o l e a v e w i t h t h e m t o E a s t L o n d o n . H e w a s f l y i n g b a c k t o E a s t L o n d o n o n t h a t F r i d a y .”
Colonel Phillips informed Mr. Raphesu that the dockets were not in Villieria but had been collected by the Hawks and locked up in his General's office, and that dockets could only be released possibly on the Monday morning.
“Already, I have informed Chief Perumal that the dockets were collected, they are not in Villieria, by some Colonel Phillips from the Hawks. ... You cannot get the dockets today. You can only get the dockets possibly on Monday because the dockets were locked up in his General's office.”
Mr. Raphesu witnessed an interaction and arrangements between Colonel Phillips and Chief Perumal for collection and letter exchange regarding the dockets.
“They are now making arrangements for the collection of the dockets on Monday. Soon the arrangements, they are talking how they are going to move about, how the letters will be exchanged between the two of them and how the letters should be directed.”
Mr. Raphesu collected the original dockets from General Jacob's office on December 9 after the signing of a letter by the ID and its sending to General Senthumule.
“On the 9th I reported to the office of General Jacobs. When I get there, I was informed that the letter has not been signed already or provided already, so I had to wait outside for the office to process the signing of the letter. Some few minutes, about 10 to 15, I was informed that the ID has signed the letter and it has been sent to General Senthumule...I signed for the docket and took them back to the office.”
Dockets are usually taken as originals from originating stations, but copies may be requested first to evaluate before taking the originals; it is a flexible practice, not prescribed.
“Ja, we usually take originals and if there is a need to take them back, we take them back. But in some instances, depending on the matters, sometimes we just go ask for the copies just to evaluate before we take the originals, but it is not a prescribed thing. We are just flexible about it.”
When a docket is taken, it must be signed for on the CAS system, but because the witness's credentials were registered on a previous employer system, he manually signed for the docket to avoid misrepresentation.
“Usually when you take a docket, you must sign for it on the system. So there is what we call a CAS system where you need to be signed there for you to be able to acknowledge the docket on that system. Now, I am registered on the CAS system, but my credentials are still registered on the previous employment of IDAC. So I could not have signed for that docket using IPID because it was going to look like IPID signed for the docket, whereas the docket was signed for at IDAC. So I opted to sign for it manually.”
Three dockets transferred from Orlando to Villieria retained original case numbers instead of generating new Villieria numbers; only the station name changed.
“What actually has happened is the three dockets that were transferred from Cape Town, they remained as they are with the case numbers. The ones that were transferred from Orlando, what was supposed to happen is when they reach Villieria, they were supposed to generate new case numbers of Villieria, but it never happened. So they kept them with the same original numbers from Orlando. They only changed the station only, the station name only.”
When the witness approached General Jacob's office about the dockets, he did not specify docket numbers but referred generally to the dockets related to the matter discussed with Colonel Phillips.
“That is correct, Chair. I did not specify the number or, I just said the docket that are related to that matter that I have spoken to Colonel Phillips about. I did not specify the case numbers or the numbers.”
General Jacob told the witness that every 10 days he needs to report to the Minister of Police about progress regarding these matters, meaning responsibility to report transitioned with the dockets.
“When I collected the dockets, I had a chat with General Jacobs, wherein he was just, we were just having a casual chat where he was saying to me that each and every 10 days he needs to report to the Minister of Police to give him progress regarding these matters. So basically, the way I took it is that since we are now taking the dockets, it means, it meant that it is now our responsibility to report or something like that. So that is why I just put it the way he said it to me.”
The letters relating to the dockets were information notes, not correspondence instructing a report to the Minister of Police; previous testimony misquoted this.
“No, I think I remember what you are talking about, Chair. We misquoted it. It was supposed to read that he informed me about that, but the letters were just information notes.”
Witness was informed by General Jacob that reporting every 10 days to the Minister of Police was expected, but witness is not aware if this was a monthly or more frequent requirement and has no experience with such frequent reporting.
“The correct position would be that I was informed by the General that that is what should happen.”
Information notes and diary entries in the docket did not assist the investigation, only relaying messages about challenges faced and contact attempts with the complainant.
“there were information notes, there were some entries ... but it was not assisting also ... they were just relaying the message about what is actually happening about the cases.”
The docket information was insufficient to progress, leading investigators to meet the complainant as a team, after an initial appointment failed to materialize.
“the information that was in the docket, it was not enough for us to have gone anywhere ... So we basically made an appointment to meet with the complainant ... but that meeting never materialised ... So we decided to meet as a team on the 19th.”
The documents discussed were about victims, people at Crime Intelligence, and related to the procurement of a forklift.
“The documents were basically talking about the victims ... more or less about the people at Crime Intelligence ... information relating to the procurement of the forklift.”
Investigator notes were taken in a way to protect sensitive information by making handwriting difficult to interpret for others.
“we do not write in such a way that ... the person who will have it will not be able to make out what was this about, because we are dealing with sensitive information ... So you try to be as vague as you can, but at least you as the writer, you will be able to remember what was this about.”
The investigation cases were grouped into four groups: Lushaba matter, Madondo matter, forklift matter, and PKTT matter. The Mokwele matter was not included in these groups.
“we decided that we are going to group the cases into four groups ... the Lushaba matter ... the Madondo matter ... the forklift matter ... the PKTT matter ... the Mokwele matter ... is not included.”
Mr. Raphesu stated that information about the 'BMW lady' discussed in the meeting came from Chief Perumal, but the name was not mentioned during the meeting and it was just captured that way.
“the issue about the BMW lady, it was coming from Chief Perumal ... the name was not mentioned . It was just the way I captured it”
During a meeting, Chief Perumal asked about a circulating clip, and Mr. Raphesu was tasked to find out from Mr. O'Sullivan if he had opened a case regarding the BMW lady issue or done any work on it.
“during the engagement in the meeting, Chief Perumal asked about a clip that was circulating... they tasked me to go to Mr O’Sullivan to find out if he had opened a case against ... around this issue about the BMW lady ... also to find out if he has conducted or done anything on that matter”
Mr. Raphesu spoke to Mr. O'Sullivan, who provided him with a letter (unclear if from or to the Minister) and a report including CPB details about Brigadier Mokwele; details were sent via email already to Andrea Johnson on 5 December 2025.
“he gave me a letter . I am not sure whether it was the letter to the Minister or from the Minister ... He also provided me with a report ... On that report ... there is something that you call CPB ... So those details , he provided them via email ... that information was sent to Andrea Johnson on the 5th ... of December 2025 already”
The consultation with Mr. Adams in Cape Town was to clarify issues about the dockets, to obtain supplementary affidavits, but did not provide any information beyond what was already in the A1 statements.
“The purpose of the consultation was to provide Mr Adams with an opportunity to clarify issues about the dockets... we obtained supplementary affidavits ... but the purpose ... was not for us to tell him what to tell us. We wanted to get from him what he is going to give us ... he gave us the same thing that was in the A1 here ...”
Mr. Raphesu stated that Mr. Adams indicated he did not have documents to attach to the affidavit, despite efforts to have him provide them for substantiation of allegations.
“when we were busy typing his affidavit ... he indicated that he did not have documents to give us to attach”
Mr. Raphesu testified that when Advocate Ramsamy asked Mr. Fadiel about documents, he was told Fadiel had already given the documents to Chief Perumal just before the interviews started.
“when Advocate Ramsamy asked him about the documents, Mr Fadiel already told us that he gave the documents to Chief Perumal just before the interviews started”
Mr. Raphesu acknowledged that the documents shared by Chief Perumal at the meeting on 9 December were likely the same ones referred to by Mr. Fadiel, implying no new documents were disclosed beyond those already seen.
“those would have been the documents that Mr Perumal then shared with you in the meeting of the 9th of December ... there would not have been other documents to disclose ... apart from those that you had already then seen”
The messages were WhatsApp messages forwarded to Mr Adams via Minister Mcunu or Mr Cedric Nkabinde.
“P a g e 7 2 o f 1 3 1 ( a t t r i b u t e d t o L i e u t e n a n t G e n e r a l M k h w a n a z i a n d f o r w a r d e d t o M r A d a m s v i a M i n i s t e r M c u n u o r M r C e d r i c N k a b i n d e”
The message read that if you disband the PKTT (Police Key Task Team), something to that effect, but the witness could not see the exact sender or recipient.
“it was written there that if you disband the PKTT , something towards that , I cannot remember by head”
MR RAPHESU could not tell who had sent the message nor who it was sent to.
“So you could not tell who had sent the message ? That is correct . No nor could you tell who that message had been sent to ? That is correct , Chair .”
MR RAPHESU stated the messages were attributed to General Mkhwanazi by Mr Adams and forwarded that the message came from the Chief of Staff, Mr Nkabinde.
“You say the messages were attributed to General Mkhwanazi . Was it Mr Adams who attribute the messages to General Mkhwanazi ? That is correct , Chair . And what did he say regarding the forwarding ? What exactly did Mr Adams say ? So regarding the forwarding , he seemed to be saying that he got the message from the Chief of Staff , Mr Nkabinde .”
MR RAPHESU stated that Chief Perumal did the typing of the affidavits and that MR RAPHESU, as lead investigator, commissioned the affidavits without formal discussion or objection from others.
“Chief Perumal was doing the typing , Commissioner . There was no discussion about that , but as a lead investigator on the matter , I just assume that it is me who was supposed to have commissioned the affidavits . There was no objection .”
MR RAPHESU explained Chief Perumal does not want to be named or sign any affidavit but operationally leads everything, so MR RAPHESU assumed commissioning the affidavits was their role as lead.
“Mr Perumal is not a person that will want to put this signature or name in any document . From what I know is , even if you write in your affidavit and you mention him , he is going to fight with you . He does not want to be put on any affidavit . He does not want to be named at anything . But operationally , he leads everything . So I just assume that because I am the lead on this , I have to commission .”
Mr Perumal reportedly does not want to put his signature or name in any document or affidavit, and fights if mentioned, although operationally he leads everything.
“Mr Perumal is not a person that will want to put this signature or name in any document . From what I know is , even if you write in your affidavit and you mention him , he is going to fight with you . He does not want to be put on any affidavit . He does not want to be named at anything . But operationally , he leads everything .”
MR RAPHESU and Advocate flew back to Johannesburg together, while Chief Perumal flew back to East London separately after their interviews in Cape Town.
“No , I think the two of us , I Advocate and myself , we flew back and then he flew back to East London .”
There was no occasion when Chief Perumal was alone with Mr Adams, without MR RAPHESU or Advocate present.
“Was there an occasion or a moment when the two of you were somewhere else , and Mr Perumal was alone with Mr Adams ? No , that never occurred , Chair .”
There was no arrangement made to meet again on the same day with Mr Adams after the meeting where the supplementary affidavit was taken.
“After your meeting where you took the supplementary affidavit , was there an arrangement perhaps to meet again on the same day with Mr Adams , by any one of you , that was made in your presence ? No , Chair , and Commissioners , there was no arrangement .”
MR RAPHESU had a serious concern about an A1 affidavit in the Mokwele matter being purportedly commissioned on 6 January without his presence or knowledge, and Mr Adams never mentioned the contents during his information provision.
“So my concern is , on the day in question , there were only four supplementary affidavits that were obtained , and if that purported A 1 is indicated that was obtained on that day , on the 6th , it was not obtained in my presence . So I am basically also indicating that if there is a possibility that it was obtained on that day , I cannot dispute that , but it was obtained not in my presence . I also indicate that the information that Mr Fadiel Adams provided to us on that day , he never said anything about what was contained in that A 1 , and it could not be that it was obtained at that day , because that information was not readily available at that time .”
An affidavit dated 6 January 2025 was commissioned by Mr Perumal in Cape Town and included his stamp according to records.
“if you go to page 3484 , you will see there that it is dated 6 January 2025 , and it says it was signed in Cape Town , then it was commissioned by Mr Perumal , and it includes his stamp .”
If supplementary affidavits commissioned by Mr. Raphesu were not in the docket when shared with the accused, it implies those affidavits were swapped or hidden.
“If they were not in the dockets when the dockets were shared with the accused, that can only meant that somebody swapped the affidavits that you commissioned for the affidavit that Advocate Pooe is showing you now. Not only swapping, it can also be that the others were hidden so that they cannot be.”
Supplementary affidavits commissioned by Mr. Raphesu should be part of what gets disclosed to the accused in the court process if done properly.
“These supplementary affidavits that you put in the docket, would they be what gets, part of what gets disclosed to the accused in the process in court? That should be the way you have put it.”
Full and proper disclosure requires that both Perumal's affidavits and Mr. Raphesu's supplementary affidavits be disclosed as part of the docket.
“Even if there were a statement that was supposed to be obtained by Mr Perumal that day, it was supposed to be marked as supplementary also...for proper and full disclosure both his affidavits and your supplementary affidavits have to be disclosed. They are all part of the docket.”
Mr Raphesu states that in a meeting with Mr Adams and Mr Perumal he did not see the original 27 affidavit concerning the PKTT and that he never saw such affidavit when meeting with Mr Adams.
“You have not seen the original 27 affidavit which speaks about the PKTT. You had not seen it. As far as Mr Perumal and Ms Johnson are concerned, you have never seen that affidavit when you meet with Mr Adams, right? Thank you, Commissioner, yes.”
During a meeting with a complainant and Mr Perumal, the witness volunteered information and Mr Perumal attempted to interject but was pushed back, so the witness continued without interruption.
“The witness just volunteered the information. And from what I was gathering, when Mr Perumal was trying to interject or maybe says something, he was just pushing him. It looked like... maybe they fought about something because he did not even want to entertain him. So the witness just volunteered this information and we put it exactly as he was saying.”
Mr Raphesu understood from the interaction that Mr Perumal is building on the Section 27 statement and referring to various topics including the PKTT and the forklift issue.
“So when you take his supplementary, you understood, you understood from that interaction that he is building, he knows he is building on the section 27. That he spoke about the various topics.”
Mr Raphesu had a small conversation with Mr Perumal about the mention of a person named Dlamini and informed him that he knew Dlamini, but they left it at that.
“So just to indicate further, the same name of Dlamini also came up. And I also informed him that I know Dlamini. So we had a small conversation about it, but we left it at that.”
Mr Raphesu confirms that affidavits commissioned by Chief Perumal to Cape Town/Pretoria should have been named supplementary affidavits if intended as such, but one affidavit was not preceded by 'supplementary'.
“Just to complete your point about the Cape Town/Pretoria affidavits commissioned by Chief Perumal, you said they too should have been named supplementary affidavits. May I take you to page 3483? That is one of Chief Perumal's affidavits or rather affidavits commissioned by him. You see there between the tram lines at the top of 3483, there it says ‘affidavit’. An affidavit is not preceded by supplementary. That is correct, Chair, I confirm.”
Comparing affidavit 3483 and 3485, the latter commissioned by Mr. Raphesu, the affidavit 3485 was properly preceded by a supplementary affidavit.
“Yes, so whereas if you compare it with the affidavit at 3485, which was commissioned by you, there you do have supplementary before affidavit. That is correct, Chair.”
A presentation dated 22 January 2025 was delivered by Mr. Raphesu and others concerning Section 27 and other related matters to their team but was only sent to the team on 16 January 2025.
“The presentation is dated 22, but it was sent to the team on the 16th of January. It was delivered, Chair and Commissioner.”
A Member of Parliament alleged that General Khumalo and senior managers, together with General Lushaba, abused COVID funds, and that General Masemola might be involved in some of these allegations.
“… the very last paragraph, it says and further suspects, this is the Member of Parliament, he makes the allegation about General Khumalo, senior managers, together with General Lushaba, for abusing COVID funds … and further suspects that the National Commissioner, General Masemola, may be involved in some of these allegations.”
The grouping of cases involved Lushaba, Madondo, Forklift and PKTT, with no issue related to the name mentioned (Mokwele).
“When we were grouping the cases. It was Lushaba, Madondo, Forklift and PKTT...so if the name could have came up, it will have maybe just randomly came, but not in the context of it being a case to be investigated.”
Chief Perumal provided telephone numbers including Feroz Khan who would shed more light on the Lushaba matter related to lost items reported to Khan.
“The numbers were provided by Chief Perumal. And Mr Feroz Khan was one of the people that was identified that he would shed more light about the topic that we were talking about ... it has something to do with the lost items that were reported to Khan.”
Advocate Ramsamy instructed Mr Raphesu to draft a section 28 subpoena regarding General Lushaba's bank records, but Mr Raphesu refused to do so as there was no docket reference and he feared he could not explain his actions later.
“… Advocate Ramsamy came to my office with a piece of paper indicating that the head of the office, Advocate Johnson, wanted me to draft a section 28 subpoena. So I had a conversation with Advocate Ramsamy to say, but this we cannot do because we do not have anything in the docket ... if we do this, I am not going to be able to explain why I subpoenaed these documents.”
Mr Raphesu was harsh to Advocate Ramsamy when he first heard about the R50 million subpoena request but later sent a WhatsApp message to suggest stalling until more information was received.
“So I was a bit harsh on her to say, no, I cannot do it ... eventually she said she is going to take my message back ... so I did send a WhatsApp to say, can we at least stall or maybe wait until we get further information before we move on this?”
Mr Raphesu sent a message on 11 December 2024 to Advocate Ramsamy suggesting to stall or park the preparation of section 8 documents until consulting with the complainant.
“Good morning Advocate Drew ... I was suggesting that we stall or park it until we consult with the complainant ... so that after consultation we could move faster.”
Ms Ramsamy did not take kind of me questioning her; she instructed Mr. Raphesu to draft section 28 documents regarding information about the 50 million slush funds.
“she indicated that the ID did not take kind of me questioning her. So we were summoned now to Advocate Johnson's office, where now, she now instructed me to draft this section 28”
Ms Ramsamy had a piece of paper with information about General Lushaba including his ID number, which Mr. Raphesu used to subpoena using the ID number.
“On the piece of paper, it was just information about General Lushaba, but what I could pick up there, it was the ID number. So I had to do the subpoena on his ID number.”
Mr. Raphesu deliberately put the email subject line "Section what-what" to make the issue stand out and identify it in future as having a problem with the instruction.
“The subject line, I think I did it deliberately, so that it can stand out from the others, just to show that there was a problem with this thing.”
The summons to banks were signed by Advocate Johnson as per procedure, although the correct section reference should have been 28(13) not section 1(a).
“When you look at the background, you indicate... at the time what was authorised would have been a section 28(13)... I noticed that and I accept that it is an error on my part.”
The process for issuing section 28 subpoenas is supposed to go through the project manager to escalate and control, but in this case, it went straight to Advocate Johnson's office without going through the project manager, and there was no project manager involved in this project.
“the process is supposed to move from myself to the project manager, then from the project manager to her office. But it did not move in that way. It went straight to her office this time... No, there was not.”
Mr. Raphesu did not get a chance to speak in the meeting with Advocate Johnson; he assumed Ms Ramsamy conveyed his issues and the meeting was to give instructions, not a consultation.
“I did not even get a chance to speak. So I assume that when Advocate Ramsamy went to her, she said enough... No, it was just there to give the instructions.”
The summons about the R 50 million was issued in the absence of an underlying complaint or allegation as required by section 7 referral, therefore misuse of section 28(13) process.
“this summons about the R 50 million in the absence of an underlying complaint or allegation properly that was given to you... In the absence of a complaint properly lodged, this process of a summons is a misuse of the section 8 (13) process? That is correct.”
Mr. Raphesu received some results from banks but was removed from the matter before the process could be completed and analysis provided to the financial investigator.
“we got some results back, but when we received those, usually we give to the financial investigator to analyse... But I was removed before that process could finish.”
Mr. Raphesu made a report on the Lushaba matter and submitted it to Chief Perumal.
“I continued with the investigation on the Lushaba matter. I subsequently produced a report on the findings of the investigation. Then I submitted the report to Chief Perumal.”
Mr. Raphesu refused to work on the Mokwele matter because Mr. Perumal and Mr. Padayachee were meeting witnesses in secret locations and arranging for affidavits he was not aware of; he was later removed from that investigation.
“I refuse to work on that matter... I became aware that Mr Perumal and Mr Padayachee were meeting some of the witnesses... so, I took issue with that... I was removed from the investigation of that case only.”
The two other investigators were not allowed to proceed with investigations or interviews without Mr. Raphesu's knowledge and consent, and affidavits must be discussed with the lead prosecutor before being authorised.
“they were not allowed to... the prosecution led indicates that before an affidavit can be authorised, it must be discussed with the lead prosecutor... So when Advocate Ramsamy comes with the presentation, I think she will be able to complete that part... But from your question, they were not supposed to have done that.”
There was already an affidavit 204 obtained at the beginning of the Mokwele investigation which Mr. Raphesu was not aware of and he took issue with it.
“there was an affidavit 204 that had already been obtained and that I was not aware of. So I took issue with that also.”
Obtaining a 204 statement at the beginning of an investigation is problematic as it risks being directed and misled by the suspect involved, potentially diverting the investigation incorrectly.
“And just for clarity, what is a 204? A 204 is a statement that is obtained from... it is a suspect. So we obtain that statement from the suspect that he will incriminate himself on the subject matter... It is a problem because you are running a risk of being misled by this person of interest because he can actually divert or push you into a wrong path... So it is not advisable to start things that way.”
M R R A P H E S U raised the issue of early 204 statement taking with Ms Ramsamy and Mr Sesoko, and was advised to concentrate on the Lushaba matter, while the other two persons would continue with their matters.
“No, they gave me feedback. They indicated that I should continue concentrating on the Lushaba matter and the other matter, the other two guys will continue with it... and Mr Padayachee assumed the responsibility of being a lead on that other matter.”
M R R A P H E S U was instructed to contact Mr Paul O'Sullivan to find out the details of an investigation and whether a case had been opened, and during the interview received two emails from Mr O'Sullivan containing a letter and a report.
“Yes, I was instructed to contact Mr O'Sullivan and to find out from him what he was investigating and whether he had reported or opened a case... he sent me two emails... it is the document that I have already explained, the letter and the report that I have already indicated.”
Mr O'Sullivan sent two emails on 13 January 2025; the first with a ministerial directive annexure and the second containing details of Ms Mokwele.
“The first is sent at 14.11 and there is the directive of the Minister attached... The second email was sent on the same day... which contains Ms Mokwele's details.”
M R R A P H E S U printed the two annexures and recorded them in the docket for filing and diary entry at page 40.
“Yes, the two annexures, I printed them as they are. Then I recorded them in the docket to be filed. So, I also made an entry in the diary of the docket... At page 40, I confirm, that is the entry.”
Contrary to Ms Johnson's testimony that she never dealt with Mr O'Sullivan on the Mokwele matter, email records show she received an email from him on 5 January 2025.
“When Ms Johnson said to us... that she has never had any dealings with Mr O'Sullivan... that would not be correct, because she would have received an email from him.”
Attached to the email from Mr O'Sullivan to Ms Mokwele is the ministerial directive dated 31 December 2024 relating to Crime Intelligence, Points of Entry and Political Killings Task Team (PKTT).
“Attached to the email, perhap the Annexure MRR 13, is the directive of the Minister relating to Crime Intelligence, Points of Entry and Political Killings Task Team, dated 31 December 2024.”
Mr Raphesu was accused of leaking information by phoning a person of interest, Mr Cedric Nkabinde, informing him about an ongoing investigation against him and naming the investigator.
“I was being accused of leaking information ... it was indicated that I phoned a person of interest ... I informed him about information that is investigated by IDAC ... and I gave him the name of the investigator who was investigating him”
Mr Raphesu denied leaking information to Mr Nkabinde and stated that it was actually Mr Perumal who phoned Mr Nkabinde and instructed or spoke to him to make allegations.
“I responded to the allegation indicating and denying that I leaked information to Mr Nkabinde... the person who actually phoned Nkabinde, it was Mr Perumal, Chief Perumal ... instructed or maybe spoke to Nkabinde to phone the ID and make those allegations”
Mr Nkabinde allegedly made false allegations against one of the investigators, and no follow-up occurred leading to the finding that the allegations were false.
“... Nkabinde had called her and made false allegations against one of investigators ... when they followed up, there was no response from him, and that matter went nowhere ... they found that the allegations were false”
Mr Raphesu indicated that there were further charges or allegations against him which he denied in an affidavit (MRR9).
“In the affidavit, I am explaining my position, and I am also indicating that there were further charges, or further accusations that were made. And I am also denying those further allegations”
The further allegations against Mr Raphesu tried to substantiate that he was the person who phoned Mr Nkabinde, but Mr Raphesu maintains it was fabricated.
“They were just trying to substantiate and to put more information that will try to indicate that it was indeed me who phoned... I knew that he would not provide because this thing was just concocted. It was just fabricated to look like it is legit”
Mr Mbal0, appointed as the investigator on this matter, tried to obtain a statement from Mr Nkabinde but failed.
“Mr Mbalo tried in vain to obtain an affidavit from the person who called the ID ... Mr Cedric Nkabinde... they were not even able to obtain a statement from Mr Nkabinde”
Chief Perumal is guiding the investigation and is both referee and player in the process; he orchestrated the call to Mr Nkabinde and is now the Investigation Officer in the same matter.
“Chief Perumal will be guiding the investigation ... Mr Perumal will be a referee and a player in this process ... He is also a suspect because he is the one that orchestrated this thing ... he is now the IO again of the same matter”
Mr Mbalowa was originally a TRT member guarding Chief Perumal, later became an investigator and currently works under Chief Perumal.
“Mr Mbalowa was a TRT member. He guarding, he was one of the guards of Chief Perumal. So eventually, he became the investigator. He is now working under Chief Perumal.”
Mr Raphesu does not know the exact date, time, or duration of the call initiating an investigation involving him, as Mr Nkabinde could not recall the date either.
“I did not even know the date, the time, the duration of the call... Mr Nkabinde told them that he cannot remember when the call was made... So as things stand, I do not have the date of the call.”
Advocate Johnson started receiving calls from Mr Nkabinde on the 9th, but only got an opportunity to speak with him on the 30th.
“Advocate Johnson records that she started receiving the calls on the 9th... And that it is only on the 30th when she got an opportunity to speak with that person.”
A conversation on the 30th revealed a discussion about authorization for an investigation related to Mr Nkabinde, with instructions not to discuss certain matters with Mansay and mention of something terrible having happened.
“After noon, Advocate Johnson. Please advise authorisation for the Nkab stand-alone... Something terrible has happened. Whatever you do, do not discuss anything with Nkab with Mansay. When you hear what I have to say, your heart will break...”
Mr Raphesu did not know anything about the investigation related to Mr Nkabinde authorization discussed in the messages until presented with the evidence.
“Did you know anything about this investigation?... No, no, I did not know anything about it.”
Mr Raphesu had no knowledge of the investigation into Mr Nkabinde, and one of the persons involved said the investigation was kept only between three people.
“So, at this stage, you had no knowledge of an investigation into Mr Nkabinde and clearly, one of the people involved is saying that this investigation was kept between the three people.”
Mr Raphesu lodged a grievance on 24th October about being investigated, after repeated unanswered emails regarding the progress of the investigation since 7th February.
“I decided to file a grievance to say I have been investigated from this day... since the 7th of February... on the 24th, I decided to file a grievance... Still today, no one is saying fokol about this thing.”
Mr Padayachee accused Mr Raphesu of putting his life in danger by naming him as an investigator, and Mr Raphesu hopes Mr Padayachee is not involved in orchestrating the matter.
“Mr Padayachee was going around the office telling people that I put his life in danger... So I am just putting it... I am hoping it will turn out that he is not part of this because if he is, then I do not know... my belief is that him and Dylan Perumal, they are the ones that orchestrated this thing.”
Section 41(6) internal investigation bars sharing information about cases with unauthorized persons.
“The section 41 (6) investigation is... you are barred from sharing information about cases that you are investigating without outside people or colleagues that are not designated.”
Mr Raphesu intends to open a criminal case but delayed opening to not appear as countering the ongoing investigation into him, hoping the Commission will provide assistance with investigators to handle it.
“I am intending to open a criminal case... I did not want it to look like I am countering whatever they were investigating against me... I am hoping that the Commission will also assist by providing investigators to take over that case.”
An investigation under section 28(13) was instituted, but Mr Raphesu thinks it might be better described as under section 41(6).
“You say in that paragraph 63 that there is a section 28 (13) investigation that was instituted... I might be wrong... but I think better to say there was an investigation under section 41 (6).”
Mr. Raphesu stated he cannot investigate any SAPS or security cluster matters including those involving members sitting in the security cluster.
“Page 129 of 131 cannot investigate any matter that has to deal with any SAPS matters, security cluster, that will include all the people that are sitting in the security cluster. I am barred from investigating those cases.”