Hearing day 153

Peter Serunye is currently reassigned to the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) of the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa and has personal knowledge of IDAC's criminal investigations into allegations against Lieutenant General Samuel Dumisani Khumalo and six other Crime Intelligence officials regarding the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele.

“I have been subpoenaed by the Commission to give evidence regarding my involvement in and knowledge of IDAC's criminal investigation into the allegations against Lieutenant General Samuel Dumisani Khumalo and six other Crime Intelligence officials regarding the appointment of Brigadier Mokwele, commonly referred to as the Mokwele matter (State versus Khumalo and others) and the matter of Major General Lushaba.”

Peter Serunye was authorized by the then Investigating Director Hermione Cronje on 13 October 2021 to exercise powers under section 24(2) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act and to represent the state in criminal proceedings and appeals instituted by the Investigating Directorate within South Africa.

“On 13 October 2021, I was issued with an authorization by then ID Advocate Hermione Cronje, the then-Investigating Director of the Investigating Directorate, to exercise powers as set out in section 24(2) of the National Prosecuting Authority, Act 32 of 1998, and to appear on behalf of the state in criminal proceedings, appeals and matters arising from criminal proceedings instituted by the Investigating Directorate in all jurisdictional areas and courts within the Republic of South Africa in respect of any offence envisaged in section 7(1) read with proclamation 20 of 2019, and section 28(1)(c) of the National Prosecuting Authority, Act 32 of 1998, and I attach as Annexure PS1 the authorization.”

Advocate Annemarie Friedman oversaw Eskom-related matters and the late Advocate Dobada oversaw Transnet-related matters; following Advocate Dobada's passing, Advocate Witbooi took over as Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions on contract.

“Advocate Annemarie Friedman oversaw Eskom-related matters, and the late Advocate Dobada oversaw the Transnet-related matters. Following Advocate Dobada's passing, his group was taken over by Advocate Witbooi, who was a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions on contract.”

Within IDAC, Peter Serunye's principal functions are to prosecute and manage a group handling high-level corruption cases in both public and private sectors.

“Within IDAC, my functions are principally the prosecution and the management and oversight of a group that deals with high-level corruption cases in the public and private sector.”

Peter Serunye states that his colleague Advocate Louw, now retired, oversaw cases in the security cluster from the intelligence services at the police.

“My colleague, who is now on pension, Advocate Louw, oversaw cases in the security cluster largely emanating from the intelligence services at the police.”

The group led by Peter Serunye within IDAC comprises senior and junior state advocates (prosecutors), lead investigators, criminal investigators, financial investigators including a chief financial investigator, a data analyst, and a project manager, and operated through four groups each headed by a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and a project owner.

“The group comprises of senior and junior state advocates, that is, prosecutors, and then lead investigators, criminal investigators, financial investigators, as well as chief financial investigators, a data analyst and a project manager. At the relevant time, IDAC operated through four groups, each headed by a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and a project who would then also be a project owner to cases under such groups. I headed the group dealing with high-level corruption in the public and private sector as aforesaid.”

IDAC groups carried historic matters as well as matters generated from recommendations of Commissions of Inquiry such as the State Capture Commission (Zondo Commission), Mpati Commission, and Nugent Commission.

“Each group carried both historical matters and matters generated from the recommendations of the Commissions of Inquiry, that is, the State Capture Commission, commonly known as the Zondo Commission, the Mpati Commission, and the Nugent Commission.”

Advocate Talita Louw retired at the end of April 2026 and took over her group.

“Advocate Louw retired at the end of April this year, 2026. It is now Advocate, her surname is also Louw. I am trying to remember, but I cannot remember her name now, Advocate, her surname is also Louw. Ja, Talita Louw, I think, yes.”

The group would deliberate and compile memoranda for Investigating Director (ID) to authorize investigations based on Commission reports, requesting authorization under section 28(1A) or 28(13).

“Once a possible matter was identified from a Commission report, we would deliberate as a group, and I would then compile a memorandum addressed to the Investigating Director motivating for the authorization of an investigation. In the said application, I would also then request the ID, if she finds that to be in order, to authorize the matter, either in terms of section 28(1A) or 28(13).”

Approval of investigations includes designation of officials such as financial investigators, data analysts, and prosecutors, subject to Investigating Director's approval.

“In the application, ask her to authorize the designation of the officials that I would have listed in the application, financial investigators, investigators, data analysts, and so on. The ID would then consider the application, and if it is approved, we then get a feedback via the project manager, then we start working on the matter.”

The group overseen by Advocate Serunye dealt with high-level corruption in the public and private sectors by identifying potential cases from recommendations of Commissions of Inquiry such as the Zondo and Mpati Commissions.

“I was overseeing a group that was dealing with high-level corruption in the public and private sectors. We identified potential cases from the recommendations and evidence of Commissions of Inquiry that I have earlier listed, the Zondo, Mpati, and Nugent Commission.”

Team composition includes a balance of lead criminal investigators, lead financial investigators, junior investigators, prosecutors, data analysts, and may include multiple senior and junior prosecutors based on case complexity.

“And I must then have a balance of officials, a lead criminal investigator, a lead financial investigator, and maybe a junior criminal investigator, and a junior financial investigator, prosecutors. Depending on the complicity of the case, I may have two senior state advocates and a junior, and try and balance the team like that, including a data analyst, and so on.”

The application process includes indicating the names of individuals forming part of the team, usually designated by Deputy Directors of Public Prosecutions who head such groups.

“In the application, I include a list of names of people. Always, in each of these cases, there must be a Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions who is the project owner, who is heading the group.”

The Investigating Director reviews and approves or suggests changes to the team composition, including possible inclusion of additional investigators or prosecutors.

“She would suggest, maybe looking at the balance of the team, that you still need another prosecutor, either a junior or a senior, without specifying a name, without recommending includes so-and-so. She would just advise, beef up your team, you still need another data analyst to this or that, but without specifying a name.”

A Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions must always be part of the team for any section 27 referral or Commission matter; it is mandatory and never omitted.

“From inception. There must be a Deputy who is the project owner of the project.”

Advocate Serunye confirms that any application to the ID is made by them first, and the ID then makes a recommendation; the ID has never approached them to initiate an application independently.

“Indeed, Commissioner, I would have made an application and she then makes a recommendation. She has never approached me to say I ...”

Advocate Serunye states that in their experience, the Investigating Director (ID) has never instructed them to draft applications under sections 28(1) or (13), but the ID makes recommendations and notes on such applications.

“No, it has never happened to me in that sense, but there are instances where, let us say, my memo would ask her to authorize the matter in terms of 28(1A), but after going through what would have been presented before him, she, I know of one matter where she would have said, no ... she then makes notes on the memo. She sort of recommends or does not recommend. When she recommends, she makes notes, or if she does not recommend, she also makes notes saying why.”

The reporting structure of IDAC includes the Investigating Director (Advocate Andrea Johnson) at the top, with Head of Investigations and Operations (Mr Matthew Sesoko) reporting directly to the ID, alongside four Deputy Directors who also report to the ID.

“The Investigating Director, Advocate Andrea Johnson, heads the unit. The Head of Investigations and Operations, the position is held by Mr Matthew Sesoko. He sits at the same level as Deputy Directors and reports directly to the Investigating Director.”

Operationally, teams report to Mr Sesoko, who acts like a CEO managing daily operations and briefs the Investigating Director.

“Yes. Chair, we report to Mr Sesoko, we brief him as the investigation, as we are busy with the investigation, we call him, we even make reports, quarterly reports and there is a structure which he is heading where on a monthly basis we meet and we then present these cases to him with a view that he will then brief the ID on how far the cases are, where we need resources will inform him, where we are having challenges, we inform him.”

Reporting to Mr Sesoko on a monthly basis is a requirement per the operations manual, and project managers are responsible for preparing these reports.

“That happens. It is a requirement. Project managers are in charge of, they are responsible for doing those reports. Our meetings are held or at least were held monthly, yes, with Mr Sesoko and then we will then report on these cases.”

The reporting is about progress and challenges and does not include Mr Sesoko advising on prosecution decisions.

“No, it is not Commissioner. He does not question issues up to that level where he can say why these charges, why not those charges or why. No, it is more to report to him about the progress and where we are having challenges. It is not about him advising on - I know Mr Sesoko used to be a prosecutor many years ago but the function here for him is not to advise on legal issues or anything, he is more of a CEO in charge of our daily operations, yes.”

Mr Sesoko does not advise on legal issues such as charges or prosecutions but focuses on operational management.

“No, it is not Commissioner. He does not question issues up to that level where he can say why these charges, why not those charges or why. No, it is more to report to him about the progress and where we are having challenges. It is not about him advising on - I know Mr Sesoko used to be a prosecutor many years ago but the function here for him is not to advise on legal issues or anything, he is more of a CEO in charge of our daily operations, yes.”

The committee called OMC (Operations Management Committee), headed by Mr Sesoko, meets monthly as part of the reporting and management structure at IDAC.

“Yes, this committee that is headed by Mr Sesoko.”

The IDAC manual was signed in 2024 and guides day-to-day operations of new IDAC employees, serving as an induction manual for new officials.

“I think it was signed in 2024, I am trying to get the date, by Mr Sesoko and the ID.”

The operations manual prescribes the required reporting structure, including providing progress reports to OMC and the Investigating Director.

“This reporting structure is prescribed by this operations manual.”

The IDAC team consists of seniors as senior state advocates, juniors as junior state advocates, and investigators including two chief investigators named Perumalan and Nico Booi, with investigators reporting monthly to the chief investigators.

“beneath the DDPP’s are the senior state advocates and then the junior state advocates and on the investigative side we then IDAC drew both on investigators seconded from the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation and on contracted civilians who were hired as financial investigators ... including a chief investigator ... currently have two. It is Chief Investigator Perumalan and Chief Investigator Booi, Nico Booi ... all the investigators are reporting directly to the two chief investigators on a monthly basis.”

The two chief investigators are spread across all four IDAC groups, with monthly reports via a structure chaired by the Head of Investigation Operations Mr Sesoko.

“they are spread within all four groups ... deputies, chief investigators and project managers report on each matter through a structure chaired by the Head of Investigation Operations, Mr Sesoko”

IDAC prosecutors are assigned to four groups but may work across groups for experience or to meet shortages; this flexibility was introduced by Advocate Johnson replacing a prior permanent group allocation approach by Advocate Cronje.

“person can be designated by that group that requires those services ... before the time of Advocate Johnson ... Advocate Cronje ... when you are designated to a group you belong to that group throughout, but when Advocate Johnson came she changed and she was of the view that people should get experience dealing with all the cases, type of cases and therefore no one investigator or prosecutor is permanently based in a group”

ADV Serunye states there is no regular rotation system in cross group sharing; it mainly happens due to shortages or new matters.

“There is not a regularized rotation. It is mainly when the shortages and sometimes when a new matter ...”

The Investigating Director reports to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Parliament, including appearances when called.

“The Investigating Director in turn reports to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and also to Parliament as and when she is called.”

Before using a prosecutor from another group, permission must be sought from that prosecutor's Deputy and informed to them, with Deputies agreeing on resource sharing matters.

“before I include another member from another group ... I have to discuss with their Deputy first and to inform them and we then agree as Deputies ... there is that engagement between Deputies”

The financial year for contracts with individuals in IDAC runs from 1 April to 1 March, requiring quarterly performance assessments and communication between Deputies when prosecutors or investigators move between groups.

“our financial year runs from 1 April to 1st of March ... on a quarterly basis we do performance assessments ... therefore when we are having a person ... in this group and in that group ... for that specific year the person has signed a contract”

New matters from the public are evaluated for jurisdiction under IDAC's mandate via an intake process involving a secretariat chaired by Mr Sesoko, with a Deputy and a chief investigator reviewing and recommending disposition.

“once the IDAC was set up ... the manual talks of a secretariat which will receive these cases ... then there is an intake criteria which has to sit to determine whether these cases belong ... Mr Sesoko will always sit in those ... there would then be a Deputy and a chief investigator ... it also recommends either senior state advocate or a chief investigator”

ADV Serunye experienced one situation where a junior in her group was used for the Mokwele/Lushaba matter without her knowledge or engagement.

“one of the juniors in my group was utilized for these Mokwele / Lushaba matters without my knowledge and engagement.”

Each employee signing non-disclosure forms is restricted to only knowing the facts and suspects within their specific group working on a case, with no sharing of information between groups unless designated otherwise.

“signing of non-disclosure forms, this is drilled into each and every employee that comes in, the non-sharing of information. So when a group is dealing with a case, only that group knows the facts, who are the suspect ... We do not share information.”

Every matter is headed by a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who acts as project owner; there are no exceptions to this rule.

“every matter is headed by a DPP who acts as a project owner ... There is no, there is no exception to that rule ... There should not be ... The re should not be exceptions.”

A case cannot proceed with investigations or subpoenas without a DPP appointed to it; the DPP signs subpoenas and provides leadership in investigations.

“each case must have a DPP ... when we need information from banks, cellphone providers ... we serve them with subpoenas ... That subpoena can only be signed by a DPP ... if a group does not have a DPP, I cannot see how they are going to proceed with an investigation ... you need a senior prosecutor overseeing and guiding the investigation.”

The Mokwele matter involved a large arrest of high-ranking police officers on 26 June 2025, attracting significant attention and talk within the office.

“My involvement in the Mokwele matter, paragraph 21: 'On the morning of 27 June 2005, I arrived at the office as usual ... This arrest was on a number of high-ranking police officers.'”

Without a DPP, investigations stall, leadership is lacking, and the team cannot properly progress, akin to a soccer team without a coach.

“When no DPP is appointed ... investigations are going to stall ... You do not have leadership ... you need a leader in the form of a DPP to help direct the team ... It is like a soccer team playing a match without a coach.”

In the Mokwele case, there were arrests made which would have implied investigations had already taken place within IDAC, but Advocate Serunye was not aware of such investigations because the case was not in their group.

“Once an IDAC matter reaches the stage of an arrest, there would surely have been some investigations already ... That is what has to happen ... You cannot arrest without doing investigations ... I was not aware because this case was not in my group.”

Advocate Joy Hlatshwayo, a junior state advocate reporting to Advocate Serunye's group, was handling the Mokwele case and appearing as prosecutor, without being formally transferred to that group.

“Advocate Joy Hlatshwayo ... who was at the time reporting to me or my group ... she was amongst the most junior in the office ... I am told she is the one who is handling this case ... She was appearing ...”

Advocate Paul Louw was supposed to be the DPP responsible for the Intelligence stream in IDAC but was unaware of the Mokwele case, which was strange since he was in the office that morning.

“Advocate Paul Louw should have been the DPP responsible for this stream ... I think you said Intelligence ... He was responsible for that ... he was also there in the office that morning and that is why he did not appear to know anything about this case ... that was strange.”

Advocate Hlatshwayo was handling the prosecution in the Mokwele case without proper communication or request made between Deputies about her transfer to the prosecution group handling the case.

“You told us that if someone were to be taken from a Deputy by another Deputy, there would be a discussion between the Deputies. Obviously nobody had approached you and asked that Advocate Hlatshwayo be part of the prosecution in another group or team. So that is an anomaly.”

Brian Padayachee was a senior investigator not in Advocate Serunye's team for the Mokwele case.

“Padayachee was not in my team.”

A junior prosecutor was allocated to a case without consulting the senior prosecutor (Advocate Serunye) who was the direct supervisor.

“But it was strange that a junior prosecutor who was reporting to me is allocated to this case without me having been engaged”

Advocate Paul Louw was part of the security cluster team and the junior prosecutor was working under him but he was not made aware of the case.

“He was working under Advocate Louw... So he was in the security cluster which was headed by Advocate Louw... The only amazing thing, Chair, is that Advocate Louw appeared also not to know about this case”

Advocate Serunye and others found that Advocate Hlatshwayo was conducting bail proceedings without proper support from a senior state advocate or DDPP, which concerned them given the case's magnitude involving senior police members.

“I was concerned that in matters of this magnitude involving the arrest of senior members of the police was being handled without such support and without a DDPP overseeing it... We then decided, the three of us, we then decided to approach the Head of the unit, the Investigating Director, Advocate Johnson, to request permission to attend court to assist Advocate Hlatshwayo”

Only the Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP) can allocate cases to junior prosecutors; Mr. Sesoko cannot do so.

“No, he, that does not fall within his mandate”

Advocate Hlatshwayo was appointed by the Investigating Directorate (ID) as the prosecutor on the case, and the initial prosecutor was Advocate Dr Ram Samy.

“she was appointed by the ID and I was told that initially the only prosecutor in the matter was Advocate Ramsamy, Dr Ramsamy, and that Hlatshwayo was then also allocated or at least designated to the matter around May, so earlier, just shortly before the arrest in this case.”

Advocate Hlatshwayo requested the court impose a condition that witnesses not be contacted or interviewed by the accused, which led the magistrate to require a list of witnesses.

“Advocate Hlatshwayo asked the court to impose a condition that the witnesses not be contacted or interviewed by the accused. The magistrate indicated that he required a list of the witnesses, as he could not simply warn them”

Advocate Hlatshwayo conducted bail proceedings on behalf of the State, indicating that bail was not opposed, but at times struggled with court questions and consulted with Advocate Serunye and Mr. Padayachee.

“Advocate Hlatshwayo conducted the bail proceedings on behalf of the State, indicating that the State was not opposing bail...At various points Advocate Hlatshwayo experienced difficulty answering questions from the court and conferred with me and with Mr Padayachee”

A bail statement contains reasons why the State is not opposing bail and avoids the need for the investigating officer to testify viva voce in court.

“Schedule 5 ... The accused to be released on bail has to bring an application and satisfy the court... the state, to avoid the investigating officer to testify viva voce in court, he then compiles an affidavit setting out... the reasons why we are not opposing”

It is necessary for the investigating officer (IO) to compile an affidavit or statement addressing issues such as criminal records and flight risk under Schedule 5, and this is a procedural necessity in bail applications.

“it has to happen ... at least by way of an affidavit from the IO or so”

Brian explained that a list of witnesses was withheld during the bail application because the prosecution had other outstanding investigations against some persons and did not want their identities to be disclosed.

“I then asked Brian ... No , no , we have other outstanding investigations against some of these people , so that is why we do not want the list of these people to be known , because if we list them , that is going to impact on our outstanding cases”

In the bail application in question, the state or prosecution failed to compile or submit a bail statement or affidavit, indicating unpreparedness for the bail application.

“But in this case , the bail application or the statement was not done , which was one of the things that made me realize that this team did not appear to have been ready for this bail application”

Witnesses were instructed by Mr Padayachee's team to immediately report if contacted by the accused to prevent danger and protect ongoing investigations involving the same accused.

“Padayachee and his team would have discussed with the witnesses, if anyone contacts you , please let us know, so that they can take steps ... so that there was no danger in that regard”

The magistrate expressed that he was not convinced the state had a strong case, noting the case was not typical fraud or corruption, and this influenced his decision to grant bail.

“the magistrate himself remarked that he was not persuaded that the state had a strong case ... He says, one of the things that I have considered is this issue, and I am not convinced about the strength of the state case as it stands”

The magistrate imposed a bail condition prohibiting the accused from entering the premises of Crime Intelligence anywhere in the country without request from the state or investigating officer and without reasons provided by the magistrate.

“Among the conditions imposed by the magistrate was a condition that the accused do not enter the premises of Crime Intelligence anywhere in the country . Neither the state nor the investigating officer had requested that condition , and the magistrate gave no reasons for imposing it”

Advocate Serunye stayed in court throughout the bail application until it was finalized.

“Indeed, Commissioner, I stayed in court until the bail application was finalized”

Mr Padayachee left the court just before the magistrate started delivering the judgment to catch a flight back to Durban or Port Elizabeth.

“Mr Padayachee was with us up to a certain point... He had to catch a flight back to Durban or Port Elizabeth ... when the magistrate was delivering judgment, he was no longer there”

Mr Padayachee was still in court and present during discussions about bail conditions but left just before the magistrate began delivering the judgment.

“when Hlatshwayo was addressing the court about the conditions, he was still there. ... I think he left just before the magistrate had started delivering judgment”

Advocate Serunye did not make a report to the ID or Mr Sesokoo on the developments or concerns relating to the bail proceedings on that day due to insufficient information and not being part of the case.

“personally, I did not, because at least at this stage I did not have enough information ... Personally, I did not at least at this stage make any report because I was not part of the case”

At the time of the bail proceedings, there was no Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP) or senior prosecutor ready, and the matter was run by the most junior prosecutor, forcing an uninvolved person to step in.

“...you knew that day was that there was no DD, there was no senior prosecutor, they certainly did not appear to be ready for the bail proceedings, you had to step in as somebody who is completely not involved. This was run by the most junior prosecutor...”

Advocate Serunye confirms that she was not formally designated to the team handling the case under section 28 provisions and could not get involved beyond assisting at court due to non-disclosure forms.

“...I am not designated to the team, formally in terms of the relevant provisions of section 28...I cannot go beyond trying to find out even about the facts and getting myself involved that much... My request on the day to the ID was to be allowed to go and help in court, and that was granted.”

Adv Serunye states Advocate Ramsamy was also involved but was off sick that morning and she was not a DDPP.

“ADV SERUNYE and ADV KHUMALOSC”

The matter was proceeding without a DDPP and project owner, implying that even with Advocate Ramsamy assisting, it was still junior prosecutors handling the case, which was a concern due to the involvement of high-level SAPS officials.

“ADV KHUMALOSC”

Concern raised that without a DDPP and senior investigator, the junior prosecutor working unsupervised on such a matter involving senior SAPS generals was problematic.

“ADV KHUMALOSC”

Advocate Serunye expresses concern about the small size and composition of the team handling the matter and the absence of ID knowledge or involvement.

“ADV SERUNYE”

Adv Serunye deliberately limited her involvement after bail application because she was not formally part of the team and did not want to question decisions of the ID.

“ADV SERUNYE”

After the bail application, Adv Serunye was not supposed to be part of the team and ended her involvement there; her involvement resumed only when formally included by the ID on 8 August 2025.

“ADV SERUNYE”

Adv Serunye states Mr. Louw was never involved in the case and was not part of the team despite overseeing the group to which the case belonged.

“ADV SERUNYE”

Adv Serunye was not involved in the case between 27 June 2025 and 8 August 2025, the 'intervening period'.

“ADV SERUNYE”

Adv Serunye did not ask why she was involved and Mr. Louw was not, but speculates it may be because she helped on the first day at court and left a message with the ID's PA.

“ADV SERUNYE”

Adv Serunye was informed by ID on 8 August that a DDPP would be involved and she was to be part of that involvement.

“ADV SERUNYE”

Advocate Serunye felt set up by the way a case was handled and doubted the merits of the case until recent evidence led to a change in opinion.

“I sort of feel a little bit angry, if I think about it, that it feels like I was set up, not only me, but Hlatshwayo as well... I think, junior as she was, I do not think she was supposed to have been involved in this case, and looking at it now, it appears to me she was, she was set up.”

On 8 August 2025, Investigating Director included Advocate Serunye formally into the matter to oversee two cases and attend to a bail amendment application, with Advocate Drushantha Ramsamy and Advocate Hlatshwayo as lead prosecutors of different matters.

“On 8th of August, 2025, the Investigating Director convened a short meeting and informed me that she had decided to include me in the matter... She asked me to oversee the two matters, the Lushaba matter and the Khumalo, and others (Mokwele matter) with Advocate Drushantha Ramsamy as remaining the lead prosecutor in the Lushaba matter, and Advocate Hlatshwayo remaining the lead in the Mokwele matter. She further asked me to attend to an anticipated bail amendment application under section 63 of the Criminal Procedure Act...”

Advocate Serunye did not know that the bail condition imposed was not asked for by the prosecution at the time and was unaware whether Advocate Hlatshwayo reported back to Advocate Johnson after the bail application.

“Commissioner, I did not know at the time... I would have expected the prosecutor, Advocate Hlatshwayo, after the bail application to give a report to Advocate Johnson... Therefore, I did not know how much she knew of what happened in court on that day, and what she did not know.”

Advocate Serunye was appointed as supervising DPP for the Lushaba and Khumalo/Mokwele matters, coming in after no DPP was previously appointed to oversee those cases.

“I was coming in as a supervisor... there is no DDPP appointed into the matter, so I am coming in after the fact as a DDPP to oversee the two cases.”

Advocate Serunye described the meeting with the Investigating Director as very short and more of an instruction than a consultation, being told what to do without raising concerns about a junior lead prosecutor.

“It was a very short meeting, being told what to do, and it was the end of the meeting... It was an instruction, more than anything.”

Advocate Serunye requested the section 27 referral document multiple times from Mr Brian Padayachee but was never given it, indicating that either he did not have it or it was lost or disappeared.

“It was never given to me, Commissioner Baloyi. I asked for it. I spoke with Mr Brian Padayachee on about three, four occasions. And every time when I was asking for that, he could not give it to me ... It appears either it was lost or disappeared.”

Advocate Serunye sought the section 27 referral document from August to 31 October 2025, including raising the issue on 31 October with Mr Sesoko, but did not receive it from anyone including prosecutors or Ms Hlatshwayo.

“So from August, I was looking for that document, but no one could give it to me ... I spoke to the prosecutors. I was getting... Hlatshwayo did not know about it at all, she said she has not seen it.”

Advocate Ramsamy saw the section 27 referral document in the earlier part of the case but could not provide a copy as it was returned to the Investigating Directorate (ID) and appears to have been lost or is untraceable.

“Advocate Ramsamy said she saw it, I think in the earlier part of the case when they were starting the investigations. But it appears either it was lost or disappeared ... She said she gave it back to the ID. But it appears the ID was also looking for it from her.”

Advocate Serunye emailed Mr Sesoko and others on 31 October 2025 indicating one of the accused is seeking further particulars and needs to see the section 27 referral.

“ADV SERUNYE”

Advocate Serunye started asking for the section 27 referral document immediately after being brought on board on 8 August 2025 and was still seeking it on 31 October 2025.

“From the moment I was brought in on 8 August, I started asking for these documents and the docket, and by 31 October, I am still looking for that section 27.”

An ID investigator met with Advocate Serunye and others to confront her about her persistent requests for the section 27 document, angrily telling her the ID had seen the document and questioning her trust in the investigators.

“ADV SERUNYE”

Advocate Serunye sent an email on 6 August 2025 to the team members with queries and later amended the charge sheet reducing counts to two including conspiracy under section 21 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 2004 (PRECCA).

“ADV SERUNYE”

In or about September 2025, due to construction and flooding in court buildings, a postponement hearing was held in Magistrate's chambers and accused number 4, Mr Lekalakala, was brought closer to the table during the proceedings in Mr Mahlangu's office.

“ADV SERUNYE”

Advocate Serunye recognized accused number 4 as a person from the same township with whom he had played soccer, leading to his recusal from the matter due to personal association.

“I recognised accused number 4 as a person known to me. We come from the same township and had played soccer together, a fact I had not previously appreciated. I consider that this personal association precluded my continued involvement in the matter, and I submitted a memorandum to the Investigating Director requesting to be recused from the matter.”

Advocate Serunye submitted a recusal memo dated 16 September 2025 to the Investigating Director and Mr Sesoko due to personal association with accused number 4, Josias Lekalakala.

“wrote the memo then on the 16th of September. I then emailed it to, as per page 1 of the batch, you will see I then emailed it to the admin personnel, Senyane Manshidi, with the subject: 'Recusal from the matter of state General Khumalo and others'. The memo is dated 16 September 2025 ... The memo is directed to Advocate Johnson, Investigating Director and to Mr Sesoko, Head of Operations and Investigations from Advocate P Serunye, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions ...”

Advocate Serunye formally recused himself from prosecution of any case involving Josias Lekalakala and his family or associates due to personal familiarity and to avoid perceptions of bias.

“I have formally decided to inform IDAC management and recuse myself from handling any case in which Mr Josias Lekalakala and his family members (and associates) are accused persons ... To avoid any negative perceptions and in the interest of justice, I am formally recusing myself from this matter ...”

Advocate Serunye was requested by the Investigating Director to complete a section 63 bail application before formally withdrawing from the case involving Josias Lekalakala.

“the Investigating Director informed me that she had considered my request and granted it, but asked that I first complete the section 63 bail application before withdrawing from the matter ...”

Advocate Serunye was replaced as Deputy Director by Advocate Santos Manilall after his recusal was accepted in the case involving Josias Lekalakala.

“Advocate Manilall, his name is Santos, Santos Manilall replaced me. It is him and a number of prosecutors, I think two or three other prosecutors ...”

The team led by Advocate Manilall took over certain cases, with Advocates Ramsamy and Hlatshwayo no longer being part of the prosecution team.

“The team of Advocate Manilall took over the two cases and Advocate Ramsamy ceased to be the prosecutor in the Lushaba case, so did Advocate Hlatshwayo.”

Advocate Santos Manilall was the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP) and project owner of certain cases, taking over from Advocates Ramsamy and Hlatshwayo who ceased to be prosecutors in those cases.

“they were later then involved with Advocate Santos Manilall being the DDPP and project owner of this case. When I ceased to be the prosecutor in the case, I think so was Advocate Ramsamy and Advocate Hlatshwayo. So the team led by Advocate Manilall took over the two cases”

Advocate Manilall was initially a Senior State Advocate, reporting to DDPP Advocate Witbooi, and was later promoted to DDPP.

“At the time when the streams were set up, Advocate Manilall was still a Senior State Advocate, he was not yet a DDPP and he was reporting to one of the DDPPS, Advocate Witbooi, and he only later became a DDPP. I think he went for interviews at some point for the position and was then appointed formally as a DDPP”

When Advocate Manilall was appointed and promoted to DDPP, the prosecution team grew from four to five members.

“So at some point we were five with the appointment of Advocate Manilall as a DDPP. We then became five.”

When Advocate Manilall was appointed to replace another prosecutor, DDPP Louw was overlooked and not part of the case, despite being the default.

“When he gets appointed to replace you in these matters, DDPP Louw is again overlooked. He is again not part of it. He is the default.”

The Magistrate recused himself from a bail-related matter because he had been subpoenaed by the Commission, which was found to be legally unsound upon review and the recusal decision was challenged.

“On or about 14 October 2025 ... the Magistrate recused himself on the basis that he had been subpoenaed by the Commission ... I was of the view that the reason given was not legally sound, and after consulting the team and Investigating Director, I ... launched an application to review the recusal ... the reasons that he was giving were not in line with the established principle of recusal”

The Magistrate recused himself without giving the parties an opportunity to address him, contrary to established principles, leading to a review application.

“He did not give us an opportunity to address him on what he was anticipating to do ... the reasons that he was giving were falling short of the established principle ... that is why we took them upon review”

The Magistrate has the power under section 60(12) of the Criminal Procedure Act to impose bail conditions in the interest of justice, even if neither party addresses him on the conditions.

“Our understanding was that he has the powers in terms of section 60, subsection 12 ... to impose any conditions which, in his opinion, were in the interest of justice ...”

The Magistrate did not give reasons for imposing bail conditions and did not engage the accused or defence before deciding, leading to those conditions being set aside on appeal.

“The Magistrate did not give reasons for imposing this condition ... he was not engaged to address the Court on that ... that led to the conditions being set aside”

The accused abandoned the section 63 application after the Magistrate recused himself, leading to a delay causing the accused to bring a section 65 bail appeal, which was opposed by prosecutors and served before the High Court.

“The accused thereafter abandoned the section 63 application. That is now after the Magistrate had recused himself ... the accused then ... brought a section 65 bail appeal”

Permission was obtained from the Investigating Director (ID) to oppose the Section 65 application and all affidavits including that of Mr Brian Padayachee were sent to the ID.

“and then she gave us permission to go ahead with the opposition on thesection 65 ... all the affidavits of the accused were sent to the ID ... ourresponding affidavit of Mr Brian Padayachee was sent to the ID”

Further affidavits from two other officials were prepared and filed in support of the opposition, keeping the ID updated at all times.

“we got further information which then allowed us to prepare additional affidavits of two other officials, which affidavits we then also handed in in support of our opposition. So she was kept abreast at all times of what was happening.”

General Masemola provided an affidavit supporting the application indicating relocation of offices, which was also sent to the ID.

“Page 92 of 276 by General Masemolain support of the application, indicating that he had lifted their relocation to other offices and that affidavit as well was given to the ID”

The Investigating Director advised that responses to affidavits be served by way of a Section 28 notice, which was done.

“She sends me an email to say serve the 28, which is what we did”

The bail condition related to Crime Intelligence entry was imposed without reason and was set aside as irregular on appeal.

“While I contended that the Magistrate was in law entitled to impose the condition, I was constrained to concede that he had failed to give any reasons for imposing the Crime Intelligence entry condition. And it was on that basis, that is the failure to reasons, that the condition was set aside as irregular”

Concerns were raised about the Mokwele matter involving lack of evidence and unsustainable corruption charges.

“My concerns regarding the Mokwele matter ... I was not satisfied that the corruption charge was sustainable on the available evidence and current formulation of the charge sheet and I said so in writing at the time”

There was difficulty for junior colleagues to raise issues directly with Advocate Johnson due to power dynamics and seniority, leading them to raise complaints with ADV SERUNYE.

“The two colleagues are juniors and it is not easy for them to go straight to the ID to raise issues ... Not that it was easy for me as well to approach Advocate Johnson ... I respect her a lot ... management style as well ... she could be unpredictable at times ...”

ADV SERUNYE raised multiple emails expressing concerns about the rushed investigation and questioning arrests and corruption charges in the Mokwele matter.

“I raised all my queries in an email ... there is a problem with this case. The way it was investigated, it was rushed. If anything, there might be a case of fraud there, but the way the cases were done were just not on with me”

ADV SERUNYE tried to mediate between Investigators especially Brian Padayachee and Advocate Ramsamy who were not on speaking terms.

“The relationship was not that good ... especially Brian Padayachee and Advocate Ramsamy. They were not in speaking terms when I came into the team. So I tried to put them together. In some of my emails, I am saying to them ... we are playing for the same team”

Advocate Johnson reprimanded ADV SERUNYE for raising the issue of section 27 referral in presence of junior colleagues and told them to stop questioning investigators.

“She was angry with me for raising the issue of section 27 ... She told me straight in front of the two juniors, why are we making an issue about this? Go and work ... Why do you keep on questioning a second guessing your investigators?”

Despite resigning last week, Advocate Johnson's good work at IDAC allowed the organisation to continue functioning well without a permanent head.

“She resigned last week ... the organisation can continue to run itself with the help of, obviously, the CEO Mr Sesoko, and the three deputies that are there ... all because of the good work that she has put in”

Advocate Johnson was described both as a very good manager and as someone who did not take kindly to questioning and could be unpredictable.

“She is a very good manager ... But on the other, if you were raising concerns and questioning her decisions, she did not take kindly to that ... She could be unpredictable at times”

ADV SERUNYE has known Advocate Johnson for many years and describes her as a good prosecutor and manager with a high level of management.

“I have known Advocate Johnson for many years ... she is a very good prosecutor, hard worker. When she came in as a manager at IDAC, the management was of a very high level”

Adv Serunye sent a 'Saturday homework' email to team members including Advocates Hlatshwayo, Ramsamy, Mr Brian Padayachee, Chief Investigator Daylan Perumal, Investigator Charles Eales, Investigator Patrick Mlambo, and project manager Mr Sipho Tlale to keep the team informed and attached queries for trial preparation.

“I sent it at 2.51 on the Saturday to the team members, Advocate Hlatshwayo, Advocate Ramsamy, Mr Brian Padayachee, Chief Investigator Daylan Perumal, Investigator Charles Eales, Investigator Patrick Mlambo. And I also copied the Project Manager, Mr Sipho Tlale... I sent them this email, and the email had an attachment containing queries”

Mr Sipho Tlale is one of four project managers involved from the beginning, performing administrative functions such as preparing monthly reports, linking the team with HR for resources, preparing documents like memos and applications, but he does not make prosecutorial decisions.

“Mr Tlale is one of the four project managers that we have. They are involved right from the beginning of the case. They prepare our monthly reports... They are also a link between us and HR... Also prepares some documents... Project managers do not make those decisions”

The decision on investigations and prosecutorial matters lies solely with the DDPP after consulting the team; project managers do not make such decisions.

“That decision lies solely with the DDPP on what type of investigations... Project managers do not make those decisions.”

Adv Serunye copied project manager Mr Sipho Tlale in emails to keep him informed about the team's work and outstanding investigations, attaching a document with queries related to trial preparation and corruption allegations.

“I am copying him because he must know what we are busy with... The project manager must know... I sent them this email, and the email had an attachment containing queries...”

Adv Serunye's attachment asked team members questions about the corruption charge in the docket, including who corrupted whom, evidence supporting corruption allegations, and compliance with the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA).

“I have just finished reading the first docket... I want to know the following... Why were the accused charged with corruption? Who corrupted who? Do we have evidence... to prove allegations of corruption?”

Adv Serunye questioned why six SAPS Generals risked their jobs to appoint a 29-year-old inexperienced civilian, Mokwele, as Brigadier in Crime Intelligence, implying potential quid pro quo corruption for a gratification.

“Why did these Generals in the SAPS go out of their way, risk their jobs... to appoint a 29-year-old inexperienced civilian to the rank of Brigadier in Crime Intelligence? Who is this young lady (Mokwele) for whom six Generals in the SAPS are risking losing their jobs? What did they stand to gain... by giving her gratification, which is the position or the job? What did they stand to gain?”

Adv Serunye alleged that Mokwele's appointment was suspicious and possibly fraudulent due to her inexperience and misrepresentations in her CV, suggesting a quid pro quo arrangement with the Generals.

“The appointment of this young lady to such a position does not make sense and is suspicious, but suspicion alone is not enough... the appointment was fraudulent because she was inexperienced (a requirement for the position), ... She also made representations in her CV (fraud) ... The quid pro quo ... We must look for it.”

Adv Serunye noted that Mokwele's MBA course completion was unclear in her application and only confirmed later during the investigation; the project management certificate validity should also be followed up.

“She also claims to have been top of her class for MBA. She does not say where she was registered for the MBA and whether she eventually completed it... With the investigation, it became clear that she had finished the MBA ... The investigators should follow up the validity of the project management certificate at Stellenbosch University.”

The applicant stated in her application that she was still busy completing her MBA and would only complete it in the future.

“she did say that she is still busy with the MBA and she will only complete it”

At the time of submission of the application, the applicant did not have the MBA qualification and said so in her CV.

“at the time of submission , she did not have it and she said so in her CV”

The applicant listed only three qualifications as relevant to the job application, specifying that she was relying only on those for the application to SAPS.

“in her job application on page 263 , the only three qualifications she lists as being relevant to her application . ... for the purposes of my application , you need only look at these set two”

The project management certificate and MBA were clarified and an affidavit was obtained from Stellenbosch University confirming the MBA was to be finalized later.

“The fact that she has a project management certificate was clarified and an affidavit was obtained from Stellenbosch University”

The applicant was not relying on the project management qualification to apply for the position.

“she was not relying on that qualification to apply for this position”

The educational qualifications were considered in scoring in the interview, and it was necessary to certify them.

“when the panel members are scoring , they consider the educational qualifications of applicants ... we needed to certify ... in case they were taken into consideration when the panel was marking”

If an applicant relies on qualifications that were not required, it can amount to fraud.

“if the panel takes additional things into consideration , the applicant can be accused of fraud”

The applicant made no misrepresentation with regards to project management certificate and MBA in the charge sheet.

“I do not think there was any misrepresentation that was alleged in the charge sheet regarding the project management and the MBA”

The applicant made misrepresentations in her CV that amount to fraud.

“she also made misrepresentations in her CV”

The applicant claimed to be a middle manager at BMW since 2016-2017, but affidavits from BMW state she was never a manager or supervisor there, amounting to misrepresentation.

“she says in her CV , I have been a middle manager in BMW since , I think she says 2016 or 17 ... affidavits from BMW ... both of them say Mokwele was never a manager in BMW”

The applicant's claim in her CV that she saved over one million in IT security project costs and reduced maintenance costs was not confirmed by BMW and viewed as misrepresentation.

“on the last page of the CV, under accomplishments ... she saved over one million in IT security project costs ... BMW cannot confirm that ... then she is making a misrepresentation”

The CV qualifications were verified and found to be present; no issue with the qualifications themselves.

“all the qualifications that she listed in her job application and CV have actually been verified ... the qualifications are there and there is no issue with them”

BMW provided witness statements that the applicant was never a manager or supervisor there, contradicting her CV's claim of managerial experience, raising concerns about her shortlisting for the position requiring three years managerial experience.

“witnesses from BMW, Human Resource and immediate supervisor ... both would have said to the Court, she was never a manager ... how is she then shortlisted if one looks at the requirement of three-year managerial experience”

The memorandum contains basic questions that a prosecutor would ask before an arrest and charging, but no evidence of corruption was found in the docket's four volumes.

“I am looking for the evidence of corruption in the four volumes in the docket. I cannot find any evidence of corruption.”

The charge sheet was defective in charging under section 4 of PRECCA, reversing the roles of who gives and who receives gratification, which should be the other way around according to the law.

“the way they drafted their charge sheet, it was vice versa. They are saying the Generals gave to a civilian. The Generals being public officials...they should receive, not give, and this civilian should give, not receive.”

There was no prima facie case of corruption at the time of arrest, and the arrest seemed premature given the lack of sufficient evidence and ongoing investigations.

“My view at the time, Commissioner Baloyi, was that no. They should have been asked right from the beginning, but then you arrest.”

High profile cases involving senior government officials should be prepared over time with strong evidence before arrest and placement on court roll, contrary to this case which was prepared quickly and had insufficient evidence for arrest.

“You do not just arrest people...these cases we prepare them over a period of time...I must prepare it in such a way that there is at least a prima facie case...This case started in December or November 2024 and by June 2025 they put it on the roll. For that six months, these issues ought to have been covered.”

There was no engagement by the ID (Independent Directorate) or feedback that there was a prima facie case, only role recitations of the Act without addressing the substantive questions.

“I was never engaged by the ID on this memo...what they did basically was just to recite what the Acts says and not to deal with the questions.”

The statement for the arrest warrant read more like arguments trying to justify the issuance than a proper affidavit with facts.

“It looks more like heads of arguments than an affidavit.”

The arrest warrant was only issued after the Magistrate initially refused to grant it, requiring a second application.

“The Magistrate refused to issue a warrant once, and the next time they succeeded after compiling another application.”

A D V S E R U N Y E asserts that if a prosecutorial team struggles to draft an affidavit for a warrant or a charge sheet, it indicates a problem with the evidence and that there was no evidence to support allegations of corruption.

“If you have a case, you have a case. You are not going to struggle with drafting an affidavit to apply for a warrant. And as a prosecutory you are not going to struggle to draft a charge sheet. If you have a case, you have a case... Who corrupted who, how? There was no evidence to support all that.”

A D V S E R U N Y E states that after recusal, questions he raised remained unanswered and that he would have withdrawn the case if the questions had not been answered.

“I recused myself at least a month and a half after getting it, but if I had gone on and those questions were not answered, I would not, I would have withdrawn this case. I would not have prosecuted this case on the basis of the evidence available at the time, unless if all of these questions were answered.”

A D V S E R U N Y E describes communication practice within the ID office, where emails are typically sent to the PA who then sends them to the Advocate. Urgent matters are directly communicated to the Advocate by sender.

“When I send it to Ms Sekhukhune, I am not, I am sending it to her to forward it to the ID. That was the practice, or that is the practice in the office... if it is urgent, urgent, then you even call her, say, ID, I have sent you an email, please check.”

A D V S E R U N Y E says prosecutors summarize evidence in a docket which is sent to the ID and the Head of Operations who decide if a warrant application should be made.

“They make a presentation to the ID and with the CEO, Head of Operations, the so-called sitting in. So it is at that level where decisions are taken to apply for a warrant... But in the actual engagements with the ID, they must say to her, we are ready. These are the charges that we want to proceed on. Our application for a warrant is ready.”

A D V S E R U N Y E confirms prosecutors advise on legal issues and review affidavits, and internally the team looks into the affidavit before it is presented to court.

“The prosecutors are there to do exactly that, to advise on legal issues, to read these affidavits... Internally the team looks into the affidavit. Each member of that team has a copy of the docket. They read the docket, they discuss these things, and the prosecutors are there exactly for that purpose.”

A D V S E R U N Y E explains that a warrant affidavit (J50) is drafted by the investigating officer but is first authorized internally by the internal prosecutors before being taken to court.

“The investigating officer, Padayachee, would have drafted a warrant, a J 50 warrant. That warrant is first authorised by the internal prosecutor.”

A D V B A L O Y I S C states that the internal prosecutor reviews the application and affidavits before they are taken to court and the magistrate approves the J50 warrant.

“It is the internal prosecutors that look at this application and the affidavits before Mr Padayachee takes it to Court. Takes it to a Magistrate who approves the J 50.”

A D V B A L O Y I S C questions whether lawyers (prosecutors) had reviewed the case before the investigating officer, Colonel Padayachee, went to the magistrate the first time and were turned back.

“So you say to us, Colonel Padayachee went to the Magistrate the first time and he was turned back, right? The then question is, well, does it mean the lawyers in there, the prosecutors, had never looked at this work before he went to the Magistrate?”

A D V B A L O Y I S C states that the internal prosecutors for this case would have been Ms Hlatshwayo and Ms Ramsamy.

“In this case, the internal prosecutors would have been either or both Ms Hlatshwayo and Ms Ramsamy.”

For a warrant to be authorised, an affidavit must be read and agreed to by the authorising authority, confirming there is a case and agreeing with the charges stated in the warrant.

“One of them would have the authorised that warrant, and for one to authorise the warrant, you therefore have to read first this affidavit, and to say, yes, we have a case, I agree with this, and the warrant also states the charges, I agree with the charges. Then the prosecutor authorises that.”

The witness explained why verification and outstanding investigations should have been done before the arrest and not after.

“The paragraph 7 in particular, you will see the witness dealt with why he was sending that, and even confirms that he wanted that this verification and outstanding investigations ought to have been done before the arrest and not after.”

Magistrates stand by to deal with warrant issues and will review affidavits, statements and charge sheets to determine if a prima facie case exists before issuing a warrant.

“There is always a Magistrate who is on standby, who is dealing with these issues. The Magistrate will also do the same, go through the statement. If there is a charge sheet attached, go through the charge sheet, and if he is convinced that there is a prima facie case, then issue a warrant.”

Charge of corruption did not make sense as contending a future corrupt act is pure speculation.

“At paragraph 48, he explains why the charges of corruption did not make sense, in particular that to contend that a future corrupt act would be purely speculation, as observed by the Commission would be fortune-telling.”

Responses by the investigation team did not appear in the court docket and were not evidently relevant to the charges.

“The responses referred to Ms Mokwele's father said to the suspended Brigadier in the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, who had attempted to corrupt investigators, and to a theory concerning the capture of a sensitive intelligence resource. I could find no evidential foundation for these assertions in the docket, and their irrelevance to the charges was not apparent.”

No evidential foundation was found for assertions about Ms Mokwele's father being a suspended Brigadier or attempts to corrupt investigators in the docket.

“...this is not supported by any evidence and it does not really take the case any further.”

The accused (Accused 1) desired to ensure full control over the TSS (Tactical Support Section), dismissing the need for a Brigadier as Major General to chair the panel, showing a lack of confidence in experienced Colonels in Crime Intelligence.

“Accused 1, who did not need to chair posts for a Brigadier as a Major General, could have chaired the panel. Accused 1 had a desire to ensure full control over TSS, need to know of its operations. He clearly did not have any confidence in any of the vastly skilled and experienced Colonels of the Crime Intelligence, capture of the section TSS.”

Some questions posed to the investigation team were not answered, and some subpoenas still needed to be issued.

“Some of the questions were not answered. And the remaining that were answered, they indicated that some of those subpoenas would still need to be issued.”

The investigation team acted in an incomplete, biased, dishonest manner designed to achieve an unjustified result.

“They acted in an incomplete, biased, dishonest manner designed to achieve an unjustified result.”

General Khan placed an advertisement for a position which was withdrawn and re-advertised externally to allow civilians to apply, but this does not constitute evidence of corruption in the docket.

“He says there that the initial advertisement, which was placed by General Khan, had been withdrawn and the post was then re-advertised externally to allow civilians to apply, but that still does not answer my question on what is the evidence in the docket ... of corruption against any of the accused? ... The withdrawal of that advert, I do not know what relevance the withdrawal has to the advert being done the second time around and being advertised internally and externally to allow civilians to apply, because there is nothing wrong in doing that.”

Details and names referenced in responses seemed like a personal theory or speculation not supported by the docket and do not help to prove the case.

“Its like a person having their own theory to say this is how, this is why they did it. They did it for this particular purpose, or maybe they had information, other information which is not in the docket and which they are not telling me. But for that I cannot understand, with this one paragraph, what message they are trying to portray to me. It appears as they were investigating this case, there is this other information in the background which is not given to me or to the prosecutors, or it does not form part of the docket, and that is not going to help to prove our case, honestly.”

Investigators questioned the validity of Ms Mokwele's CV and were urged by Mr Perumal to urgently authorise and conclude section 28 by 26 December.

“The answer to your question 6, where you say she also made misrepresentations in her CV, fraud in brackets, the investigators should follow up upon the validity. And then the answer from Mr Perumal is section 28 to be authorised urgently and be concluded on 26 December.”

The matter was rushed to court without being ready to be enrolled, and there was no known urgency for this hasty action.

“my impression after reading all these documents was that the matter was rushed to court , and it was done so when it was not ready to be enrolled . I do not know why it had to be done the way it was done .”

There was an unusual quickness in the case where authorization was in December 2024 and arrest in June (six to seven months), which is atypical and indicates the case was rushed when investigations were incomplete.

“authorisation was done in December of 2024 and the arrest is done in June , says six to seven months . This is one of I have never seen a case being done so quick , wherein December authorisation and in June ... This was done so hastily. If investigations were completed and it was ready, I would have said , well , the investigators did a very good job in this , but they rushed it to court, and clearly, it was not ready.”

It is impossible to investigate a complex matter thoroughly within six months, indicating the urgency was not justified.

“In six months , it is impossible .”

The investigation in terms of section 28(1) was authorised around 28th or 30th May 2025, and arrests followed in June 2025, which suggests the investigation was very advanced and ready for court at the time of authorisation.

“the investigation in terms of 28 ( 1 ) was authorised , I think , the 28th or the 30th of May in 2025 , and the arrests were in June already...That can only mean one thing, that as of May, when the 28 was authorised, the investigations were so advanced to a point that one could say it is actually ready for court ... That is why when they authorised the investigation in May, then the next month the arrest follows.”

Verification of Ms Mokwele's project management certificate and MBA was only obtained after the arrest, after repeated prompting, and no HR expert was engaged to assess all applications for correctness before appointments.

“Her project management certificate and her MBA were not verified at the time. Verification was only obtained belatedly after the arrest and after my repeated prompting. In addition, no HR expert had been engaged to assess the full body of some 6 applications so as to determine whether the disqualification of other candidates and Ms Mokwele's progression to the shortlist and appointment had been proper. Determination of that nature could not be made without such expertise.”

Ms Mokwele's matric, diploma, and engineering degree were confirmed by SAQA, while project management and MBA certificates were verified only after initial questioning.

“The affidavit we got from SAQA confirmed the matric and the diploma and the engineering degree. Yes. And these two that I had questioned about, the certificates that I questioned about, the project management and the MBA were verified.”

Charges related to HR aspects would not be prepared by an investigator without consultation of an HR expert, as the investigator is not qualified to assert favouritism or scoring reasons without expert input.

“what I am going to allege in that charge sheet would be information that is not verified...So at least if I have an affidavit and a report of an expert and I consult with them, and I am satisfied that the expert gives me more information, then I can allege those issues on the charge sheet . But before that , I cannot. Otherwise , I am just speculating .”

Efforts to appoint or engage an HR expert to assess the applications were not followed up or made.

“The appointment, or at least efforts to appoint an HR were not followed up, were not made.”

The prosecuting authority must rely on expert post-mortem reports to confirm firearm injuries to avoid mistakes in attributing cause of death.

“Experts have to check, is this wound consistent with an injury that can be caused by a bullet, and then make their report and say this injury is consistent with a bullet wound, and only then can I, as a prosecutor, then certainly say this body, the person was killed with a firearm.”

Advocate Serunye expresses frustration that responses to questions about the allegation of gratification involving Ms Mokwele are evasive and not supported by evidence.

“Instead of providing me with answers, I am provided with a citation of PRECCA. I know what section 1, 2, 3, and 24 of PRECCA say. I do not want to sound critical, but reference to section 24 is misguided and misunderstood. ... Why are we saying it is a gratification? They do not provide me with the evidence.”

The corruption charge against the Generals and Ms Mokwele is defective and liable to be challenged as it does not comply with PRECCA and the Criminal Procedure Act.

“I concluded that the corruption charge, as it stood, was defective and did not comply with the definitional elements of PRECCA and was liable to be challenged in terms of section 85 of the Criminal Procedure Act.”

The arrest related to the case was premature and the preliminary investigation was not properly conducted, resulting in unanswered questions and uncertainty about the case's basis within IDAC's mandate.

“It demonstrated that the arrest had been premature... the preliminary investigation had not been properly conducted... I also raised the question as to the basis upon which the matter fell within IDAC's mandate.”

ADV Serunye questioned whether, discounting corruption, the remaining fraud allegations related to Ms Mokwele fall within IDAC's mandate, concluding it does not.

“If you remove corruption and you leave whatever that remains, would that fall within the mandate of IDAC? Definitely not, Commissioner Khumalo, because if I discount the corruption, then let us say what I am left with is fraud, and that would be the fraud against the civilian. Because in that case, then, the Generals would have been my witnesses... and it is clearly a Lower Court matter.”

ADV Serunye asserts that if the case is only about fraud, it does not belong in IDAC's jurisdiction and was questioned by the Magistrate on this point during the first appearance.

“If I ended up only with fraud, then clearly it does not belong in the IDAC space. It was not, even the Magistrate questioned it on the first appearance.”

ADV Serunye contends that the alleged fraud involved high-ranking officials in the Intelligence Unit who could have detected it, and if they ignored it, that would constitute collusion.

“If these high-ranking officials in the Intelligence Unit, could they not pick up if there was fraud?... And if I come to the conclusion that they closed their eyes to it, then that means they colluded with her.”

The role required a minimum period of three years appropriate managerial experience in the field of the post, not just any managerial experience.

“The first bullet that you see on page 79 says: “Must have a minimum period of three years appropriate managerial experience . . . ” And this is the important part: “ … in the field of the post.””

Appropriate management experience is defined as experience at a level higher than supervisor, but not necessarily at the level of the current job.

“the definition of appropriate management, managerial experience , it comes from Clause of the National Instruction 11 of 2017, and it defines that as experience at a level higher than the supervisor. That is all it says. It does not say you must have been a manager at your job.”

An advocate who has been practicing at the bar for 20 years has educational qualifications (LLB) sufficient for the post, even if not managerial at the bar.

“for example, and it was an Advocate who had been practicing for 20 years at the bar, the education qualification would be the LLB.”

The question asked to BMW regarding Ms Mokwele's managerial status was the wrong question because the role does not require being a manager at BMW, but having appropriate managerial experience above supervisor level.

“what IDAC people did was they went and obtained a 4 July 2025 affidavit from Mr Simon at BMW. But the question they asked is the wrong question because their question was, is Ms Mokwele a manager at BMW? But that is not what the role requires.”

The arrest of a person (implied Ms Mokwele) for fraud due to not having seven years senior management experience is problematic and was rushed before charges were even framed.

“And to then go to court and say she must be arrested for fraud because she does not have seven years senior management experience. Before we even get to the charge sheet, just asking the Court to authorise arrest on those facts, that is problematic.”

Adv Serunye questioned whether the matter fell within IDAC's mandate and considered that matters involving serious allegations against senior officers in the Intelligence environment could appropriately be handled within IDAC's scope if there was evidence of corruption.

“I questioned whether this fell within the IDAC mandate ... if they followed the queries of ... they did an investigation and they found evidence of corruption, then that is where it comes up to say ... it then falls within the mandate of the IDAC”

There was no evidence to break up the case to say it belonged within IDAC; the allegations were serious but not backed by evidence.

“the problem is there was no evidence to break it up to say this case belongs here ... once you start reading the docket, you do not find evidence to back those allegations”

If there was evidence of prosecuting somebody with anything, the matter should be referred to the Lower Courts; absence of evidence hinders prosecution.

“if there is evidence of prosecuting somebody ... then let us refer this matter to the Lower Court ... but there was for me, there was no evidence backing up those allegations”

Adv Serunye said that if a case involves gratification against senior officials and meets criteria of corruption involving high-level persons, it would fall within IDAC's mandate.

“it would have been meeting this requirement of corruption involving high-level persons to appoint that it then falls within the mandate of the IDAC”

No one raised concerns about the strength, merits or IDAC mandate of a case involving Generals and Brigadiers being arrested and postponed in court, according to Ms Johnson; Adv Serunye disputed this saying he raised concerns and referred to multiple emails.

“Ms Johnson ... firmly said no, no one ever did, none of the lawyers ... with respect to Advocate Johnson, I did. I raised ... there is two, maybe even three others that I referred to her ... I did”

Adv Serunye stated Ms Johnson received his emails and memos, including an instance where she responded regarding serving a 28 or her office writing to the National Commissioner.

“She received them ... she responds to me when I am asking her ... should we serve a 28 or is this office ... going to write a letter to the National Commissioner?”

Adv Serunye asserts Ms Johnson was not truthful if she said no one raised concerns about the case in her office.

“She was not being truthful to us if she did say to us that no one in the office raised concerns ... She was not being truthful ... She was not being truthful”

Ms Johnson was made aware of concerns about the Lushaba and Mokwele matters personally by Adv Serunye.

“She was, I did that personally”

A young woman has been parachuted to the rank of Brigadier, with that rank given upon appointment to Section Head Technical Support Services role; rank is not based on age, race, or gender.

“a young woman has been parachuted to the rank of Brigadier... if you meet the minimum requirements ... you go through interviews and you are vetted ... you will be given that rank”

The advert for the Section Head Technical Support Services position did not refer to a specific race, gender, or age, and was possibly trying to promote females.

“The advert was not referring to a specific race or gender or age ... I think, if anything, it was trying to promote”

National instructions provide for rank of Brigadier to be given on appointment if requirements are met, regardless of gender or age; promoting females is encouraged in these instructions.

“It is in the national instructions ... encouraging that you promote females ... if you meet the requirements and you are appointed to the role ... you will be given the rank of Brigadier”

There are cases where less experienced or junior persons perform better on the day than senior experienced Advocates in interviews.

“there are 30-year-olds who sometimes perform better than me”

Performance in interviews depends on how much a person prepares and the nature of the interview; a person can perform better or freeze on the day.

“It depends on the nature of interviews. It is how prepared a person is for the interview. How much did they prepare, and how you perform. A person can freeze on the day, and another one performs better.”

A civilian was appointed over experienced police Colonels after a competitive interview process, and there is nothing wrong with that.

“the fact that a civilian was appointed, there is nothing wrong with that”

Emails were sent to the whole team on August 17th regarding issues to be followed up for court preparation, and responses came from Brian Padayachee and Pat Mlambo promising investigations.

“I think I did get responses from either Mr Brian Padayachee or one, I remember Mr Pat Mlambo who said thanks for the advice, we will do as you... promising that investigations are going to be done as I was raising issues.”

ADV SERUNYE submitted a recusal on September 16th and was no longer part of the case from that date onwards but raised questions about the docket and trial despite not being involved.

“From the 16th of September, I am no longer part of the case. I submitted a memo on 16th of September to recuse myself... I raised questions again on the second trial note and maybe on the third. I would not have proceeded with the trial ... when there is so much still outstanding.”

ADV SERUNYE asserts that proceeding with the trial would lead to an acquittal due to gaps in the case and that the Defence intended to challenge the chargesheet and possibly have it quashed.

“Otherwise, it is going to be an acquittal... The Defence was going to query the chargesheet right from the onset... as it was.”

On August 17th, ADV SERUNYE's position was that the alleged conduct did not meet the definitional elements of an offence, thus no corruption was committed, but further investigation might uncover evidence of corruption by the Generals through bank statements, cellphone records, and computer data.

“Once the alleged conduct committed does not meet the definitional elements of the offence ... that means no crime (corruption has been committed)... if we investigate further and dig more, we are going to find the evidence of corruption of the Generals by Mokwele and not vice versa... in the bank statement, cellphone records, and computer data of the Generals.”

There is an apparent contradiction in ADV SERUNYE's emails where she asserts there is no case but also suggests that further investigation could find evidence of corruption, which raises concern of a fishing expedition and abuse of prosecutorial powers.

“You say we do not have a case and then you say, but I am sure if we search, we will find something... That is not like a typical fishing process... It is an abuse of your investigative/prosecutorial powers.”

The speaker entered the matter after arrests had been made and questions why the suspects were arrested before proper investigations were completed.

“Commissioner, I came into the matter after arrests have been made ... why are these people arrested? ... Investigate, dig some ways, investigate ... We should investigate, finish our investigations. Once we satisfy that we have a good case, this is a prima facie case, then we go to court.”

The speaker asserts that there was no evidence of corruption, only the need to investigate claims to see if a quid pro quo exists.

“Digging for information is investigating. And if you find the quid pro quo, then that is your solution ... otherwise, there is no evidence of corruption here.”

The speaker confirms that as Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP), they had the power to stop or pause the prosecution process but chose to come in after processes had advanced.

“Yes, Commissioner, and that is why I was asking ... if I was still a prosecutor up to a point where the case ... I would not have prosecuted this case. At some stage, I was going to call it off.”

There was a meeting among prosecutors from different teams including Adv Serunye and Adv Manilall, after which it was decided the case could not be saved and should be provisionally withdrawn according to NDPP's decision.

“We got together, me and Manilall and Hlatshwayo and the two other prosecutors ... our decision was that ... there is no way that this case can be saved ... then asked for a meeting with one of the Deputy Directors ... then I heard that the NDPP has decided that the case must be provisionally withdrawn.”

There was a separate review conducted by Independent Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) distinct from the review by Advocate Mothibi's team, involving two teams who met and agreed the case was a dead horse.

“There was, by the old and the new team in IDAC ... My team and the team of Manilall ... agreed that it appears we are flogging a dead horse.”

The DPP did not participate in discussions about winding down the case because the matter was already in the Office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP).

“The DPP did not participate in that discussion because ... the matter was now already in the Office of the NDPP.”

After the Independent Directorate made the decision to prosecute or prefer charges, they sent the charge sheet to the DPP, who responded by concurring with it, but did not get involved in the decision to remove the matter from court thereafter.

“Once the ID has made the decision to prosecute or to prefer the charges, that charge sheet was sent to the DPP, and the DPP wrote back and said yes, I concur ... We did not involve the DPP because the matter was already in the office of the NDPP ...”

The DPP's role ended after consultation with the Independent Directorate (ID) about prosecution space, after which the DPP agreed to proceed but did not participate in the decision to provisionally withdraw the case.

“The DPP's role would have ended when they were doing consultation with the ID ... and the DPP would have agreed ... but the role of the DPP ended there.”

The Investigation Director (ID) resigned before taking part in certain activities as she was still testifying at the Commission.

“the I D has resigned ... she was still testifying in the Commission”

Discussions were held with Advocate Bell representing the office of the NDPP regarding the proposal to provisionally withdraw the case.

“We were then allocated Advocate Bell to meet with us ... And the discussions took place between us and Advocate Bell, who was representing the Office of the NDPP.”

Ideally, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should have been informed about the decision to prosecute in the matter in May 2025 and the subsequent decision taken.

“the D P P in 2025, May or June, we consulted you on this matter and we informed you we are prosecuting, you agreed with us, and we have since taken another decision”

If the Investigation Director was still in office, she would have to approve prosecutorial decisions; no prosecutor can withdraw a case or take decisions independently.

“If she was still there, she would have to approve ... No prosecutor can withdraw the case in the ID on my own ... the matter must be authorised”

The chargesheet included a repeated corruption count against Ms Mokwele regarding the same gratification.

“Second, a further corruption count appeared to be a repetition of the count against accused number 7 being directed against her in respect of the same gratification”

The original chargesheet against Ms Mokwele was flawed because the corruption counts inverted the roles of giver and receiver, alleging she accepted a gratification in the form of an appointment without identifying any unlawful act she was to pay for in return.

“First, the corruption counts inverted the giver and the receiver ... did not identify any unlawful act which Ms Mokwele was to pay for in return”

The charge that the Generals colluded to appoint Ms Mokwele, if true, would amount at most to conspiracy rather than fraud, and the same persons cannot be both victims and parties to the fraud.

“If, as the chargesheet alleged, the Generals colluded to appoint her, they were not deceived by her ... conduct would not be fraud ... but at most a conspiracy”

The fraud counts on the chargesheet contain contradictions, including allegations that Ms Mokwele misrepresented information in her curriculum vitae and SAPS application form, while the General was alleged both to be a victim and a perpetrator of the fraud.

“Thirdly, the fraud counts gave rise to a contradiction ... alleged that Ms Mokwele had misrepresented in her curriculum vitae ... and SAPS application form ... General ... victim ... and perpetrators ... rigged the process in her favour”

Fraud in this context would be committed against the state, represented by its officials, including the Generals, rather than against the Generals themselves as individuals.

“fraud would have been committed against the state and not necessarily the Generals”