Madlanga Commission | Inquiry resumes tomorrow: Canny Maphanga updates

[00:00:00]But then an earlier adjournment of the Madlanga Commission today following a request by Idec head advocate Andrew Johnson to wrap up her testimony early today. Reasons given earlier there by advocate Balani were that she was not feeling well. So, it's been another afternoon of intense scrutiny then that raises fresh questions about just how the investigative directorate against corruption, Idec, initiated and conducted investigations into at least eight crime intelligence officials including of course Lieutenant General Khumalo.

[00:00:35]In the last while, she's described how she gave the section 27 referral affidavit to her team specifically to advocate Ramsamy who then brought forward a section 20 eight which advocate Johnson understanding at least meant that they had a grounds to investigate the likes of General Khumalo, Madondo, etc. It was also revealed earlier that Idec approached member of parliament Ferial Adams and in fact requested that he provide this a sworn section 27 affidavit after Adams had written to the police the minister of police complaining that criminal dockets involving senior crime intelligence officers were allegedly being intercepted. I mean some reveal reveal revealing testimony then also you know just getting that response from the commissioners saying she had no legal basis in fact to continue on that invasive you know investigation. During questioning by evidence leader advocate Selo earlier you know concerns were also raised that Adams you know subsequent affidavit appeared to extend beyond the alleged interception of dockets to include broader allegations of corruption based on that letter that he had sent to the Minister of police. Advocate Sela also suggesting, you know, this created this impression that I take may have encouraged the MP MP Adams to then expand that scope of his complaint. But let's get further analysis then from um my colleagues who've been monitoring those developments. News anchor Tembi Kile as well as Kenny Maphanga joining us now from the commission of course.

[00:02:26]Tembi Kile, a very good afternoon to you. So an earlier adjournment, you know, given that we've heard earlier that Advocate Johnson may not be feeling well. It was in the main another intense day scrutinizing firstly just how and to use the commissioner's word, the head of I take essentially solicited the section 27 affidavit from Fadiel Adams. Give us a sense in Tembi Kile of what we are beginning to understand now about her testimony so far especially around how the crime intelligence investigations unfolded using only the section 27 affidavit.

[00:03:06]>> Onati, good afternoon. As you say, we're back to trying to follow the legal logic for want of a better phrase around how I take has moved on with the issue of the complaint that came via the police ministry based on a complaint from Fadiel Adams and the section 27 process in particular continues to be unpacked here today. Um what we've also been dealing with ultimately is this this scrutiny in a sense or the testing shall we say of the I take head Advocate Andrea Johnson's understanding of the law. She's been a prosecutor and advocate for 30 years and at some point during her testimony today one of the things that been has been referenced is that history that that experience that is supposed to be reflected in some of the decision-making or explanation even of concepts. I mean, in just the last 15 minutes or so, um the chairperson of the commission in fact asked her to define uh forgery because that was one of the possible charges that were looked into in that crime intelligence investigation involving people like crime intelligence head Dumisani Kumalo, >> [snorts] >> Ms. Mkhwebane who was later arrested because it was her appointment that appeared then to have caused all this legal trouble. Let's bring in SABC News uh senior reporter Khaya Mpange who's with me here. Khaya, I was just telling Mpho that we're hearing this repeated mention of just how experienced Andrea Johnson is and the questioning of her understanding at times of the laws that govern her very office and even basic concepts such as what is fraud, what is forgery.

[00:04:36]>> Mhm. Indeed. And you have to look at what is being inferred there. I don't think it's a statement about her not knowing the law. I think the uh years that she has, the expectation is that she does know the law. What's being tested here is if there is a possible motive behind the conduct that we're seeing. Was this an alleged deliberate attempt to subvert the rule of law? Was this deliberate attempt to abuse her power? That's what's being tested right now, not whether or not she can apply the law. I think it is accepted that with that kind of experience she ought to have known. It's about testing the true intentions and the motives behind IDAC's conduct because at the very least so far with her as the next uh witness for IDAC, no one has been able to advan- advance rather the legal basis for these cases. It seems that allegedly these cases are manufactured and they're not rooted in any legal ground. And that is what she's struggling, that's the hurdle that she's struggling with right now as she continues to try to explain these IDAC cases. And if it is the conclusion that these cases were allegedly manufactured, then to what end? What motivated this alleged conduct seen by IDAC? And then what must be made of her as the Idec head, allegedly participating or overseeing this kind of conduct. But, at the very least, with this case that gives birth to the cases against the high-ranking generals, whether it is a case against General Lukhele, for the that events that led to the missing crime intelligence equipment, and of course the instance about Brigadier General Mokgale. If there was no case there, then what exactly motivated Idec's involvement in these matters relating to crime intelligence?

[00:06:18]And there's already allegations swirling before the Madala Commission as to what the possible motivation could be.

[00:06:23]Whether or not they can get that information to crack from Advocate Andrea Johnson remains to be seen.

[00:06:28]>> And on Johnson herself, I mean, we're a long way off from the final recommendations from the commission.

[00:06:34]But, when you consider how important an office she holds, and that she is, during this process, being tested on the understanding of the very laws that govern the office and how she applies them, I would imagine for the people, organizations, in fact, that are already calling for her to face further scrutiny, this could could possibly, even in the recommendations, we could see a possibility of her fitness to hold office being questioned.

[00:07:00]>> Indeed, and that's a decision that the president can take because the president is the one that appoints the Idec head.

[00:07:06]We've seen that even with allegations against Minister Mchunu, he's wanted to see them tested fully before taking a decision on that. I'm not sure if that's going to apply the same for the Idec head, whether he's going to want to see the conclusions of the Madala Commission prior to that decision being made, or is there going to be action on a complaint that has already been made by public interest essay in another unrelated matter towards Idec head, Advocate Andrea Johnson, that will lead to the president taking action. It's all eyes on Union Buildings, whether or not they choose to act now, or whether or not they await the final conclusion by the Mataung Commission before they take action, but right now it's not looking great for Idec as an a unit as an institution. This evidence runs the risk of eroding the public trust in this particular institution that is designed to fight high-level corruption, but it seems to be allegedly embroiled in SAPS factional wars within the crime intelligence division and that battle to take control over crime intelligence allegedly because at very least we still don't know what these cases are about, what they were rooted in, what triggered the investigations.

[00:08:18]It's been an entire day and I don't think they've been able to draw from Advocate Andrea Johnson where the section 27 referral is, how Idec's mandate is engaged here, and where which principles they used to find the grounds for the suspicions in order to authorize all of these investigations. This is still something that hangs in the air as she continues with her testimony. I'm not sure she'll be able to recover tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. where she continues with the probing questioning.

[00:08:45]>> Also what what is quite curious in terms of the crime intelligence investigation is that ultimately the initial complaint, right, that came through the affidavit that basically then set the wheels in motion for what we know now has culminated in a criminal trial is that the names of the people who we've now come to know as the accused in fact weren't mentioned in the initial complaint, but when you look at further documentation then the names creep up and how that came to be has also not been explained clearly.

[00:09:14]>> Mhm. That was initially an interception docket complaint that was made by the minister, but instead of turning to the minister for further clarity on that they get a section 27 referral affidavit from Faried Adams and then that also adds in other issues that had nothing to do with the interception docket, but even on that referral affidavit alone of Adams it still didn't meet the section 27 requirements. It was a scanned statement. It didn't go into detail and it didn't list any grounds for the suspicions upon which he advanced to I DAC to investigate against these high-ranking officials. So, the question is was this allegedly a manufactured case? And if indeed that was the case, then what allegedly motivated it? And once you get to that particular question, then what must what must we make of I DAC as an institution? Is it serving its mandate? Is it serving its functions? Or is this about alleged justice not about the legitimate pursuit of criminal matters that fall in the realm of its mandate and is designed to address high-level corruption as a result of what we saw coming out of the Zondo Commission. So, it's a lot of work you still have to get through with in terms of the I DAC evidence. I'm sure Mr. Perumal will have to come through and explain a lot of the investigations himself. Prosecutors maybe will have to come through and explain more, but the commission is far from done. We're trying to understand how I DAC finds itself taking an interception complaint and turning it into an entire case against high-ranking officials within crime intelligence including the crime intelligence boss that is attorney general Tom Moyane.

[00:10:47]>> So, for all intents and purposes, it's going to be a very long week for Andrea Johnson who today we've had to adjourn an hour earlier than usual because I think there was reference to her medication.

[00:10:57]We could possibly assume, and that's not a good thing to do sometimes, that it may be side effects or her being affected by the medication that she got last week when she couldn't appear at the commission. But as you were saying, we're still dealing with the I DAC issue 2 days later. We haven't even really touched in detail on the evidence given against her even in camera. I think a week and a half prior to her appearance today.

[00:11:20]>> No, we haven't even touched on witness O and the Hawks investigators allegations.

[00:11:25]But at the outset, she's already invoked her right against self-incrimination.

[00:11:29]How that right plays out when the commission gets to that evidence is going to be something else because I think that particular portion is quite important to understanding what could possibly be taking place at IDAC right now if indeed those allegations are true because at the very least in the past conduct she's accused of allegedly trying to shield Major General Forus Khan or favor him in allegedly tailoring his evidence and then upon finding out that that conduct is part of a protected disclosure she then allegedly contacts Barry Bateman using signal and of course contacts the Hawks investigators and even gives Barry a heads up that they're going to interview him as well. And the question is if it was above board, why then go to such lengths to I guess allegedly clean up the issue. And whether or not that particular issue is in any way connected to this investigation within crime intelligence because we saw that in Padiachy's affidavit he made it very clear that other generals such as Major General Khan could have been included in the panel and it still doesn't make sense why he was the person that was singled out as the one that should have been included in the panel. So is this another instance where we saw the behavior from the past allegedly creeping up in the future. If that is indeed the case, then you're going to have to test the other against the other.

[00:12:46]>> You've reminded me of something else that I'd forgotten regarding the evidence. The fact that they actually when probed we realized that there wasn't actually a sort of intake committee that would be dealing with complaints cases that then become investigations.

[00:13:00]Ultimately, some of those decisions were taken by either Advocate Johnson and Mr. Assessor call in the office right or just by one individual and that then deals with what even Padiachy had been talking about how there's a committee apparently in IDAC that would have had to do that but now it doesn't really exist.

[00:13:18]>> No, the mandate gives the powers to IDAC head Advocate Andrea Johnson. Everything starts there from the top and then it trickles down. I think perhaps maybe Pule and his evidence didn't want to single out advocate Andrea Johnson, but it's been made quite clear that in terms of her powers, that is where the process starts and then it's delegated to a team led by the chief investigator. So, the structure is quite clear from the questioning today. There's no ambiguity there and everything starts from the IDAC head and that authorization, whatever steps you take would have to go to the investigating director first. So, she can't exclude herself from the allegations or any conduct that could reflect poorly on her because as the IDAC head, you oversee all of those investigations that take place under your watch.

[00:14:05]>> All right, Kenny. Thank you very much as always. Kenny Maphanga reporting here on the another day of evidence at the Matlala Commission of Inquiry. IDAC head Andrea Johnson having asked to be released earlier than usual today. So, we've adjourned at 3:00 because just last week when she was initially meant to appear, we were told in fact at the 11th hour that she'd taken ill and had to be rushed to hospital. And today we're hearing that as a consequence of that, she's somehow in some way been affected by the medication that she's taking to treat that I yet undisclosed ailment. So, tomorrow 9:30 a.m. tomorrow is when we understand that Johnson will be back here at the Matlala inquiry to continue to give her evidence and possibly move on to issues beyond the IDAC crime intelligence investigation.

[00:14:49]But it appears for all intents and purposes, Unathi, that it may be days still of sitting in that hot seat here at the commission trying to explain her decisions and whether or not advocate Johnson did indeed act improperly in more than one instance.

[00:15:05]>> And Tembi, of course, you know, Kenny's response there saying that she she wonders if in fact advocate Johnson will recover, you know, come tomorrow when she has to return to the Matlala Commission tomorrow. But let's see what happens at 9:30 tomorrow. Tembi Kile, thank you so much for that. Tembi Kile Mkhototo, news anchor here at the SABC essay today.