YOOOH Adv Sello vs Johnson “Minister Mchunu’s Compliant Was Based On Fadiel Adams Compliant”

[00:00:01]Yes, Miss S.

[00:00:04]>> Thank you, Chair. [laughter] Um, Advocate Johnson, when we broke for tea, we had established that the minister's office complaint um was based in turn on Mr. Adams has complained of interception of his dockets.

[00:00:31]We agree that >> correct.

[00:00:34]>> Okay.

[00:00:35]Uh we know that upon receipt of that communication from the minister's office with or without an extras, you then instructed uh Mr. Perl to obtain a section 27 affidavit from Mr. Adams.

[00:00:56]My question was if the complaint was interception of the dockets not the content of the dockets you m you by you I mean IDC must have instructed Mr. Adams to include in his section 27 matters that that do not constitute interception and you indicated that you needed to talk to Mr. Perl.

[00:01:30]I take it you've had a chance to and are able to shed light on how we end up with a section 27 affidavit reading as it does inconsistent with the complaint laid before IDC by the minister's office commissioners I I did call Mr. term during the during the tea break. Um and and I give feedback as follows.

[00:02:08]The referral and request for investigation in terms of section 27 in the letter by the minister referred to honorable Fadil Adams and referred to dockets.

[00:02:21]The ID asked Mr. Pamal to contact Mr. Adams to find out if he had a 27, which he did. He called Mr. Adams to indicate that IDACK cannot assist you in the absence of a section 27 referral.

[00:02:41]Mr. Adams said, "I have dockets opened already that make out allegations."

[00:02:49]Mr. The paramal advised him that we cannot just take those dockets in the absence of a section 27.

[00:02:58]He told him to see a legal person and look at section 27 and if he was of a mind to to then refer a matter in terms of section 27.

[00:03:10]Accordingly, there is a 27 dated the 21st of November signed in the Western Cape that was compiled by Mr. Adams without IDA which he sent and which has the detail it has the complaint the only complainant as at the 11th of November was the office of the minister and that complaint concerned interception of dockets. So the complaint itself does not concern itself with the contents of the dockets. It's only the act of interception.

[00:03:49]Do you agree with me?

[00:03:53]That is what was communicated to you by the minister's office on the 11th of November in terms of an extra MK16.

[00:04:01]>> I beg to differ if I could explain.

[00:04:04]>> Yes, please.

[00:04:05]The minister is not just referring to the dockets. The minister says the allegations contained therein implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service and viewed in a serious light and case dockets were registered as per the following cases. Meaning whatever allegations that implicate senior members of SAPs are in these four dockets referred on 310. He goes further to say due to the nature of the allegations made by honorable Fadil Adams which is deemed to be quite sensitive and which contains allegations of criminal misconduct. This office requests the investigating director to consider the same.

[00:04:51]>> Okay. Now let's look at the paragraph you just read. The allegations contain therein.

[00:04:56]what what what the reference to the therein and I propose to you the therein is the correspondence addressed to the minister.

[00:05:07]So the allegations contained in the correspondence from Mr. Adams to the minister implicate very senior members of the South African police and the implication is that they intercepted the dockets.

[00:05:27]I don't read it like that. How do you read it? I read that the allegations contained therein in these dockets in the dockets implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service. What in this communication gives you a sense that the minister or Mr. Gabindi has seen the contents of the docket? I'm not saying they saw the contents of the dockets.

[00:05:49]They refer to Mr. Adams and they say the allegations contained by Mr. Adams implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service and are viewed in a serious light and case dockets were registered as per the following Kasan. But but if your your reading of this letter is correct, then the minister's office must have seen the dockets. Otherwise, they're not in a position to express a view that the the allegations are viewed in a serious light and that they are quite sensitive. What is contained therein? If if it is a reference to the dockets, the minister must have seen these dockets for your reading to be correct.

[00:06:38]It must be so >> for for for the way I read them. Um uh Commissioner Baloy, he refers to Adams.

[00:06:47]Adams would have made the allegations.

[00:06:50]I'm not sure in what form he made them to the minister.

[00:06:53]>> No, no. What we know from this letter is the minister has been given correspondence by Adams. That's what that letter says. This correspondence from Mr. Adams. You say the second paragraph and the third paragraph. Do not refer to that correspondence unless you're suggesting the minister must have had a telephone call with Mr. Adams and that's why he's able to talk about these dockets, the content of these dockets.

[00:07:22]And and I I suspect that's not what you want to say. Um because the next question would be how do you know they had a conversation about the dockets and was contained in the dockets. So let's read the letter sensibly.

[00:07:36]Paragraph one says I attach a copy of the correspondence received from Mr. Adams. That's what it says. And then paragraph two says the allegations contained therein implicate serious members of the of the South African police. I I want to say to you that a sensible reading of this first paragraph and the second paragraph is the contained therein refers or must refer to the attached correspondence.

[00:08:11]That is a sensible reading. Otherwise, why does he mention that letter to you?

[00:08:15]>> That is correct.

[00:08:16]>> Yes. So, so your reading of it to say, well, when he talks about implicating senior officers and containing sensitive matter, he's referring to what is contained in the dockets. It doesn't work. It's not a sensible way of reading this letter. But more importantly and seriously, it works only if you say that the minister must have had a conversation with Mr. Adams about these these these dockets to know that matter contained therein uh in those dockets is sensitive and it implicates senior police officers and who are those senior police officers.

[00:08:54]>> You agree with me? You must agree with me.

[00:08:56]>> I agree with the reading of a copy of a written correspondence which would have set out those serious allegations as contained. Yes.

[00:09:04]>> And therefore the reference to the dockets because he refers to the dockets. Yes. But that the written correspondence would have set out these serious allegations.

[00:09:13]>> Yes, that's the only way it works. Thank you. And and for that you would have to go to page 283 of the same bundle >> 283 >> that that that is the correspondence we suggested was attached to the minister's >> the serious allegations implicating senior officers are contained there because >> apologies commissioner MK15 please go to MK15 I am there and then to page 283 I am thank you So that email of 1 November 2024 at 8:21 that is the correspondence address to the minister and the docket numbers are there and then allegation two is that I was told the dockets were intercepted and then he says I traveled to Johannesburg Orlando opened new dockets you see there then he implicates senior officers because he then says they interfered in the investigative process and he was notified that uh is following the same process and the request to the minister is I urgently and humbly ask the minister to intervene to ensure the integrity of the investigative process is maintained. So this is the request that gives rise to the referral to IDC and that was uh advocate Silo's point that the referral to IDC was about this allegations implicating senior officers not for IDC to go take over the dockets that were opened in Orlando and the Western Cape and investigate those underlying allegations in those dockets.

[00:11:13]So having seen this you can now go back to sorry having seen this you can now go back to the letter it's on written and respond to advocacy loss I I I still maintain that although you have that that email, this letter tells you referral and request for investigation in terms of section 27. It does talk to copy of written correspondence to the minister by Fadil Adams and therein are serious allegations and due to the nature of these allegations they are referring then to those to the allegations as he makes out in his written correspondence which must almost invariably it would seem refer to the dockets that is my reading commissioner I'm not saying that it cannot be read differently. I'm saying that is my reading and I can't take it further than that is my reading of the the title what is referred to and what subsequently happened and you insist on that reading not withstanding the fact that it belies any logical form of interpretation but you insist on that wording on on that interpretation I believe that the interpretation is logical. [clears throat] >> Okay. Now, uh under which number or inquiry number did um IDC investigate the claim of interception.

[00:13:13]That's the original claim by Mr. Adams.

[00:13:17]That is the complaint that the minister purported to refer to IDK.

[00:13:22]>> So in the communications with Mr. Adams, he was asked for his section 27.

[00:13:28]>> I'm asking under which case number or inquiry number?

[00:13:32]>> It would all have been under the one inquiry under which the section 27 came.

[00:13:38]There wasn't a separate inquiry for an interception or a separate inquiry for something else. When the 27 came in, if I may council, when the 27 came in, it was given a reference number. Yes. And all those matters that flow from whatever the allegations are, including in the 27 where he says in one of the paragraphs that the dockets were intercepted or the dockets were taken uh for reasons that are not explained. They form part of his complaint. All one complaint.

[00:14:11]>> Yes. I'm interested in the investigation into the interception because I did not I did not see it in the docket what we call the MUA matter. I didn't see that particular investigation in the docket and I wanted to find out whether IDC ever pursued that complaint that specific complaint of interception of Mr. Adams's dockets or whether it concentrated more [clears throat] on the that part of the section 27 referral that as I suggest was initiated by IDC.

[00:14:56]When the when the referral had come in, we had to find out where these dockets are. That was part of that exercise.

[00:15:05]uh in order to locate the dockets to determine whether these dockets had in fact been intercepted and were no longer where they were.

[00:15:14]to that end um council. What we did is we wrote because his last um reference is I opened dockets in Khen. A letter was written to the provincial commissioner detectives Major General Kumalo requesting the dockets.

[00:15:37]I'm sorry to interject. Do you possibly have a date for that letter immediately at hand?

[00:15:44]Will you please give me a moment? Should have been in the that would have been the 6th of December if I speak under correction but uh in all like I it is the sixth sorry I made a small note 6th of December.

[00:15:59]>> And did you receive a response while we are on that point? Did you re receive a response and if so when?

[00:16:05]Uh, General Kumalo. Um, and and sorry, this is a different Kumalo, not General Doisani Kumalo. The the PC for detectives, uh, indicated that he knew about these dockets, but that these dockets were not with him.

[00:16:32]He was going to tell us where to find those dockets.

[00:16:36]In the interim, we oh he then indicated that the dockets could be with the DPCI.

[00:16:47]When we contacted the DPCI, these dockets were not with them.

[00:16:54]And in that process, one of the investigators found out that the dockets actually were with the SEPs inspectorate, more so the head of the inspectorate, uh, General Peter Jacobs.

[00:17:13]>> And when was this discovery?

[00:17:14]>> All on the 6th.

[00:17:16]>> All on the sixth.

[00:17:16]>> All on the 6th. Because we're looking for for the dockets. He's saying the dockets are missing. Do you know how he discovered that by any chance?

[00:17:26]They I'm I know that the investigator indicated that he received information.

[00:17:37]I don't have the detail of the information, but he received information that the docketes were the head of the inspected uh Lieutenant General Peter Jacobs. Going back to your team, we had quite a number of investigators there that you identified. Which particular investigator >> would have been Mr. Raesu?

[00:17:53]>> Okay.

[00:17:55]We got uh a bit sidetracked. Remember going back to the letter from the ministry regarding interception. I wanted to find out um that the case of interception of the specific docu dockets listed there.

[00:18:13]Where did that investigation end?

[00:18:15]>> The the dockets were found uh on that day.

[00:18:20]>> Yes. But it would not have been the end of your inquiry then. I mean you his complaint remember his complaint is that dockets have been intercepted. That that's what his emails are about. He's not making the allegations that you later find in the section 27 that you have accepted you solicited. So we're still at the earlier stages where where you get a complaint that um dos have been intercepted. You are telling us that you then inquired and in fact found that they are accounted for uh in the sub system.

[00:19:01]>> Yes. [clears throat] >> You get told that. Isn't that the end of his complaint? And shouldn't that have been the end of the complaint?

[00:19:13]Commissioner Kumalo, that was one part of the Commissioner Baloy.

[00:19:19]>> Sorry. He looks and smiles there the entire time. Um, and so one invariably, I do apologize, looks looks at you.

[00:19:26]Please don't frown, sir.

[00:19:29]>> I have to change because clearly that's a problem. [laughter] >> Uh, it is the one thing that gives comfort when you sit here as a witness is is a smiling face. Um, and we digress and I apologize. Um, it it it couldn't stop there because we now need to see what's in these dockets because here's an allegation that Adams is saying there are serious allegations I am making.

[00:19:55]They are contained in these dockets but beyond the dockets I have an issue because these dockets are missing. He does say so in the 27. So once we determine council that the dockets are with the inspectorate we cannot ask the inspectorate for the dockets and and I'll tell you why I say that is out of just normal >> no just hold on your explanation.

[00:20:18]>> Sorry my my question is pre the 27 we are still oh the 27th is in November. Okay now carry on. I do.

[00:20:28]>> Sorry. We we get we get the section 27 on the 21st of November that allows us to be able to to look for what the allegations allude to.

[00:20:43]In order for us to have access to the dockets, police will not give IDA dockets if doc IDAC does not have an investigation.

[00:20:53]On the 6th of December, we having had the section 27 since the 21st of November, the prosecutor advocate Ram Sami is able to submit a section 2813 application which initiates an investigation. It is on that basis commissioners that we are able to write now to the head of detectives because ordinarily the custodians of the dockets especially under investigation are the detectives.

[00:21:31]We write to the head of detectives indicating that has initiated an investigation and the investigation requires that we have access to these dockets.

[00:21:48]Um, perhaps this might be the appropriate point to turn to the [clears throat] referral affidavit itself, but I do so momentarily for purposes of the complaint of interception.

[00:22:05]That would be at your file 2, page 512.

[00:22:16]That will run till 516.

[00:22:21]If we just run ahead to page 516, you confirm that is the it's signed above the name F. Adams.

[00:22:29]Okay. Adams is misspelled, but I take it to be F. Adams MP dated the 21st of November 24 in Cape Town.

[00:22:40]and um commissioned by a commissioner of oats as indicated. Did you confirm that?

[00:22:48]>> I confirm. I see that >> the conversation we're having, if we go back to paragraph one.

[00:22:54]Paragraph one reads as follows. In my capacity as a member of parliament for the Republic of South Africa, I first opened three cases in Cape Town police station with cases case numbers Cape Town and they are stated. After I opened these cases, I take it I was informed that the cases were taken from the Cape Town police station to the office of the provincial commissioner Western Cape. I do not trust the provincial commissioner general particular and believe that a del deliberate attempt is taking place to get rid of the cases I had reported and to protect those against whom I made the cases. End of quote.

[00:23:31]That is the investigation I'm asking about. Did you ever investigate the claims against General Particular? That is the interception. And I still don't understand whether or not you investigated that.

[00:23:43]You being ID or you didn't. And if you investigate, you investigated where you ever landed.

[00:23:59]In [clears throat] in all honesty, council, I cannot tell you that there was a separate investigation about that interception.

[00:24:09]>> Yes, >> I know that we sought to find those dockets and we then in fact found those dockets.

[00:24:16]>> Your finding of the dockets surely doesn't address the the complaint of interception.

[00:24:20]>> No, it doesn't. Yes.

[00:24:21]>> And what I'm saying is there must be an investigation. I can come back to you with with a reference to an investigation, but I know that at the time the the the purpose was to first find these dockets, which we in fact did, and to then determine what the allegations are in those dockets. Do they talk to the 27 and what is the the way forward?

[00:24:46]>> Okay. So, >> would there be an investigation in your office that you don't know about?

[00:24:52]because your answer suggests that your people may well be conducting investigations that you're not aware of.

[00:24:59]>> Uh not that I won't know of an investigation, but when when you have matters of of this nature, uh Commissioner Baloy, they divide the matters up into different legs of investigation so that they can deal with them differently. I may not be aware of a specific leg of investigation but I am aware that there is an investigation or investigations arising out of the section 27.

[00:25:25]>> So you you would expect >> and we should expect that when you come back to us uh after lunch you will tell us there is an investigation into this interception. This is the team that is dealing with that and it is being done under cast number so and so it's information that you should be able to get. Thank you.

[00:25:47]>> Thank you Commissioner Balo. So then just to recap where we are at, we know that we started with email communication by Mr. Adams to the office of the minister. The minister then directed the letter dated the the minister's office directed the letter dated the 11th of November 2024 to yourself and we know that subsequent to that you directed Mr. Perumal to obtain an affidavit from Mr. Adams, we are in agreement there.

[00:26:19]Okay. Where did I lose you?

[00:26:20]>> Sorry. Correction on the last part. The um Oh, let's leave it at that. I think it's semantics. It's okay. I'm not going to fight about the semantics. Sorry, Ch.

[00:26:32]than having done so and [clears throat] the issue at the time was interception of the dockets.

[00:26:42]The a claim by Mr. Adams was an interception of the dockets. What we don't have before us in an is an invest is a file on the investigation regarding that particular complaint.

[00:26:58]What we then have instead is what we have come to call the MU matter which then is born of uh claims advanced by Mr. Adams at the instance of IDC as reflected in the section 27 affidavit.

[00:27:17]Do you do you agree with me thus far?

[00:27:20]>> Yes. and uh that we we we miss a matter before the MQA matter which was the Lucaba matter that was the first matter that was dealt with and then it was the MUA matter >> okay >> I just didn't want us to miss that >> I'm not sure I understand because in this complaint we are going to come across the Luchaba matter >> now is that a separate investigation >> that was dealt with so so what the prosecutors did >> let me let me say something to to I guess clear the cobwebs in my head. I want to determine how many separate investigations there are. My first was that the first investigation would at least have involved an investigation into the conduct of General Ped as set out in paragraph one [clears throat] that you say you'll check uh on the file regarding that investigation. The second is the Mugule matter quote you know quote unquote it's unfortunate we have to use her name in that manner but it's the quickest way of making reference without confusing each other. Now you're suggesting that there is a third investigation on the Luchaba matter.

[00:28:32]>> When the prosecutors got the section 27 referral council they broke it up as follows.

[00:28:40]Started with the general Lucaba matter.

[00:28:43]Yes, >> that's the first matter. The moa matter being >> Apologies. Just a second. Thanks.

[00:28:57][clears throat] Thank you. You may continue.

[00:29:21]>> Thank you, commissioners. So when the matters were broken up and I think they were broken up as their prosecutor explained in terms of the different categories of offenses. If you took them all as one, we would have had a lot of issues from misjinder to 10 people standing in the dock, one facing one count of something and someone facing 10 of the other and it it would have been a mis mismash. So they took it in terms of the allegations and grouped them accordingly.

[00:29:52]In terms of what happened in the sequence, the sequence would have been as they identified the housebreaking incident of General Lucaba. That was the first investigation. That was the first matter council that was enrolled.

[00:30:09]Thereafter it was the MUA matter. There is then a third investigation uh that is the one for which the warrants were held over just for context in terms of Lieutenant General Kumalo and General Maddo. And then there are other matters that also emanate from this complaint.

[00:30:32]>> How many other matters there are?

[00:30:39]I know four.

[00:30:42]Five. There would be six >> six other matters.

[00:30:46]>> Six other matters.

[00:30:47]>> Uh and they all you say they all emanate from the section 27.

[00:30:51]>> That is correct. Uh are you able over the course of the lunch break I guess to prepare a list for us of those matters and to indicate whether they are filed they have different cast numbers or inquiry numbers or any other useful reference I do know that with the lushaba matter it's a se separate case of course as is with the mqua matter and that had the other matter been enrolled it would have also had its own case.

[00:31:24]>> Yes. Okay.

[00:31:24]>> And and that's why I say it might possibly be a case number or an inquiry number just so we know which which we are pursuing. [clears throat] Now now that we we have started with the section 27 referral.

[00:31:43]Uh let let's let's for a moment go back to section 27 of the NPA act.

[00:31:50]Before you do that, can I just check that the attorneys have given you a copy because I saw that you were [clears throat] struggling. Can they just make sure that they give you the copy of the act?

[00:32:02]Apologies. I I'd assume the witness perhaps >> I do. I I'll keep this one here. I think she's got her own version and uh out of habit >> I noticed that when chair was engaging you, you were struggling finally. I think it's because I had too many documents on my table, Commissioner Kumal.

[00:32:20]>> So, we we took the extra effort to ask the attendees to make a copy and put it in a >> Thank you very much.

[00:32:27]>> Thank you.

[00:32:28]>> I think I'm going to be respectful and use the file [laughter] um that was made available. Thank you.

[00:32:35]>> I I think so, Advocate Johnson, after all that effort, right?

[00:32:38]>> Yes.

[00:32:40]>> And a few trees that we might have.

[00:32:42]>> Absolutely. Yes. Absolutely.

[00:32:45]We are now at section 27.

[00:32:48]And section 27 tells us the affidavit cont what the affidavit contemplated therein must contain.

[00:33:00]Correct.

[00:33:07]I'm sure it's a section you are well familiar with. You've had a number of referrals. I just went to my just went to the wrong side. Sorry.

[00:33:18]I am there. Thank you.

[00:33:20]>> Section 27. Yes. So you you do agree 7 uh sections 27 sub A sub B and to some extent sub C if there should be uh other relevant information dictates what the affidavit should contain. Section 27 affidavit.

[00:33:42]Correct. What are the consequences where an affidavit lacking in complete compliance with section 27?

[00:33:52][clears throat] What would be the consequences in so far as IDEX Friger is concerned >> where and section 27 affidavit is is insufficient for anyone of a number of reasons. Um we ordinarily would ask the um complainant to supplement [clears throat] or amplify and indicate what the shortcomings are, which parts are if the complainant is unable to amplify any one portion or portions that would then fulfill the requirements of section 27. We then have to indicate that we are unable to take the matter because the matter must fulfill certain requirements.

[00:34:46]>> Okay. Thank you. Let's turn then to the section 27 affidavit that we received.

[00:34:54]Do you do this that is the request for a supplement? Do you do that uh in all instances uh where um an affidavit is lacking in the necessary detail?

[00:35:10]chair, especially where just from a glance it would seem that they they're just missing something and there's a likelihood it falls within the mandate.

[00:35:20]You ask them and when they amplify and you say, "Okay, it still falls short."

[00:35:25]>> Okay, so that's exactly what I wanted to find out. So reading it, you are of the view that it does fall um within your mandate, but you just want a supplement on certain specific issues or on a specific issue, but at least it's it's it's already there within the realm as it were.

[00:35:48]>> Correct, Ch.

[00:35:49]>> Uh meaning if it's woefully hopeless, you just reject that. Correct.

[00:35:56]>> That is correct.

[00:35:58]>> All right. Thank you.

[00:36:00]>> Just follow up on that by way of of of an example or question. So we're looking at 27 and the requirements thereof. If if you're given an affidavit that says I suspect that money is being stolen. That's a so they've told you the nature of the suspicion and then they don't tell you the grounds on which the suspicion is based.

[00:36:27]Um, and whatever else they say in C does not tell you the grounds on which the suspicion is based. There's been a non-compliance with B, right? What do you do?

[00:36:41]>> You you would then check if they have a source of information that is still based on >> sorry. So you would even if they haven't set out grounds in their affidavit, they simply say I suspect money is being stolen. You're saying you then ask them for a supplementary affidavit?

[00:36:59]>> No. If they if it's just I suspect and there's nothing more to it, >> then it does not fulfill.

[00:37:07]>> Then >> because it's Sorry. Sorry, Commissioner.

[00:37:10]>> Yeah. No, >> it's it's you have to be mindful of the proddding.

[00:37:15]>> Yes. and trying to elicit something they they know they should tell you because what does happen is ordinarily without saying what you want we are able to engage a section 27 referral and indicate uh these are the requirements your affidavit does not make out these requirements and there and then in in almost most cases people are able to say well I gave you what I have and and that just uh finishes the that part of it.

[00:37:44]Thank you.

[00:37:46]>> And when people tell you I gave you what I have and I tell you no grounds in that affidavit, what does IDC do?

[00:37:53]>> It may be council that it is insufficient for the purposes of IDC.

[00:38:00]Where it has been insufficient for the purposes of IDAC, but we are aware that it could go to the detectives and or it could go to the DPCI.

[00:38:13]We write to the referral or to the referee. I apologize to indicate whilst this does not comply with IDX mandate, you are able to refer this matter to the detectives, we are writing to. So we do two things. We inform the complainant where they can go to and then we also write uh to the agency that we are able to send it to together with a copy of whatever information might have been received. We have also been able to do that where for example it it is something that is civil in nature but falls within the mandate of the SIU and we would say to them you might be able to find recourse here with the SIU. So we don't just leave them in the ledge if in fact it does make out uh an investigate uh allegations that are investigated by a different agency. We write to them. we write to the agency and we send that material as well.

[00:39:16]>> So at least where we land and and I'm testing my understanding of section 27 there are two main requirements in that section uh the affidavit must spell out the suspicion uh that the referee holds and then to advance grounds to support every specific suspicion.

[00:39:35]your ADC has got the power to request maybe substantiation clarification from the referee uh where there are shortcomings with compliance with section 27 in the event that the [clears throat] suspicions are not substantiated and grounds not advanced by way of example then IDC cannot investigate the matter it it would normally refer it to another appropriate law enforcement agency >> correct >> is that a fair summary Let's look then at the section 27 referral received from uh Mr. Adams. We [clears throat] will work through it in detail but uh my summary of it I would like to share with you what that affidavit and that's file 2 page 512.

[00:40:26]>> I do have it.

[00:40:27]>> Thank you.

[00:40:29]that affidavit uh states the following.

[00:40:34]It uh it highlights or shares with the reader three key suspicions that Mr. Adams happens. The first is at paragraph two and therein uh paragraph two it says it expresses his growing concern that the head of crime intelligence general kumalo general lushaba general mondo and other senior crime intelligence officers are busy with systematic capture of crime intelligence division that's his first suspicion >> council may I ask you am I allowed Yes, ma'am. Marcus, am I allowed to write this document?

[00:41:16]>> Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

[00:41:17]>> Uh, if it's in the witness file, we will just replace it with a fresh copy.

[00:41:23]>> You say, sorry, council. You said that is the first allegation, the first suspicion. Remember that the the affidavit actually requires the the deponent to state what suspicions that they they have. The first is there in paragraph 2 on my reading. The second would be at paragraph 4.

[00:41:42]Let's let's take it step by step. Do you do you agree that that's the first uh suspicion?

[00:41:48]>> That is the first one.

[00:41:49]>> All right. Thank you.

[00:41:50]>> Thank you, chair.

[00:41:52]Um and paragraph three for purposes then of completeness.

[00:41:59]He uh the the deponent speaks to what became clearer to him. No, how the his suspicion became clearer to him. But he adds nothing more.

[00:42:12]Um, he references an envelope he says was slipped under the door of his office in parliament containing some crime crime intelligence procurement documents using secret funds of crime intelligence and vetting documents. So he tells you that I have that but he doesn't share the contents of those. Yes. The second suspicion is reflected in paragraph 4 and on my reading that uh speaks to two suspicions. The first being an manipulation of procurement processes and processes to appoint and promote certain persons within crime intelligence. That's at paragraph 4. the first part of paragraph 4. The second part is uh calls for the need to investigate appointments at various secret service offices.

[00:43:26]Sorry.

[00:43:28]Do you do you agree with me? Yes, I have that.

[00:43:31]>> At paragraph five, he expresses a suspicion that some funds are being taken unlawfully from the secret funds account and given to police minister Becky Gal.

[00:43:51]Add paragraph six before you do paragraph six.

[00:43:57]>> Yes. Yes, ma'am. Paragraph >> paragraph five did you consider it to complain to contain two complaints? I mean there's the first about money being suspected to be given to former minister and then um and then it seems to me there's a second leg to it an allegation that the former minister appointed General Kumalu without an interview process and without Kumalo having worked as a did you consider that another suspicion and complaint or did you out.

[00:44:43]>> I would I must say before I must say before you I must say before you answer that considering how the MU matter has gone.

[00:44:51]>> Yes.

[00:44:51]>> I expect that >> but that would have been one of it's a separate appointment >> and if you haven't there has to be an explanation why this was not investigated.

[00:44:59]>> It is part of other appointments.

[00:45:02]>> Okay. So you will come back to us with the details. Thank you >> um to you and and may I just pause just to indicate commissioners at the bottom of paragraph 4 it is not separate but there is reference in the last line which we had to look at as we go through all of the matters uh likely points to launder money. So the money laundering is an aspect to consider when you look at money flows that may run through the course of all of these and they are not it's not a standalone matter.

[00:45:40]No J.

[00:45:43]>> Sorry. Sorry. You say that one go and you are referring to the last sentence of Paul.

[00:45:48]>> Correct. Chair.

[00:45:49]>> And and you say it goes with uh with what?

[00:45:53]>> It it would go with two which is the manipulating of procurement processes. And then um uh with five which council had pointed out about the taken unlawfully from the secret funds.

[00:46:14]>> Which sentence are you referring to in two sentence or sentences?

[00:46:22]>> Sorry. Uh paragraph four >> paragraph four >> suspicion >> line two.

[00:46:27]>> Line two. Oh >> yes chair. about the manipulating procurement processes >> just to indicate that money laundering is considered uh but not as a standalone just within the ambit of those matters.

[00:46:42]>> Yes.

[00:46:43]>> Okay. Okay.

[00:46:44]>> Thank you.

[00:46:45]>> So uh may I interrupted council? I think >> no it's okay. just on the point you've made, it's uh [clears throat] it's a suspicion but couch more in request terms because he's requesting that you look into these matters. Um I guess because there secret service offices in the country are likely points to money laundering out of crime intelligence.

[00:47:18]So in that I I can accept that there's a suspicion that there is money laundering except that he would like uh IDC to investigate whether that laundering happens through various secret service offices.

[00:47:34]>> Correct.

[00:47:34]>> Okay. Then we agreed that at five the suspicion about secret funds being given to the former minister Beckle.

[00:47:43]>> Yes ma'am. uh six. I don't see a suspicion in six. So I would I would skip it for now. We'll come back to six.

[00:47:53]The last suspicion that he he then uh highlights is at seven at page 515. My suspicion is that General Kumalo Lu Shabba Madono and many of those who they have appointed are actively siphoning money from the secret funds fund accounts in the country. I understand that there are about 10 secret fund points in the country where monies can be drawn from and all of these extraction points need to be investigated.

[00:48:22]That's another suspicion >> at seven.

[00:48:27]>> May I take you back to six council?

[00:48:28]>> Yes, ma'am. That is the the the Luchaba matter.

[00:48:34]And therein he has been charged not just with the with the housebreaking but with the uh defeating and obstructing with regards to the um loss of the equipment of crime intelligence and the non-disclosure thereof and the fact that um the secret information contained therein. So there's a what I'm saying is there's a the six is the luchaba matter that is currently in court.

[00:49:11]>> Yes, I'd ask that we skip that because we are trying you know >> only to distill from this then >> from the affidavit what the the deponent suspects and what suspicions he has put forward to IDC.

[00:49:26]So we have dealt with the suspicion at seven then eight and nine basically reverts to the dockets he had opened the three cases in uh at Cape Town in Cape Town and the other three in Orlando police station and at it ends at 516.

[00:49:50]So if we we at least roughly summarized his suspicions, I can see how he has complied with section 27A, which is to to set out the suspicions of a crime that he complains of.

[00:50:09]I am missing part B of that which is requires him to set out the grounds on which the very suspicions that we have referenced are based.

[00:50:22]Do do you find the grounds in this affidavit suspicion? May may I just raise an issue with you which is a >> a a legal question with regard to oh you are looking at ABC >> ind >> um okay that's the nature of I'm looking at the the the introductory part of the section itself if any person has reasonable grounds uh I would not go to ABC without first ensuring that uh that introductory part has itself been satisfied and uh that I would do on the basis that this is an objective test.

[00:51:16]>> Yes, >> you and I do not have to rely on what um Mr. Adams subjectively thought >> yes >> so I would start there is there >> were there reasonable ground but anyway let me leave >> my my approach is slightly different >> but but I'm just making >> yes I I take the point >> I would not I would not get to ABC before but >> I I I take the point chair that's an approach but I I I decided to adopt a different one here is IDC having solicited an affidavit receives the affidavit before a decision is taken even for preliminary investigation that affidavit must fall in must comply with at least ABC >> and I conclude that the grounds advance in terms of B would lead to the conclusion at the start of that whether they are reasonable grounds so it's sort of a >> in the end in the end perhaps it works the same way >> because because I'm trying to test at which point in so far as ID is concerned a section 25 27 referral dies for non-compliance if ever there is such a point.

[00:52:24]>> No, please go ahead.

[00:52:25]>> Thank you, chair.

[00:52:27]>> Thank you.

[00:52:28]>> So, I'm now I'm now looking at 27B and my reading of this affidavit is that is replete with suspicions, but absolutely no grounds to support any of the suspicions advanced unless you can find any that perhaps I may have missed. I I I adopted the um approach I did to say let's summarize and see if we can quantify [clears throat] the suspicions.

[00:52:57]So we look let's start with the suspicion at two that uh General Kumalo Lucaba Madono and other senior crime intelligence officers were busy with the systematic capture of the crime intelligence division. Let's just sit with that one suspicion. Where in this affidavit do I find grounds to support that uh suspicion which then would take A and B of section 27.

[00:53:26]So uh first on in paragraph 2 um line one commissioners he says so the cases he refers to above uh must refer to to what follows and he says the cases were opened based on information I received from time to time uh which places the SAP's crime intelligence and then it follows. So he receives information from time to time.

[00:53:56]And he then says in paragraph three that that suspicion became even clearer when an envelope pushed under his door at parliament contained crime intelligence procurement documents using secret funds of crime intelligence and vetting documents. So the grounds on which he bases it is information he receives.

[00:54:19]information he he receives um from time to time and further expounded by the fact that he has this envelope with further information that is is pushed under his door. That that is the the the genesis uh for the grounds on which his suspicion is based. You said he did not give IdaK that information which was slipped under his door.

[00:54:52]>> That is correct.

[00:54:53]>> So that's like saying I have grounds but I won't tell you what they are.

[00:55:00]>> May I explain a further process that then happened? Uh and sorry council may I?

[00:55:05]>> Absolutely ma'am because it might it might seem to jump the gun but it will then perhaps provide more clarity. We've got we received the section 27.

[00:55:16]We received the dockets.

[00:55:22]Ida takes the stance that an engagement has to happen with Mr. Adams because this this 27 he did on his own and sent through to us. We have the dockets. But do when they had the engagement, having read the dockets, having read the 27, it goes back to what I said. You then engage the person to see if there is other grounds that need to be covered and further statements commissioners were then taken in the engagements had with him in January of 202.

[00:56:03]I think where we are, Advocate Johnson, is that 27 says these things must be specified in the 27 affidavit.

[00:56:14]Because if you read 27, it says by means of an affidavit or affirm declaration specifying ABC.

[00:56:25]So ABC are to be specified in the affidavit.

[00:56:29]>> Correct. they are not to be established at a later point. So the entry point is the affidavit which specifies A, B and C.

[00:56:38]>> And it is for those reasons uh Commissioner Kumalo that I referred to those two paragraphs. That is where I took that from where I were based where were opened based on information I received from time to time and the information placed under his door. If if perhaps you may assist us then uh the the suspicion as General Kumar Lucaba and Madono and others are busy with systematic capture of the crime intelligence division. That's a suspicion. You are satisfied that that affidavit contains grounds to support that suspicion. Can you summarize those grounds for us >> with reference to the affidavit itself?

[00:57:26]Right. Indeed. Thank you, [clears throat] Commissioner for on my reading council.

[00:57:51]>> Yes, ma'am. that that suspicion is. He refers to the suspicion and he proceeds to explain as he does in paragraph 4 >> and what grounds are articulated in paragraph 4.

[00:58:07]>> There he suspects that General Kumalo and some senior officers in crime intelligence including um >> I apologize. I thought we agreed that paragraph 4 contains other suspicions.

[00:58:21]I'm still looking for the grounds for the suspicion that Kumalo at all are busy with systematic capture of crime intelligence. Where are the grounds for that? The the manipulation of procurement processes and processes to a point is another suspicion, the different one. Yes. And I'm saying that it is it is based on I didn't I don't read it to mean that every single suspicion must is supposed to have a ground. If my reading is incorrect. No, no, no, no. I'm saying that is how I read it. I read it as I received information from time to time. From that information I received from time to time, there are all of these allegations inclusive of the documents under my door. Okay. You wanted to invoke paragraph 4 to to establish the grounds.

[00:59:11]Remember, we still have to comply with section 27B. Yes. So we are going to have to at least find the grounds for the suspicion reflected in paragraph two. You say those grounds lie in paragraph 4. And if you could just summarize them quickly for us and and simply because my reading of paragraph 4 is slightly different but I'll I'll I'll take your perspective. So he in the the suspicion of the systemic capture lies in his suspicions in in paragraph 4 in terms of he refers to to to the procurement uh manipulation uh the for lack of a better description uh uh manipulation of appointment processes uh uh bypassing of of of the vetting. um those are the ones that talk to the systemic capture of of the crime uh intelligence division. He's not in paragraph 4 is and what you're referring to now. He's not giving you facts that support his suspicion because that's what 27B requires the basis for his suspicion. what he does in four uh on its terms. He says I suspect that which you're referring to now. He says I suspect that General Kumalo and other senior officers in crime intelligence including Madono and Lucaba were manipulating procurement processes and processes to appoint and promote certain members to higher positions. So it's a suspicion. So you you can't say when we ask you that okay he he's made the suspicion to you. So let's say he complies with a what how does what are the grounds that he has stated in his affidavit in support of that suspicion you you can't say uh where he states manipulating processes procurement processes and processes to appoint you then you say those are the grounds that that's faulty reasoning uh it is a suspicion on his terms it is he tells you that's what I suspect the question to you is where in the affidavit did you find that he has put down grounds for that suspicion? Um on on my reading uh Commissioner Baloy, it is found for those ones on paragraph 3 where he said, "My suspicion about General Kumalo and others became more clearer when I found an envelope pushed under my office at Parliament which contains some crime intelligence procurement documents using secret funds of crime intelligence and vetting documents. It's I can take it no further than that is that that is my reading of where he finds these suspicions.

[01:02:10]>> Factual conclusion after factual conclusion.

[01:02:15]Advocate Johnson can never give you the facts that undergur those factual conclusions. All of the things you are addressing now are themselves factual conclusions. Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you understand what I'm saying? If >> if you could just take >> those are factual conclusions. Let me give you let let me give you agree. Do you agree?

[01:02:42]>> I understand >> those are factual. Do you agree?

[01:02:45]>> I agree.

[01:02:47]>> So if we go back to um Miss Silo's question, she wants to understand what those what that factual substratum is.

[01:02:59]What facts do you rely on to say those factual conclusions and you now accept that they are factual conclusions? What facts underly those conclusions to lead to the fact that B of 27 is satisfied? On what basis? It cannot be on the conclusions.

[01:03:30]Let me give you an example.

[01:03:32]If someone says, I suspect that Tom and Dick killed Harry, that's a conclusion.

[01:03:46]For you to be satisfied that there is a reasonable suspicion that Tomandic um killed Harry, there must be some substantiation before you say Tom and Dick killed Harry. Do you get me?

[01:04:05]>> I understand.

[01:04:06]>> Otherwise, it's a factual conclusion to say that Tom and Harry killed Dick.

[01:04:14]And I suggest to you that this is exactly what you are doing. You are relying on factual conclusions to say that B of section 27 has been satisfied.

[01:04:27]>> Do you agree?

[01:04:28]>> I agree.

[01:04:29]>> You accept that proposition?

[01:04:30]>> I accept your proposition.

[01:04:31]>> Yes, Mr. >> Thank you, chair. [clears throat] And then following that very same approach to all the concerns, I'm going to put it broad. Where in this affidavit do you find any grounds that can potentially get anywhere close to section 27B? And I say I put it that way because I'm I'm talking to a lawyer of of 30 years experience who appreciates that [clears throat] when a statute prescribes what juris jurisdictional factors must exist before certain outcomes are achieved. You would understand that they have to be satisfied independently of one another.

[01:05:18]It's first a the suspicion b the grounds. What where in this affidavit do you find the grounds that would satisfy the requirements of section 27B?

[01:05:30]I I have referred to the the to those grounds and say that having heard what the chair has indicated there's no there's nothing more than just what he said here. It it is a matter of he says this is what I have information and documentation is I think the question and and sorry commissioners I don't mean to be asking you all a question but what I'm trying to pose for myself is the question then is is that sufficient for B >> was there a sufficient factual substratum to satisfy B of section 27 That's the question. And I think in response to my question, you've you've accepted that there was none >> in terms of the factual basis of it.

[01:06:21]Yes.

[01:06:22]>> The factual basis that undergrads or supports the factual conclusion.

[01:06:29]>> Correct.

[01:06:29]>> You've accepted that there was none.

[01:06:31]>> Yes.

[01:06:33]>> Do you then accept on that basis because uh my and your engagement has started on the basis of the first suspicion?

[01:06:41]>> Yes. which is state capture. Would you accept that there is no factual basis advanced in this affidavit in respect of all the suspicions as you have identified them? Would that be correct?

[01:06:54]>> That would be correct except he says so of uh his conclusions >> his conclusions of I have information uh and I have a I receive information and I also had information. It is on that basis. Yes.

[01:07:09]If that's where we land, would such an affidavit comply with the requirements of section 27? And what would be the consequences of non-compliance?

[01:07:26]So given the questions that that were posed by the chair, it was I I had not looked at it >> and and not only the questions, the questions and the responses.

[01:07:36]>> Yes. So, so in on the basis thereof, commissioners, I've applied my mind differently.

[01:07:43]The commission has pointed something out quite differently uh that ought to have been considered. I'm saying in the manner in which I applied my mind at the time based on how I understood section B or what section B to mean at the time.

[01:08:00]Yes, I agree that it fulfilled that requirement because he had knowledge that he had grounds on which it was based.

[01:08:11]I've I've I've given the answer commissioner I can't change that answer.

[01:08:16]>> Are you are you are you seriously telling us that uh since what you've been the director since 2022 is it?

[01:08:24]>> Yes. Are you telling us that since 2022 this is how you've uh understood your legal mandate or IDEX IDEX legal mandate?

[01:08:37]>> No.

[01:08:38]>> Did I understand you correctly uh to suggest that you understood that the the the suspicion required has to be viewed sub subjectively. Did I understand you to say that? I'm asking you this because you said you believe that he had the the required suspicion.

[01:09:03]He he Mr. Adams. Did I did I understand you correctly?

[01:09:07]>> Correct.

[01:09:08]>> So that's subjective as opposed to objective. So did you understand the test to be a subjective test as opposed to an objective test?

[01:09:24]For me, the grounds on which the suspicion is based is a subjective test.

[01:09:31]>> Uh I will >> I'm not going back on the argument. I'm saying in in the way I've applied my mind, it is >> it this is a reasonable suspicion.

[01:09:41]>> Yes. That must be born by a reasonable man and person >> by reasonable person who must have access to knowledge and or information that brings them to that point. If you would allow me to just take it just a moment further.

[01:10:03]>> Yes.

[01:10:04]>> Mr. Adams is a member of the police portfolio committee. These allegations come to them from time to time. There's active engagement with with the police.

[01:10:19]There are documents that are shared.

[01:10:21]There's information that is shared. I did not take his to be just the test of a subjective mind of just a reasonable man.

[01:10:30]>> No, no, no, no. You can't fascate issues in the manner in which you are saying.

[01:10:36]You said you considered the test to be subjective. Now you [clears throat] are saying something that suggests that somehow you also considered it to be objective. You cannot have it both ways.

[01:10:48]Please advocate Johnson. Let me ask you the question again. Did you consider the test to be subjective?

[01:10:55]>> Correct.

[01:10:57]>> Now what are you saying? You you you've just said something that seems to suggest that you also considered it to be objective. Make me understand what you are saying. Uh maybe I didn't express myself correctly. I'm saying that the reasonable man test >> the person test applies but >> once you see that there in lies the problem once you say that the the the test is is subjective then you look to what was going on in a specific person's mind. That's subjective.

[01:11:35]It has nothing to do with a reasonable person. That's subjective. You cannot have it both ways. Law 101 says subjective, you look to the person's mind. Objective, you t test that in accordance with how a reasonable person would view the situation. The two are totally different. You cannot you cannot want to [laughter] to compound them. You simply cannot you cannot say it's subjective but then also refer to a reasonable person test. You cannot I mean even a law student doing first year would know that at a later stage during their first year of uh of legal studies.

[01:12:27]In fact, across [clears throat] across the board within legal studies, you go to your law delict, you go to even criminal law, criminal law, your culpable homicide, you you you encounter the reasonable test um across the board.

[01:12:43]So, how you could mix the subjective test and the objective test completely escapes me. So back to my question, you have said you accept or rather you say you say the test under section 27 is a subjective test. Do you stand by that?

[01:13:04]Because if you do, it raises very serious issues about your application of the of the section >> over all these years.

[01:13:15]Are you sticking to your assertion that the test is subjective even though it uses reasonable? Once you have reasonable, that leads to the objective test. You should know that. Are you insisting that the test is object is subjective?

[01:13:31]>> It is an objective test of reasonable person.

[01:13:34]>> It's an it's an objective test.

[01:13:36]>> Yes.

[01:13:36]>> Yeah. You don't even need to go to reasonable person. A reasonable person is implied in the concept of an objective test. So you don't even need to go there. Now if it is objective, did you operate when you looked at this referral, did you operate on the basis that here I'm concerned with the objective test? Is that how you applied it? Because my sense when you responded to uh Miss Silo was that you thought it's subjective and indeed even here until my two or so questions before now you were saying it's subjective. It's subjective. So that must clearly mean that you looked at this referral affidavit on the basis that the test was subjective. Is that so?

[01:14:31]Is that so? I looked at the section 27 on the test of very >> subjective subjective it must be at the time >> it must be because that's what you believed hence your answers on a few good times now during this engagement your answer is that the test is subjective so you looked at this on the basis that it is subject subjective you agree again >> yes >> so that means in your case The word reasonable which appears in so many words in section 27 did not come into the equation whatsoever. Is that so?

[01:15:15]>> It does because >> No, it couldn't. Not if the test is subjective according to you. It wouldn't because once you talk reasonable that takes you to the objective test and you have said in your mind that did not apply. So you looked at this on the basis that it was the subjective test that applied. Correct.

[01:15:34]>> Correct.

[01:15:35]>> So reasonable did not come into the equation to your mind. Correct.

[01:15:42]>> The the the reasonable that comes to mind is as per any person has reasonable grounds to suspect. It dealt with the offenses which was part A.

[01:15:51]>> It's there fine and you are reading it fine. But what I'm saying is if you believe that the test is subjective then reasonable on your understanding does not come into the equation because once you bring into the equation the word reasonable that's already taking you to the objective test you have said on your understanding the test was subjective. Therefore, reasonable would not have come into your equation.

[01:16:24]Not on your approach. You must accept that. I hear you, Commissioner.

[01:16:29]>> Do you accept it?

[01:16:30]>> I accept it.

[01:16:30]>> Thank you.

[01:16:32]>> Thank you, chair. [clears throat] Based on your the engagement you just had with the chair, is is it would it be a fair understanding that all your approaches to all section 27 referrals you've had is the attitude you had to this particular one. So you IDC initiated investigations based on numerous of such affidavits which don't advance any grounds to support suspicions expressed therein.

[01:17:07]Has that been the case throughout the years you've been at IDC?

[01:17:11]>> No ma'am.

[01:17:12]>> And why then do you how how have the others been the other affidavit been dealt with? Have you interrogated their compliance with section 27 before initiating an investigation? Yes, the other affidavit are were were quite different. You you'd also see I think you requested from us the affidavit of a of a different witness. When you read those as well, you can see the the the compliance with these sections.

[01:17:42]Why why didn't you bring to bear that particular need for compliance to this particular affidavit which is dated less than 2 years ago November 24. Why why did you treat this affidavit as an exception to the rule that you say you had come to apply to all other section 27 affidavits?

[01:18:04]>> So I I I I'm not going back.

[01:18:08]>> Yes. Um and and I think that is where my fault line lay is understanding the reasonable what the reasonable person and went back into subjective. That was that was my error. It it is an error. It it was an honest error. The the test isn't subjective. The test is objective.

[01:18:30]Here I brought a subjective mind to bear on the information the person gave us.

[01:18:37]and Advocate Johnson that is apparent from paragraph 4 because Mr. Adam says none of these people were suitable to be appointed to the post.

[01:18:48]That's his personal view without grounds to support that.

[01:18:52]>> Correct.

[01:18:53]>> He doesn't even say they did not meet the minimum criteria. They did not have their qualifications. He just says you appointed somebody from BMW as a brigadier and then he says not suitable. Full stop.

[01:19:10]Why are they not suitable? Do they not meet the qualifications? He does not even identify the offense that he suspects is being committed there.

[01:19:22]Because appointment of somebody from BMW on its own does not tell you anything because my immediate question would be what is wrong with appointing somebody an engineer from BMW?

[01:19:36]If the position required an engineer, what would be wrong with that?

[01:19:41]Correct.

[01:19:41]>> That would be my immediate question and I would need that to be addressed in the affidavit itself because the entry point according to section 27 is that the affidavit must specify 1 2 3 not that it must set out the suspicion and then the grounds ID will figure them out for itself.

[01:20:07]>> Understood.

[01:20:09]just just on on on an answer you gave in response to um Miss Silo, you said uh an error that you committed was not to apply the to was to apply the subjective test. The test is in fact objective.

[01:20:32]in that response based on the answers you gave me gave to me um and repeating the same thing a good few times throughout until your engagement with me the distinct impression I got was that you've always understood the test to be subjective correct >> I understood the test to be the reasonable man, a reasonable person test which is an objective test.

[01:21:07]>> Okay, I will not go back. You you I engaged you on the subjective and so on because you cannot marry subjective and objective. It simply can let me let me ask you this question. So throughout your understanding of section 27 was in accordance with the responses you gave when I engaged you as to what those were the transcript sisters throughout that was your understanding. It is only now that you have clarity as to what exactly the test is.

[01:21:50]That is a test which is not subjective as you suggested it was or a test which does not seek to mix a subjective and objective test. It is simply objective. So before now you had I feel bad to have to use this word but your understanding was this modeled view of what the test was. which model view came out as I engaged you. So that was your understanding until now until during this engagement. Is that a fair suggestion to you?

[01:22:31]>> It is fair.

[01:22:32]>> Thank you.

[01:22:34]Can I just say m Miss Mson that even even allowing for it was an error you apply the subjective test because of your misunderstanding of the the test that applies even on that in this affidavit in so far as 727B requires him to set out to set out grounds this affidavit doesn't set out any grounds to to say I received an envelope that has procurement matters.

[01:23:08]That's not a ground. It doesn't tell you anything about the contents of the of the envelope. For all I care, uh those procurement documents may well not demonstrate anything wrong. So, it's not clear to me when you say, well, I accepted because he's a member of parliament who serves in the portfolio committee that when he says he has an envelope that is that is sufficient. um you you surely must know and understand that for you to say this false within our mandate, you need to satisfy yourself with whatever it is is relying on. So I I I don't accept that what you say is an error on your part of applying the the the wrong test that it it explains what happened here. It it doesn't. Even on that error, I would expect you as you understand the section, it says he must set out grounds and he doesn't.

[01:24:07]He doesn't.

[01:24:08]When he goes on to say four other killers who qualified or who are employed in crime intelligence, none of them were suitable to be appointed in this post. It doesn't tell you anything about this candidate that was appointed.

[01:24:22]It it doesn't. So it is clear in 27B that he does need to tell you facts.

[01:24:30]Subjectively he thinks those facts um meet the the test but you have to know those facts before you say yes our mandate is triggered. Uh uh you must agree with me. I must be correct in what I'm saying.

[01:24:47]>> I'm not about to disagree.

[01:24:48]>> Okay. Thank you.

[01:24:54]Thank you chair. I see it's 12:59 but an opportune time to take a lunch and gentlemen. Thank you.

[01:24:59]>> Thank you Mulo.

[01:25:02]Let's uh adjourn and come back at 2 p.m.

[01:25:07]Thank you.