Advocate Johnson thought Judge Madlanga play marbles, instead watch this Madlanga clip to the end

[00:00:00]the letter from the minister. What about that letter?

[00:00:03]From that letter, do you see anything that triggers IDEX's mandate?

[00:00:22]>> Chair, if that that was attached and when you look at paragraph um two >> Starting with what was >> Yes.

[00:00:37]>> contained therein implicate very senior members of the South African Police Service and are viewed in a serious light and case dockets were registered as and due to the nature of the allegations uh made by the honorable Adams, which is deemed to be quite sensitive and which contains allegations of criminal conduct the office request the investigating director to consider investigating the same.

[00:01:03]>> That says nothing. That says that says nothing altogether. We do not even know what those uh allegations are.

[00:01:13]Whether serious or not.

[00:01:16]That basically says nothing.

[00:01:18]And if I were to refer you to one of your own statements, I think uh that's your second statement where you were required to uh respond to issues about the docket which you are alleged to have shared with General Khan.

[00:01:37]You had in respect of that issue the ability to say this is vague. It doesn't say when.

[00:01:45]It doesn't say by whom. It doesn't say and you went on and on to demonstrate that it was vague.

[00:01:52]That same thought process by you ought to have applied here as well.

[00:01:58]There are so many whys, how, by whom, when, about what exactly. There are so many of those. If you are able to apply the thought of process or that kind of reasoning, why did you not apply it here?

[00:02:16]It's on that basis that I say this says nothing at all. So, by parity of reasoning, in accordance with your own reasoning, when you concluded that what you were being asked was vague, why did you not see this as vague as well?

[00:02:34]It says nothing, I suggest to you. Do you agree or not?

[00:02:40]>> It may say nothing in there. It refers to the docket.

[00:02:43]>> So, you are you are you are you you are happy that it says nothing.

[00:02:47]>> It doesn't make out any allegations.

[00:02:49]>> Exactly. Exactly. Now, go to section 32 of the NPA Act.

[00:02:59]Take and please tell me when you are there.

[00:03:05]>> I am there, chair.

[00:03:07]>> Do you see that in subsection one, that is section 32 one, um there it's stated how you are to carry out your functions, and that is amongst others, without fear, favor, or prejudice. And what I want to emphasize here is without fear.

[00:03:32]And then in subsection two, that is section 32 two, the oath of prosecutors is actually set out there. You do see it, hey?

[00:03:44]>> I see that, chair.

[00:03:46]>> It also captures the same words, without fear, that is you will exercise your functions as a prosecutor, and you happen to be a senior one at that. So, you will exercise your functions as a prosecutor without fear, favor, or prejudice. Again, I emphasize without fear.

[00:04:09]Now, if you accept, as you have just done, that there was nothing whatsoever in the Minister's letter, what stopped you from writing back to the Ministry and saying, "We do not have a Section 27 referral.

[00:04:29]Therefore, we cannot do anything about this." And you did not even have to go to the content of the letter.

[00:04:38]But because there was nothing nothing in the content of the letter, that should also have given you comfort as a prosecutor that I do not have to follow follow up on anything here because there's nothing. You have accepted that there was nothing. Why did you not write back to the Minister and say, "In the absence of a Section uh 27 referral, we, as IDAC, cannot do anything." So, that it would then have been the Ministry that saw to it that a Section 27 referral was placed before IDAC. Why did you not write such a letter? Were you fearful of the Minister?

[00:05:20]>> Not at all, and that is >> Why why why then did you not write such a letter?

[00:05:24]>> Chair, >> Uh sorry sorry, you spoke over me. Why then did you not write such a letter?

[00:05:30]>> That is why I said, Chair, we'd like have to look for the letter that I we the response. What did I write in my response to the Minister?

[00:05:40]>> But surely surely surely so so so sorry sorry sorry sorry, but surely that letter could not possibly have said, "Minister, we are not going to do anything about this because there's no section 27 referral." Because that would have been at variance with or at odds with you instructing Mr. Perumal to follow up with with Mr. Adams. So, that letter, even if we were to look at it, it's not it's not likely to have said what I'm suggesting you ought to have done.

[00:06:12]So, do you think that letter is going to assist you?

[00:06:15]>> I'd have to look at the contents.

[00:06:16]>> Do you think it's going to assist you as you sit there, seriously?

[00:06:21]>> Not at all.

[00:06:22]>> It cannot possibly do so. It It cannot possibly do so because such contents would have been, as I say, at odds with the instruction you gave to Mr. Perumal.

[00:06:35]You agree?

[00:06:36]>> I agree to you.

[00:06:39]>> So, in the end you accepted that that you could not possibly have written a letter to the Minister saying, um "There's nothing we can do in the absence of a section 27 referral." So, you accepted your letter could not possibly have said that.

[00:07:04]I asked you, uh did you act in the manner in which you did because you were fearful of the Minister and uh um I thought your response was in the negative, correct?

[00:07:16]>> Correct.

[00:07:17]>> If you were not fearful of the Minister, why then did you act? What motivated you to act in circumstances where there was nothing in the content of the letter from the Minister.

[00:07:34]You were not fearful of the Minister, as you suggest, but you still went ahead regardless and gave the instruction that you gave to Mr. Perumal. What motivated you?

[00:07:49]What was the motive behind your action?

[00:07:53]If it was not fear of the minister, what then was the motive for you to act in the manner in which you did?

[00:08:01]>> It's to follow It's to follow up on Is there a section 27?

[00:08:08]>> Is Is that all you asked Mr. Perumal to to >> That is all because there's a refer a reference to a section 27. There is no section 27. Mr. Perumal to contact Mr. Adams to find out if there's a 27 or to get a 27.

[00:08:29]>> Did you say this before or are you saying it for the first time? If you did say it, may have uh uh not heard you.

[00:08:38]What I'm referring to uh as to whether you are mentioning it for the first time now is whether your instruction to Mr. Perumal was for him to find out if there was a section 27 referral. Did you say that before?

[00:08:55]>> No, chair. I didn't say that before.

[00:08:56]>> You are saying it for the first time now.

[00:09:00]I would have expected you to say that much, much earlier, but I will leave it at that.