Advocate Andrea Johnson is going to JAIL. Watch this Madlanga evidence closely to the tail end

[00:00:00]Please, please, please define forgery.

[00:00:05]>> Uh it is where in terms of for example with with the documents that someone would have forged someone's signature either in the procurement documents, in the appointment documents, or in the vetting documents.

[00:00:20]It it purely relates to the forgery in terms of putting in >> and uh there was a basis for suspecting that this had this had a reasonable suspicion that this had happened?

[00:00:34]>> Uh reading it in its totality >> would there be a reasonable suspicion that this had happened?

[00:00:41]>> Correct.

[00:00:42]>> On what basis?

[00:00:43]>> That if >> And did is there anybody is there anybody who ever suggested that documents had been forged for example that certain people had signed documents purporting to be other people?

[00:00:57]>> That has come afterwards in the investigation, yes.

[00:01:01]>> Yeah, the question is at this at this point when you're writing this document >> Yes, that >> what what were you relying on to get to the point where you say forgery and uttering is is is implicated?

[00:01:16]>> Uh I I read it commissionable law in paragraph four where we talk of the manipulating of procurement processes and processes to appoint uh and promote certain members to highest strategic positions within the crime intelligence.

[00:01:33]That in that manipulation, there can be fraud, forgery, or uttering.

[00:01:38]>> Speaking for myself, I don't see how that takes you to forgery.

[00:01:43]Remember you said here you said in the introductory part before you itemized the offenses you referred to, you have said you have open code reason close code to suspect.

[00:01:58]I don't see the reason for you to suspect in what you've said thus far. I just do not.

[00:02:04]>> I I take your point. I >> Thank you.

[00:02:07]>> I've got.

[00:02:08]>> Thank you. Thank you.

[00:02:09]>> Just to conclude at 3283 having then itemized those crimes you you say those offenses are being committed or have been committed by I'm reading the second line, persons or entities in the annexure.

[00:02:27]Now, that annexure appears at 3284.

[00:02:32]Now, we have General Kumalo, the General Madondo, General Lushaba, and a list of others.

[00:02:40]I know, as I indicated to you, that the Section 27 affidavit specifically identifies General Kumalo, General Madondo, and General Lushaba. We just did that exercise.

[00:02:55]at the various paragraphs 24.

[00:02:57]I cannot find in the Section 27 the persons identified under items 4 to 12.

[00:03:06]And you recall that your testimony was all you had at the time was the Section 27 affidavit.

[00:03:13]Does not reference any of the people listed from 4 till 12.

[00:03:20]Where does your annexure get them from?

[00:03:27]>> Johnson, I think the question is who gave you these names. They're not in the affidavit. We can We can look at it for the next hour. You will not find the names in 4 up to 12. Somebody gave them to you. Who gave you these names? And And under what circumstances?

[00:03:43]>> This application came to me from from the prosecutor.

[00:03:47]>> So So, Miss Ramusame will have to tell us where she got these names from.

[00:03:52]>> That would be correct.

[00:03:54]>> Did you inquire from her where she got the names from when you know that you only gave her the section 327 affidavit and you are quite familiar with it?

[00:04:03]Do you engage and say who are these ones now? Where do they come in? How do they come in? They are not in the affidavit.

[00:04:10]You are not conducting an investigation yet, so you are not obtaining your own evidence. Where do these names come from? Did you have that engagement with her?

[00:04:18]>> I didn't have that.

[00:04:19]>> Why not?

[00:04:20]Shouldn't you have?

[00:04:23]Because from what you are suggesting, it's like she looked at those three names and said no, three is not a good number. I prefer 12 and start like some other holding other names in there and you signed and you are happy with that.

[00:04:36]How come?

[00:04:38]>> As I indicated, according to me she only had the 27.

[00:04:41]>> Yes.

[00:04:42]>> And she would have then put together the 28.

[00:04:47]>> Yes.

[00:04:48]>> Yes.

[00:04:48]>> Which we're looking at.

[00:04:49]>> Yes.

[00:04:50]>> And you know the 27 doesn't contain the names from 4 to 12.

[00:04:53]>> That is correct.

[00:04:54]>> So why do you sign it in the form that it is where suddenly it includes a litany of other people who are not mentioned in 20 27 affidavit?

[00:05:05]>> But if you tell me clearly is that so?

[00:05:09]Uh sorry Counsel, you referred to only the first four?

[00:05:17]>> Yes.

[00:05:19]The first three.

[00:05:20]>> The first three. The first three.

[00:05:22]>> Yes.

[00:05:24]>> And And I'm sorry commissioner but I am that I'm I'm now a bit slow.

[00:05:34]And I don't intend taking the whole afternoon to >> Well, can I I'm just trying to be helpful and because you >> I'm trying to figure out how she would have arrived at the names because they are they are official capacities mentioned.

[00:05:49]Um but the names are not mentioned. I I take the point.

[00:05:53]>> You accept that it it it is not from the section 27 affidavit that she got the names.

[00:06:01]>> Yes.

[00:06:01]>> You accept that someone must have if they come from her.

[00:06:06]Someone must have given her these names.

[00:06:09]>> Correct.

[00:06:09]>> Yes.

[00:06:09]>> And I will find out >> And and you accept that at this point when she approaches you with this application, the investigation hasn't started yet. You gave her the affidavit, she looked at it and she came back to you and said we need to have a preliminary investigation. So you accept at this point there's no investigation yet.

[00:06:27]>> Correct.

[00:06:28]>> My challenge is this, Advocate Johnson.

[00:06:32]You are authorizing an investigation into eight people who are not mentioned in the singular document you have.

[00:06:44]They're not referred to you. There's no complaint regarding them.

[00:06:48]But you are authorizing an investigation into them.

[00:06:52]In terms of what section are you acting in so doing?

[00:07:00]>> A conversation must have happened.

[00:07:03]>> With who?

[00:07:03]>> That's the question.

[00:07:04]>> With Advocate Ramsamy.

[00:07:06]>> No, she's not conversing by her sole self sole self. Who is she conversing with?

[00:07:11]>> What I'm saying is she and I must have had a conversation.

[00:07:14]>> Also, you are aware of them.

[00:07:16]>> she and I must have had a conversation and I will follow that up cuz I don't have an independent recollection of a conversation.

[00:07:23]And I will she would have to indicate then if she had a conversation with somebody else.

[00:07:30]I wouldn't just have blindly signed it without finding out from her.

[00:07:35]>> Did you perhaps suggest these names to her?

[00:07:37]>> No, these are not people I know.

[00:07:41]>> Can can that that that the difficulty is that you you don't seem to abide the terms of this section 27. Even if she proposes the names to you, you you are the final decision-maker. You are the in charge. You are the one that's authorizing an investigation.

[00:08:03]It's difficult to conceive of a situation where she comes back to you and she gives you a list of names and you don't say, "No, we can't do that."

[00:08:13]Because it doesn't arise from this affidavit.

[00:08:16]We haven't started an investigation, so I know you didn't get those names from an investigation. I know you didn't do that. We have at this point only this affidavit. And and you don't say, "We are obliged to work with what we've got.

[00:08:34]We can't do whatever we feel like." It's difficult to to understand that you would be If if this is her giving she gave you these names that you are happy to sign off uh a truly invasive investigation because your powers to hear evidence means you can call these people. You can look into their affairs.

[00:08:59]That's what it means. And you do it outside the corners of the only document you have on which you could work with.

[00:09:08]You the head and not in a position and you do not say to to your prosecutor that we are not doing that.

[00:09:17]We are bound by law. We are bound by rules to investigate that which is properly given to us. It's it's a misuse of powers to at this stage. This is a misuse of powers.

[00:09:31]To take intrusive steps and action against people on this affidavit, you have no justification whatsoever on this affidavit to be looking into Legala Kala, Naledi Mohanyane Sibula, Madlingozi, even by name.

[00:09:49]Duval, whoever is automotive engineer, you have absolutely no legitimate and valid basis to look into them. Maybe there is something to look at later on, but we are still at this affidavit stage where you are authorizing that they be called in, that their affairs, their bank statements be looked into, and their lifestyles and everything and about them.

[00:10:15]And they come they must come to interviews under threat of if you do not cooperate, it's a criminal offense. You happy to do all of that.

[00:10:25]When in fact the document, the only document on which you rely to act as you do in this document, doesn't doesn't create a basis for it.

[00:10:39]It It's to me it It's an yet another instance where you in particular have misused your powers to go where you are not authorized to go. There's no legitimate basis to do this.

[00:10:58]Do you want to comment?

[00:11:01]>> I have no comment, chair.