MADLANGA COMMISSION: IDAC HEAD ANDREA JOHNSON TESTIFIES

[00:00:00]There wasn't anything attached to this letter for me to be able to act upon it.

[00:00:06]>> That's not an answer. Surely that's not an answer.

[00:00:11]You cannot just acknowledge receipt and then keep quiet. How will the ministry know what your issue or problem is? Why not raise it with a ministry that I'm not able to do anything with this?

[00:00:24]Because as you put it, there are no annex to to your letter. Why do you just acknowledge and then fold your arms and do nothing? That uh I that escapes me.

[00:00:37]>> Uh not do nothing.

[00:00:41]>> I you've just told us sorry.

[00:00:45]Thus far you've basically told us that you did nothing. All you did was to acknowledge receipt of the letter.

[00:00:51]>> Yes.

[00:00:52]>> What did you do then? If you did do something, what did you do?

[00:00:58]>> I honestly cannot remember. I I have to cast my mind back to in the acknowledgement of the receipt of the letter.

[00:01:08]>> I I speak under correction. I'm not sure that I asked and indicated that there was nothing attached to this letter because a few days later by way of envelope we get the section 27.

[00:01:24]>> He he would have been told to file a section 27. I mean he didn't make it up.

[00:01:28]He didn't wake up one morning thinking oops I have to put in a section 27 affidavit. So someone would have advised him to to file that. That's why it's important to know what did you do? What did you say in that acknowledgement of acknowledgement of this letter? You must have said something before we get to you then received an envelope >> and the acknowledgement would have been typed from an internal computer. Surely you have that letter in your possession or a draft of it somewhere.

[00:02:08]in the computer and it can be made available to the commission.

[00:02:12]>> We we have looked for it. I'm going to ask them to look for it again because I I also have to apply my mind. I can't that is why it sounds like a fumbling answer because I can't recollect what I would have written over and beyond. We acknowledge her receipt and in all likelihood would have alluded to the fact that there's nothing there because it talks to this envelope coming with the 27 uh a week later.

[00:02:41]>> But you you see uh speaking for myself, Advocate Johnson, the answer you've just given now creates an impression that a draft of this letter was deleted.

[00:02:52]That's why it's not available because you use a laptop to draft a letter and then your PA I assume would have then either printed it from that computer or emailed it to you and if you are happy with it you would have appended your signature and it would have gone to the minister's office. Now if you're saying we have looked and it's not there the question is what would have happened to that draft unless somebody deleted it so that it is no longer available and maybe to to correct what you've said this letter doesn't say here's a copy of an affidavit it says a copy of a written correspondence addressed to the minister so if it lacked anything. It was the letter which Mr. Adams addressed to the minister, not an affidavit.

[00:03:55]>> You still have you I mean you are on you're not on suspension. You have your laptop. You are able to check this and give us a copy of your response. Right.

[00:04:06]>> Correct.

[00:04:07]>> Okay.

[00:04:08]>> And I will look for it again. I will have the PA look for hers again. We did try that exercise or we did do that exercise, not try the exercise, but if you give me till lunch today, uh we'll go back. Uh I'll ask the IT perhaps um um advocate Maga, if we could just engage with the IT to check through the email correspondence of both myself and my PA. uh it could have been I drafted a response and emailed to her or she would have and emailed to me so that we are able to give the the commission a full account >> from from from what you're saying. So it means the letter should be in both your inboxes >> should >> your your PA's uh may on your side if you if you sent to her it will be on your sent items >> and then in her inbox if she drafted it and sent it to you it's in her sent items and in your inbox.

[00:05:14]>> Correct. So again going back to what commissioner Kumalo said um it's unlikely that it would disappear no >> on on both ends that's just unlikely. Do you agree?

[00:05:28]>> Correct. And if I may just one point of correction is there are times as well chair where I would type a document print it myself sign it and then hand her the hard copy to distribute just for purposes of clarity. You are you are correcting yourself because what I suggested to you now was based on what you had said which was you sending or she sending or or or he because your PA could be could be a he or she. Yeah. So I was basing it on what you had said but you are correcting yourself and now saying it could be on one end only.

[00:06:06]>> Correct.

[00:06:07]>> All right. Okay.

[00:06:09]Sorry, there was a question by Commissioner Baloy that got lost in this engagement, which was how else would Mr. Adams have known to contact IDC and prepare section 27 affidavit? Did IDC contact Mr. Adams and say we need an affidavit from you? Because this is 13 days later. So the minister's letter is the 11th of November uh on the 21st. So it's about 11 days, 10 days. Mr. Adams then has this affidavit. I don't know how it gets to IDC. But how did Mr. Adams know that he must do a section 27 affidavit for IDC?

[00:06:50]>> Mr. Adams would have had to be contacted by IDC.

[00:06:54]>> So following upon receipt of this letter, IDC contacted Mr. Adams.

[00:07:00]>> IDC would have had to have contacted him. Yes.

[00:07:03]>> Who did that? Who? Who contacted Mr. Adams?

[00:07:09]>> In this instance, >> it would have had to have been chief criminal investigator PMA.

[00:07:22]>> Um, you you do you know for a fact or don't you?

[00:07:27]>> I did. That's why I say it would have in all likelihood would have been chief investigator.

[00:07:33]>> You don't know for a fact. I don't know for a fact.

[00:07:35]>> But why do you think him?

[00:07:37]>> Uh because later on um the engagements with Mr. Adams were with Mr. Pamal and the other investigators. We would not have then sent people that have not already engaged with him. It >> Sorry, Miss We indeed chair. No, >> it was it was your question we took over. No, it's a it's following these are follow-up questions to the question I had asked. So, it's very they flow from the question. I'm happy. Please, >> please go ahead. Please go ahead.

[00:08:12]>> Can I ask on the back of that the your response the way that I've understood your description of how your processes work. It's you get a section 27, you then discuss it with m you you take a view, you then discuss it with Mr. Mr. Soo, you give it to him to then take his own view. The two of you agree something and after you've agreed that the there is an offense in this referral, you then refer it to the team, right? That referral to the team, who in particular does it go to from you and Mr. Susoko?

[00:08:52]Who does it go to? when you say we then refer it to a team, >> um the the office would usually call the project manager to to hand over the document. Um and then it goes then into the team for for the uh deputy um and all of them to to work through the document.

[00:09:12]>> So is Mr. Tal a forever standing project manager? At that point, it's you and Mr. Susoko. When does a project manager get appointed to be responsible for this?

[00:09:26]Now, >> it depends which team you're sending it to. They have standing project managers.

[00:09:32]>> So, there was already a team to which you referred yours and I'm going to call you the intake committee for now until you have that discussion with Miss Silo and the rest of us. But for purpose of our discussion, you are the intake committee. You've made a decision.

[00:09:53]Is there a project manager already at that point or do you then proceed at that point to appoint a project? I'm I'm just trying to understand uh how you then process it from that point and and we'll come back to the question about who contacted Mr. Mr. Adams.

[00:10:10]>> Um there are project man there there are four project managers in the office. Um and [clears throat] when you allocate a matter to a team that team already has an existing project manager. So it is the project manager may have been there because of other matters and like I said for example that team deals with the transnet matters under Mr. Manilal. So when we gave the matter to to Mr. Manilal the project manager who's been in that team is Mr. CL.

[00:10:45]>> Okay. Now, if if Chief Perl is the one that contacts Mr. Mr. Adams um following this letter on on where does he get that from to this is Chief Perumal where does he get it from that he must contact uh member of of parliament Adams because at this point there's no section 27 yet that has come in so that process of you and Mr. Mr. Soko hasn't yet happened. Nothing has yet been referred to a team or to a project manager and team. How does Chief Pumal come into it after you've received MK16?

[00:11:33]Um I speak under correction when Mr. Soo is not there uh for me to ask or request that he engage uh with somebody uh I usually it would depend who's acting in his place and I need to check if the if Mr. Pamal was acting at the time or we also have chief criminal investigator Landanda Boy uh to whom we would allocate. it might be on that basis that he was therefore approached to deal with this matter because we would need an investigator uh to be able to interview um u Mr. Adams.

[00:12:20]>> So for for Chief Paramal to have been the one of Mr. Boy for that matter whoever you have appointed but for now you say you think it must have been Chief Perl for him to contact Mr. Adams following you receiving this letter because at that point that's all you have >> you would have had to say to him I've received this letter contact um Mr. Adams >> that is correct >> okay thank you >> and thank you commissioners >> so at that stage neither Mr. Cisop or whoever else was involved. It was you and you directly said to Mr. Perum, contact Mr. Adams. No involvement of Mr. Sissoko.

[00:13:10]>> No, because we haven't had the 27 years.

[00:13:13]>> All right. All right. I'm asking to be sure because earlier when the same question was asked, you mentioned Mr. Sissoko, you mentioned somebody else and uh that just confused issues. So, all right. Thank you. I understand.

[00:13:28]>> Thank you, chair. So then just so we we we understand where we at, you've now received MK16.

[00:13:35]You indicated that you did not uh refer to an investigation or you know because it did not have attachments.

[00:13:46]Um but we know from the letter itself that it had written correspondence addressed to the Minister of Police.

[00:13:53]What attachments did you consider were lacking that made it the absence of which made it difficult for you to act on this letter?

[00:14:04]>> I only have these two pages.

[00:14:07]>> Ma'am, >> I only got these two pages.

[00:14:09]>> Let's go to that the very letter. It it reads in the first paragraph attached here to please find for ease of reference a copy of written correspondence addressed to the honorable minister of police honorable Senzum Tunu by member of parliament honorable Adams.

[00:14:26]>> Yes.

[00:14:27]>> So you say didn't have >> I only had these two pages that you have here page 310 and 311.

[00:14:33]>> Please say that again.

[00:14:34]>> I only had these two pages 310 31 310 and 311. Yes. So um did you go back to Mr. Gabinda and say uh you forgot to attach the written correspondence between the Minister of Police and Mr. Adams which you had kindly offered for ease of my reference.

[00:14:56]You you didn't do that. uh that is why I'm saying we need to look for the response to this letter uh where I would have acknowledged the letter and in all likelihood would have asked for that which is short attached please find a reference I would have asked for the written correspondence >> but definitely you recall you didn't have that correspondence attached >> I recall I didn't have that correspondence >> you then as as you testified you instructed uh chief peral to be in contact with uh Mr. Adams to obtain um section 27 affidavit.

[00:15:33]>> That is correct.

[00:15:35]>> Now I want to suggest to you so effectively IDC solicited a section 27 affidavit from Mr. Adams.

[00:15:59]I tell you now when you look okay when you look at the 27 we didn't take the 27 they would have contacted him and I guess this is what we got. I I I speak under correction.

[00:16:18]Mr. Pamal would have to answer what he got from Mr. Adams, but what we got was a 27 dated the 21st of November 2024.

[00:16:29]>> That's fine. Um, my question is that document you're holding in your hand, IDE solicited it from Mr. Adams. You received a letter from the minister, you then directed Mr. Peruml to act on that and contact Mr. Adams and ask him for his ask him. So, you solicited an a section 27 affidavit from a Mr. a wouldbe complainant.

[00:16:55]>> I don't agree with the solicited.

[00:16:57]>> Ma'am, >> I don't agree with solicited. We would have asked him >> because you see I I'm going into the detail that's not mine and not in my head and I don't want to sound >> It's yours. It's yours. Advocate Johnson.

[00:17:16]You are the one who gave an instruction to Chief Perumal to contact Mr. Adams.

[00:17:23]So Ms. Silo's question relates to that.

[00:17:27]That has nothing to do Mr. Perumal would then have been the actor actor on your instruction. That's where the question is. It has nothing to do with what Mr. Perumal then did down the line. So please please do not deflect the question and refer to to to what Mr. Perumal would have done or not done. Can you please respond to the question?

[00:17:52]>> Then we would have obtained the statement >> at your instance. That's the substance of the question.

[00:17:58]>> That is correct.

[00:17:59]>> That's that's that's that's what Miss Silo means when when when she says to you. So you solicited the affidavit because what came out of your instruction that please contact Mr. Adams >> was the submission of the section 27 affidavit.

[00:18:21]So it's on that basis that MO is suggesting to you solicited that affidavit. Do you now agree?

[00:18:29]>> I agree.

[00:18:31]Um, as as you sit here today, is h is that appropriate of IDACK to be soliciting complaints from members of the public on the basis of which the IDC initiates investigations?

[00:18:46]No, we're not supposed to solicit. And that is why I'm saying the engage I tell Mr. PMA to engage Mr. Adams. I don't know if this was a prepared affidavit already. It was to say to him we received a letter from the minister we are engaging you. So whether this was already prepared or not at the time we got this affidavit. Okay.

[00:19:16]So then you recall when we're looking at MK16 the last sentence in MK16 before the signature by Mr. Gabind states, "Honorable Fadial Adams was advised by this office to await your decision in this regard. So it's fair then to conclude that your decision that you communicated to Mr. Adams is prepare an affidavit section 27 affidavit and submit to IDC. That's what you must have advised Mr. Adams based on your testimony."

[00:19:48]>> That is what the advice would have been.

[00:19:49]>> Okay. just on something you you you you said in response to um Miss Silo's previous question. You touched on the possibility that not stating it as a fact uh that the affidav you do not know whether the affidavit had already been prepared at the time of your instruction to Mr. Perumal. Did I understand you correctly?

[00:20:13]>> That is correct.

[00:20:14]>> No, that's not a fact. look at that uh that affidavit um is dated 21 November 2024.

[00:20:23]>> Yes.

[00:20:24]>> And the minister's letter >> is the is the 11th of November 2024. So there was no prepared affidavit. I thought I should just put that out of the way.

[00:20:37]That's something you must accept.

[00:20:39]Correct.

[00:20:40]>> I I hear what the chase said.

[00:20:42]>> Yes. Yes. All I'm saying is let's forget about the possibility of an affidavit that could already have been in existence uh between the time that you got the letter from the minister and the time that this affidavit was eventually submitted to to IDC. That's not a possibility. We do see the correct facts here. Thank you.

[00:21:06]>> So the upshot of all of this is that the referral to IDC was by the minister's office.

[00:21:13]And following that referral, IDC then made a decision to engage with Mr. Adams to obtain an affidavit from him.

[00:21:21]>> It follows Commissioner. Yes.

[00:21:24]>> And [clears throat] thank you, Commissioners.

[00:21:28]I suggest to you that you did that because you knew as ID that the minister's letter does not constitute a section 27 referral and IDC decided to cure that deficiency.

[00:21:43]If we look at section 27, it says the complaint must be on affidavit. So you knew that the minister's letter would not be sufficient to trigger your mandate and you sought to cure that shortcoming.

[00:22:06]>> I'm trying to flight section 27 if you have it close by. There it's on on the screen. You see, section 27 states, "If any person has reasonable grounds to suspect that a specified offense has been or is being committed or that an attempt has been or is being made to commit such an offense, he she may report the matter in question to the head of the ID investigating diretory by means of an affidavit or affirm declaration.

[00:22:37]You see that?" And and you are quite familiar with section 27.

[00:22:42]you nod. Please articulate your response. Thanks.

[00:22:46]>> Uh so because you you you read the minister's letter and you saw the difficulty that it would not trigger uh your power to investigate, you contact Mr. Adams through Mr. Perumal to cure that problem and to provide a section 27 affidavit.

[00:23:11]>> Yes. as the minister refers uh uh referral and request for investigation in terms of section 27 but there isn't a section 27 there and so by virtue of what you are saying we had to go ahead then and get a section 27 >> why >> because there is no 27 that is referred to us through that letter please go to MK15 and look at the correspondence that I understand that you received attached to the letter uh by Mr. Gabinde and MK15. I would like to refer you to page 28.

[00:23:54]Let's start at 282 but then um in particular I would like us to have regard to 283 and 284.

[00:24:07]From our records, we are aware of a a letter to and no, sorry, an email to the minister at the bottom, starting at the bottom of page 283 of MK-15 and from Mr. Adams if you look over leaf at 284 and in that email having stated what his issues are at five he states I urgently and humbly ask for the minister to intervene and ensure the integrity of investigative process is maintained to ensure a fair and just outcome you see that do you see where I'm reading and And if we go back to 283 um then we see communication from Mr. Gabinde to Major General Sabula [clears throat] um referring this complaint and requesting that a report be filed with the minister or the minister's office by Monday the 4th of November.

[00:25:20]Now if Our the email at page 283 at the bottom from Mr. Adams reflects a complaint as reflected in sub two at the bottom of the page. He said to minister of police one I have opened cases. You see that? And if we go to two, he says, "I was told that the dockets were intercepted."

[00:25:55]And then in his quest for justice, he says he will travel to open dockets.

[00:26:01]However, I've also been notified that the police department has followed the same modus operandi as the Western Cape and is interfering in the investigative process. I urgently and humbly ask for the minister to intervene and ensure the integrity of in the investigative process is maintained to ensure a fair and just outcome.

[00:26:25]So my understanding of this email is what Mr. Adams wanted was that the investigative process of the cases the dockets he had opened um the integrity of that process be maintained >> correct >> you understand you have the same understanding as well now assuming for a moment that this is the communication that was attached to MK16 the letter addressed to you what what in this would trigger your mandate Remember in your affidavit you set out your section 7A um of the NPA act you do so at paragraph 8 page three of your first statement and you you you do quote the act that your mandate is to investigate serious high-profile or complex corruption commercial and financial cases is that's sub A sub B relating to additional related offenses or categories of offenses including and then it lists and then um relate and that at C relating to additional related statutory offenses or categories including contravention of specified acts.

[00:27:50]If we take MK16 and we take this communication that we I suggest was attached to that letter.

[00:28:02]What in these documents triggers your mandate in terms of section 7A?

[00:28:08]Does it do these documents reflect a serious a high-profile or complex corruption or a serious high comp highrofile or complex however that is read? What what what what about the contents of those documents? Bring this within the mandate of IDAC to justify your initiative to direct Mr. Perumal to go obtain a section 27 affidavit.

[00:28:35]>> If this was in fact the document that was attached, it doesn't trigger.

[00:28:42]And if that document wasn't attached, it's even worse because the MK16 itself does gets nowhere close to section 7A on its own without this communication.

[00:29:00]The so I there's there's >> the the two possibilities. If this was attached, >> the only time that it would have triggered anything, um, however, I have been notified that the heart has followed the same as interfering in the investigative process that might have triggered looking at whether or not there was defeating, but I I can honestly tell you I can't recall this document so it cannot have triggered IDX mandate.

[00:29:46]>> Are you referring to to the emails? Now when you say this document are you referring to MK15 the emails?

[00:29:53]>> Uh the 283 and 284 >> pages 283 that's the emails >> the emails. Yes. you are referring to a document singular but uh Miss Silo's question as I understood it was referring to both the emails and MK16 which uh is the letter from the minister so don't uh don't leave that out what about that letter from that letter do you see anything that triggers IDex mandate >> sorry let me just go back at you I don't have it straight Ch. If that that was attached and when you look at paragraph um two >> starting with what was >> the allegations?

[00:31:06]>> Yes. 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 requests the investigating director to consider investigating the same.

[00:31:33]>> That says nothing. That says that says nothing. altogether. We do not even know what those allegations are whether serious or not.

[00:31:45]That's basically says nothing. And if I were to refer you to one of your own statements, I think 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.

[00:32:07]You had in respect of that issue the ability to say this is vague. It doesn't say when. It doesn't say by whom.

[00:32:16]doesn't say and you went on and on to demonstrate that it was vague.

[00:32:22]That same thought process by you ought to have applied here as well. There are so many wise, how, by whom, when, about what exactly? There are so many of those. If you are able to apply that thought of process or that kind of reasoning, why did you not apply it here? 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? It says nothing.

[00:33:04]I suggest to you, do you agree or not?

[00:33:09]It may say nothing in there. It refers to the dockets.

[00:33:12]>> So you are you are you you are happy that it says nothing.

[00:33:16]>> It doesn't make out any allegations.

[00:33:18]>> Exactly. Exactly. Now go to section 32 of the NPA act.

[00:33:28]And please tell me when you are there.

[00:33:33]32 32 32 I am the chair.

[00:33:56]Do you see that uh in subsection one that is section 321 um there it's stated uh how you are to carry out your functions and uh that is amongst others without fear favor or prejudice and what I want to emphasize here is without fear and then in subsection two that is section 322 two, the oath of prosecutors is uh actually set out there. You do see it. Eh, >> I see that.

[00:34:34]>> It also captures the same um 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. Now if you accept as you have just done that there was nothing whatsoever in the minister's letter.

[00:35:06]What stopped you from writing back to the ministry and saying we do not have a section 27 referral.

[00:35:17]Therefore we cannot do anything about this. And you did not even have to go to the content of the letter.

[00:35:26]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?

[00:35:52]We as IDC cannot do anything so that it would then have been the ministry that saw to it that a section 27 referral was placed before IDC. Why did you not write such a letter? Were you fearful of the minister?

[00:36:09]>> Not at all. And that is >> why why why then did you not write such a letter?

[00:36:12]>> That is why I said chair >> sorry sorry you spoke over me. Why then did you not write such a letter?

[00:36:19]>> 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? But surely surely sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry sorry 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. Perl 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. So do you think that letter is going to assist you?

[00:37:03]>> I'd have to look at the contents.

[00:37:05]>> Do you think it's going to assist you as you sit there? Seriously?

[00:37:10]Do you think it's going to assist you?

[00:37:12]>> Not at all.

[00:37:13]>> 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. Perum.

[00:37:25]>> You agree?

[00:37:26]>> I agree.

[00:37:28]>> Thank you.

[00:37:29]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:37:29]>> Can I just follow up on that? Um and and I want to make a proposition to you.

[00:37:34]>> Sure.

[00:37:35]>> That when you look at the letter from Mr. Enabinde, as you agree, it says nothing. Um it says I attach a copy of written correspondence from Mr. Adams to the minister not to you. And then it gives a list of ca of cases. It says allegations contained therein implicate very senior members of the subs and are viewed in a serious light and case dockets were registered and he gives you those case dockets. And then he says due to the nature of the allegations made by Fidil Adams, honorable Fadil Adams which is deemed to be quite sensitive and which contains allegations of criminal misconduct. This office request the investigating director to consider investigating the same. And then the last is you will advise him what you're doing. You'll advise Mr. Adams. Now for you the proposition that I want to make to you is for you to instruct Chief Perumal to speak to to Mr. Adams, you must have had sight of these emails for you to form a view that they there is possibly a matter that falls within our section 27. You must have looked at MK15 282 otherwise your decision doesn't make sense that just on MK16 on MK16 you say to Mr. Perumal speak to Mr. Adams when 16 says nothing as the chair says it doesn't allege what crime it speaks about allegations are sensitive doesn't tell you anything so you don't know whether they're talking about theft of a notebook on MK16 could have been anything so it cannot be and I would be surprised if you acted on MK16 to say to Mr. Perumal speak to Mr. Adams so that we can get an affidavit from him.

[00:39:42]That conduct of yours to say to Mr. Perumal uh to Chief Perl speak to Mr. Adams makes sense only if you've seen these emails and you've seen that there are allegations of interception of of dockets as you were starting to say that you the email seems to speak to corruption of sorts. You have to have seen this.

[00:40:04]That that's my proposition to you that you must have seen these emails by the time or before you spoke to Perumal and that's what informed you saying to Mr. Peral speak to Mr. Adams. What do you say to that?

[00:40:17]>> I can't disagree with you commissioner.

[00:40:21]>> Thank you.

[00:40:23]>> Sorry. Sorry. Let me just follow up on u a response you gave when I when I engaged uh you. So in the end you accepted 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.

[00:40:57]I asked you uh did you act in the manner in which you did because you were fearful of the minister and um I thought your response was in the negative.

[00:41:08]Correct.

[00:41:10]>> 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. 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?

[00:41:42]What was the motive behind your action?

[00:41:46]If it was not fear of the minister, what then was the motive for you to act in the manner in which you did?

[00:41:54]>> Is to f is to follow up on.

[00:41:58]Is there a section 27?

[00:42:03]I >> is is is that all you asked Mr. Peral to >> that is all because there's a refer reference to a section 27. There is no section 27. Mr. Pama to contact Mr. Adams to find out if there's a 27 or to get a 27.

[00:42:23]Did you say this before or are you saying it for the first time? If you did say it, I may have uh uh not heard you.

[00:42:32]What I'm referring to uh as to whether you are mentioning it for the first time now is whether your instruction to Mr. peral was for him to find out if there was a section 27 referral. Did you say that before?

[00:42:49]>> No chair. I didn't say that before.

[00:42:51]>> You are saying it for the first time now. I would have expected you to say that much much earlier, but I will leave it at that.

[00:42:59]>> I I I'm I'm I'm reading again.

[00:43:02]>> Sorry.

[00:43:03]>> Sorry. I was reading again and and and going through what it it passed.

[00:43:07]>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:43:08]>> Thank you. Sorry. One last one. Do you see that as far as the minister is concerned his letter was the section 27 referral because if you look at the heading they say referral and request for investigation in terms of section 27. So as far as the minister was concerned this is the section 27. So the appropriate answer from you would have been this does not comply with section 27. That's the end of the story.

[00:43:42]In fact, to add to that, the nothing in this letter leads you to Mr. Adams. As as Commissioner Kumalo says, it is the ministry that is referring and purporting to refer in terms of section 27. And if you were going to ask for a section 27 affidavit, it is from Mr. Gabindi that you ask for because he's the one that's purporting to refer you you you it doesn't direct you to Mr. Adams. The complaint has been laid with them and Gabind says I'm lodging a section 27 um complaint and you have no business at least on the basis of this letter to to to to go to Mr. Adams for a section 27 affidavit.

[00:44:33]You go to Mr. Gabinde for a section 27 affidavit. You say to him, "This is not a proper referral. If you want us to investigate in terms of section 27, as Commissioner Klo says, give us an affidavit."

[00:44:48]>> I read it differently. Commissioner Balo, >> how do you read it differently?

[00:44:52]>> It it says referral and request for investigation in terms of section 27.

[00:44:58]Um, and he does make reference to the honorable Fadil Adams. We don't have anything from Fadil Adams and so the request to Paramal to get a section 27 from Fadil Adams is based on the referral and request for investigation in terms of section 27.

[00:45:19]>> Mr. Enabinda is asking you to investigate. Mr. Adams is not asking you to investigate. He has not communicated with you. He hasn't uh even on the version which you on on the proposition that I made to you that you must have seen the emails that he sent to the minister. Even on that he's not directing anything to you. It is Mr. Gabindi. He raises his complaint with the minister. That's what he does.

[00:45:43]>> Yes.

[00:45:43]>> The minister's um chief of staff lodges with you a complaint and he calls it a section 27 complaint.

[00:45:57]The only reference he makes to Mr. to to to Mr. Adams is to say we've received the minister has received a complaint from Mr. Adams. Please investigate and I refer this to you in terms of section 27. So the person that must give you the affidavit is Mr. Gabinde. And and it's not apparent why you thought that this is a complaint to IDC from Mr. Adams because it's not a complaint from Mr. Adams to IDC at this point. It's not >> I I see where you're going to commissioner Bal.

[00:46:32]>> It's it's like this advert.

[00:46:33]>> No, no, no. Sorry. Do Do you agree? Do you agree?

[00:46:37]>> I agree with her interpretation. Yes.

[00:46:39]>> Thank you. Thank you.

[00:46:41]>> It's like this. So, Mr. Adams writes to the minister's office. He's unhappy about the four dockets and he asked the minister's office to intervene. So the minister's office has at least three choices.

[00:46:56]One is the inspectorate, the other one is IPID and the other one is IDACK. So they have those three. So far you are with me? You agree?

[00:47:07]>> I agree.

[00:47:07]>> Based on the nature of the allegations as vague as they are, they have those three options.

[00:47:13]The minister's office then picks one and they say we pick IDC and we will do a referral to IDK in terms of section 27 of the NPI act. It's not Mr. Adams who says I choose IDK. It is the minister's office based on what we see in this letter.

[00:47:37]Do you agree so far?

[00:47:38]>> I agree so far.

[00:47:39]>> Yes. and they say as far as the minister's office is concerned the allegations in the correspondence by Mr. Adams. They regard them as quite sensitive.

[00:47:51]>> That's the minister's office. And they contain allegations of criminal misconduct. That's the minister's office. They then say this office, that is the minister's office. This office requests Advocate Johnson to consider investigating the matter. That's the last paragraph on 310.

[00:48:17]So do you see that it refers to this office being the minister's office? Do you see that?

[00:48:22]>> I see that.

[00:48:22]>> And it is the minister's office that is asking IDC to investigate.

[00:48:27]>> Correct.

[00:48:28]>> Yes. So the request is by the minister's office and they say Adams was advised to await advocate Johnson's decision.

[00:48:42]a decision on the request by the minister's office.

[00:48:51]>> Yes.

[00:48:51]>> Do you accept that? Yes.

[00:48:54]>> Thank you, Commissioner Z. If I couldn't add [clears throat] and what the minister's office requested IDC to investigate is the alleged interception of the dockets.

[00:49:10]That's it.

[00:49:12]not the allegations set out in the respective dockets. That was never the request to you. Do you accept that? I accept that. So if you understood the request to be an investigation into the alleged interception and interference of dockets opened by Mr. Adams, that surely should have been the confines of your investigation.

[00:49:40]whether or not dockets were opened and intercepted, whether there has been interference with the dockets, regardless of the content of the dockets because otherwise you would have been investigating what you were not requested to investigate. Would you accept that your your investigation would have been that narrow would be looking into the the interception only >> in terms of this letter? Yes.

[00:50:07]>> Yes. So [clears throat] we then uh if if we look at the emails at 283 and 284 that is consistent with what Mr. Adams complains about in his emails to the minister. It is the interception.

[00:50:30]After te perhaps you will shed light on having solicited the section 27 affidavit as IDC did. How do we end up with claims of uh Kumalo Lushaba Madono symphony money from the secret account fund with cover ups of General Luchaba's uh incident with the appointment of a lady working at BMW in a sensitive post?

[00:51:04]How does that fit into the request specific request made to you of interception? Why is um Mr. Adams's affidavit not confined specifically to the complaint he had laid with the minister?

[00:51:22]Is it was that at the instigation by IDC? It can only be at the instigation of IDEX. So there's Mr. Adam's complaint of interference and then there seemingly is a parallel investigation attached to that complaint initiated by IDC. Is that where we are at?

[00:51:42]>> I'm going to come back to you after tea because I'd have to speak to Mr. Pamal about what he spoke to Mr. Adams about and how we arrived at this.

[00:51:50]>> No, no, no, no, no. You will come back >> at at at that point perhaps. Let's take the the adjustment and come back at 11:35. Thank you Jin.