Madlanga Commission | Prosecutor says Crime Intelligence arrests were premature

A senior prosecutor at the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) has told the Madlanga Commission that he was reprimanded by former IDAC head, Andrea Johnson, after questioning a key document that triggered an investigation into several Crime Intelligence officers.

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DDPP), Advocate Peter Serunye, testified on Tuesday that he spent months trying to obtain the Section 27 referral that formed the basis of the case, despite being appointed to oversee matter.

Serunye said Johnson summoned him, Advocate Drushantha Ramsamy and Advocate Joy Hlatswayo, to a brief meeting in August last year, where she appeared visibly angry.

“She said, Serunye, I hear you’re looking for the Section 27 and asking many questions. Don’t you believe my investigators? She said she had seen the Section 27,” Serunye told the commission.

The Section 27 referral, an affidavit by National Coloured Congress leader and MP, Fadiel Adams, triggered an investigation into allegations of fraud and corruption against Crime Intelligence officer Dineo Mokwele, Crime Intelligence head, Dumisani Khumalo and several other officers.

The Mokwele matter has emerged as a key area of focus at the Madlanga Commission, which is examining allegations of corruption, political interference and abuse of power within IDAC.

Serunye said that although Ramasamy told him she had seen the referral earlier in the investigation, she could not provide him with a copy for several months. 

He added that even the investigating officer, Brian Padayachee, was unable to produce the document during the early stages of the matter.

“From August until the end of October I was looking for the document, but no one could give it to me,” he said.

Serunye also told the commission he had little opportunity to challenge the appointment of junior advocates to lead the high-profile investigations involving senior police officials.

He said he was brought in as a DDPP in line with IDAC protocol, to supervise the cases, but found that Hlatswayo and Ramasamy had already been assigned lead roles and that arrests had already been made in June last year.

When evidence leader, Thabang Pooe, pressed him on why he did not object to the appointments, Serunye said the meeting was more instructive than consultative.

“I did not raise it, commissioners. It was a short meeting,” he said.

Serunye testified that IDAC procedures required a DDPP to lead major prosecutions and act as project owner, making the appointments unusual.

He says he eventually saw the Section 27 referral in September last year, when chief investigator, Dylan Perumal, showed it to him in his office.

“He showed me the document while holding it. It was as if he wanted me to see its existence but not the contents,” Serunye said.

After reading the affidavit, Serunye said he found nothing that justified the urgency with which the arrests were carried out.

He described the referral as a short two- to three-page document that largely repeated the complainant’s allegations and contained “nothing of substance.”

Responding to Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, Serunye said he felt rushed by Perumal, but was still able to peruse the document. 

“For the reasons already given, it was my view that the arrests were premature and that the matter has been brought to court before the investigation was complete. The verifications of Mokwele’s qualifications, the analysis of the financial and communication records and the assessment of the appointment process were all matters that ought to have preceded, and not followed, the arrests,” he added.