otherundatedE000290
Section 27 NPA Act authority dispute over IDAC subpoenas
A legal dispute arose at the Madlanga Commission about whether IDAC's subpoenas to Advocate Johnson were lawfully issued under Section 27 of the NPA Act. Colonel Padayachee testified he was not provided the Section 27 instrument at the time of briefing (Day 139). The commission examined a chain of authority: Minister's office (Day 2) vs MP Adams as originator (Day 139) — two conflicting accounts of who authorised the IDAC investigation.
Described by 2 witnesses
Each of these people gave first-hand evidence about this event. Several accounts of the same event is a property of the record — it is not verification, and witnesses can be mistaken together.
5 claims from testimony
"This letter claims that the Minister's office is submitting this and requesting in terms of section 27 of the NPA Act, Act 32 of 1998."
"the complaint is forwarded to IDAC in terms of section 27 of the NPA Act, 32 of 1998"
"when the Chief of Staff issues that letter he invoke section 27"
"That letter is wholly non- compliant with the very section 27 that it purports to invoke."
"I will step down from the investigation because I will refuse to participate in something that started off unlawfully"